You’re assuming I want to continue the dialog with you. Are you willing to consider that my experience with God, including what I have read and continue to read in the Bible and what He has shown me throughout my life leads me to a conviction that homosexual sex is not inherently sinful and that it is just as honorable thing for a friend of mine to want to spend the rest of his life with the man he loves as it is for me to desire that? Are you willing to consider the possibility that this belief is every bit as strongy and justifiably rooted as yours is? If not, we may have little to discuss.
I’m assuming that because you posted to me, by name, with a seies of questions that you wished me to consider, and answer. They were rather pointed in that they asked for a direct response with specific stipulaions/requests. if’s for that reason that I saw the post as non-rhetorical, and and therefore a request for dialogue.
This too appears to be dialogue, and non-rhetorical. In the earlier post, and the other posts that I’ve made here, I’ve been strident in the view that a person should speak for their own faith in the singular, and that is is non-Christian to sit in judgement of how another practices their faith. please review the totalityy of all my posts in both threads. I would add that you initiated contact with me.
If you’re asking if I would show respect for your views and consideration and respect for your strongly held beliefs, the answer is yes. If you’re vetting me to make sure if I will be in agreement with you as a pre-requisite to post to you, (actually to respond to posts you’ve made to me) then it probably true that there is nothing to talk about.
My response was due to the fact that I felt you were thoughtful, reasonable and measured in the posts you directed towards me, not because I necessarily agreed or wished to convince you of anything. I have no other agenda.
Of course, she’s 13 doesn’t hasn’t studied the bible extensively or have a BA in Religious studies…No one is singing her virutues on the internet for her scholarly knowledge…
The fact is, and we need to get back to the other thread, is that you’ve cited no scripiture in these threads. My reference was to your comments on Acts 9, which were wrong as to context, cross reference and application. The only other cites I can remember were about 1 Cor 6:9,10, right? And the basis for those was ,“For God’s sake, Raindog, Google isn’t my source, my knowledge of Greek is my source…” The only other cites I’ve seen from you are web sites from gay theologians. Have I missed anything? I have not seen you cite your biblical beliefs with the bible, isn’t that true?
Please do not call me names. If you are not a scholar, please correct anyone who says you are.
That I answered it before this denigrated into name calling should be manifest.
Are we on the same network? Is it possible we’re not all getting the same information? My post #52, was a response to your post (#49), and DocCathode’s post (#47) commentary on Acts 9. Your take on the context and application, including reference to revelation was simply incorrect. My point, then and now, is that people need to read their own bible, lest they get bad information. And your information was bad information.
I said this in post #12: “Diogenes intellect is manifest. But, Jesus’s disciples were common men. God has not always used the “intelligensia” to further his purposes. (Matt 11:25, Lu 10:21, 1 Cor 1:27) In my life, the people who most displayed Christian values were the ones who possessed the most humility rather than the most raw intelligence. (Mark 10:43) I am coming to know Diogenes and if we are both in agreement as to the value of Christs’s model, we will find some common ground in the bible, even if we don’t always agree.”
This was in response to Siege who in post #12, and who apparently had, at one time, confused you with a biblical scholar.
OK… I’ll buy that. How come you didn’t just remember the account? I mean, not even contextually?..
People if you remember nothing else about Diogenes, remember this if you’re inclined to get in a biblical disussion with him.
[ quote] IWLN is a she and she hasn’t represented herself as a Bible scholar. God told her the Bible doesn’t matter.
[/quote]
I didn’t dispute her logic. I’m cool with it.
What was this? : “These would seem to be statements derived from revelation which Paul believed let Christians of the hook for being kosher (although he also said to respect those who did keep kosher and basically said it would be a sin to try to tempt or corrupt them away from it).” (Post #49)
I’m out of time now, but will get back with you. To date, I haven’t seen any cites, except for your translation of 2 words in 1 Cor. I haven’t seen any other cites in this thread (other then your own), except citing 3 books on social commentary from gay theologians. We’ll get back to the thread soon though…
First of all, it was Acts 10, not 9, so if you’re going to smug about scripture quotes, at least get your chapters right.
Secondly, I made no comments on Acts 10 except to say I didn’t remember it. What the hell are you talking about? Doc asked a question about Paul. I said I didn’t recall that story but I did recall that Paul had made some statements in Romans that reflected the same basic points. I didn’t say that it was the story that Doc remembered, only that it was an example of Paul saying that he had received a revelation about clean and unclead food. My cite was both on point and qualified as not being precisely what had been asked about. Can you tell me one thing I said that wasn’t true? Be specific. If you’re going to accuse me of posting erroneous information tell me what it is. What did I say that wasn’t true? Spell it out.
Ok, you’ve named my cites. Now which ones were wrong?
What should I call you when you say things that aren’t true?
If you have a problem with how other people evaluate my “scholarship,” take it up with them. It’s rather a subjective judgement isn’t it?
No, you didn’t answer it. You filibustered about what the Bible “clearly states” but you never answered the essential question about why a loving God “undermines” an acceptance of same-sex relationships.
I didn’t offer a take on Acts 10 (not 9). Read my posts again. I said I didn’t remember the story I was asked about but that Paul had said something similar in Romans. How is that “bad information?” be specific. Tell me what I said that wasn’t true.
I see, you offered Biblical cites and confused them with factual cites.
FTR, I am not a Christian and have no desire to exhibit “Christian values.” It was my intention in the first thread simply to offer factual information about how gay Christians interpret certain scriptures. I happen to find some value in the teachings of Jesus but I don’t think he was God and I don’t think he died for my sins. Maybe I haven’t been clear about my personal beliefs.
Probably for two main reasons. first, because oc asked about Paul and that started my brain scanning around for memories from the epistles. Secondly, because Acts is not a book which holds much interest for me, I spent the minimum amount of study that I had to on it, and the story just slipped my mind. I probably haven’t even thought about that story since college.
Also, I think the “sheet” thing threw me off. I remembered it as floating food. I think if Doc had said Peter I would have remembered it, or at least known to look in Acts.
My interest in the Bible is academic, not religious. Rather than constantly reread it in its entirety, I have a tendency to focus on the books which are of greater personal interest to me and to neglect some of the books that aren’t. I find Deuteronomy almost unreadably boring, for instance.
It’s interesting that you think my attitude would dissuade people from a Biblical discussion on this board. This is SDMB, not Christianforums. Biblical literalism is the exception, not the rule on this board.
I think now that maybe you really did misread my post. I said that about Romans 14, not Acts 9. Read it again. See. I cited Romans, not Acts.
They were books on Biblical interpretation not social commentary. And you have yet to say why they’re wrong.
This is false and you have been told that it is false. The book I cited is a close textual analysis of portions of the entire Bible, Old and New Testaments, covering everything related to sexuality and sexual ethics, with specific, in-depth discussion of translation issues and the meanings of words in the original texts.
The book is about the interactions of purity law and property law that lie behind the Scriptures, with illumination cast on specific word meanings and their cultural contexts as they come up.
It covers (among other things, this is a randomised flip-through) the Holiness Code, the circumstances of uncleanliness of menstruation, purity as relates to Gentiles, contrast with the Greeks on the subject of homosexuality, Paul’s association of uncleanness with greed (pleonexia), physical purity vs. purity of the heart, heirarchy structures in Scriptural families, the unacceptability of marrying one’s mother-in-law as a violation of incest prohibitions, Jesus and prostitutes, Jesus and the unacceptability of treating one’s wife as disposable, Paul and marriage to unbelievers, the meaning of ‘pornoi’ in Hebrews, maintenance vs. adoption of physical purity laws for Christians, and both Jesus and Paul on sexual equality. Among other things.
This is only “social commentary” in a dream world.
And this is irrelevant.
You wanted cites from people with PhDs. You got them. Go find your own PhDs to cite if you’re not happy with the ones provided. Or just say flat out that you only accept the credentials of people you believe to be straight.
Ok. As I was working my way through my responses to you post, I realized towrds the end that you had probably legitimately misread my post and weren’t deliberately trying to misrepresent me. It was an easy word to miss and I din’t actually cite chapter and verse, just the book. If you were reading quickly and missed that word I can see why you would think I was talking out of my ass and blustering on incorrectly about Acts. I’ll try to set the Bible verses apart with proper chapter and verse from now on so there isn’t any more confusion. I apologize for the “liar” comment.
Not a great excuse, maybe, but that whole Acts/Romans exchange was pretty late last night, I was tired and for some reason my brain just didn’t retrieve the Peter story. I thought “Paul, Paul, Paul” and came up with Romans. After jayjay steered me right, I thought, “oh, yeah, the floating food,” but I hadn’t remembered a sheet and didn’t associate it with Paul. I don’t get caught flat-footed very often on Bible questions but I guess I’m only human.
I don’t expect you to agree with me, but my experience with other Christians who agree with you has left me with an awareness that there are some who see only experiences with God which lead others to agree with them as valid. I’m a rather unusual person. Both a cause and an effect of that is I’ve had rather unusual experiences.
As for our continuing dialog, there are two factors involved in it. First and foremost, I’ve had a little too much familiarity for my taste with “I’ll talk with you, not them.” I’ve come to develop a lot of respect for Diogenes, Doc Cathode, and others who’ve posted here. I’ll be the first to admit they’re better scholars than I am. Second, there are various things going on in my personal life which may make it unwise for me to continue in this thread. I’m spread a trifle too thin as it is, and discussions like this can be emotionally draining, much as I enjoy them.
Cool. My response to you specifically was in large part because you posted to me by name; and because even though we would likely disagree you were thoughtful and restrained in your post. I didn’t want you to think I was rude.
I am an equal opportunity offender. I will speak with anyone, and have responded to all that I could in these threads, as long as it is respectful.
I respect Diogenes, and actually wish I could have squeezed more time into my exchanges with DocCathode. Take care.
I am sensitive to references that loving, thoughtful, respectful homosexuals would find extremely offensive, particularly those in productive long term monogomous relationships. A question like this, no matter how delicately I answer, is likely to be deeply offensive to many homosexuals.
The question for me, and I am speaking in the singular for my faith and my understanding of the bible’s view, is that homosexual behavior is disapproved. Among those traits that many would consider “innate” one might consider pedophilia, or alcoholism. (Although alcoholism is more oriented as a disease in most people’s minds) I am sensitive how offensive linking pedophilia may be, but in many people’s minds, including some (most?..) pedophiles, there is a sense that it is in fact innate, and just as central as to how they view themselves.
If I understand your question you make a distinction between the “trait” (The person) and what the trait may “compel” them to do. (The behavior) I would agree with that. To your question directly, both a homosexual person and a hetreosexual person have specific sexual orientations. Neither of them is inherently “sinful.” Nonetheless, there are biblical guidelines as to behavior, that could make either the homosexual or heterosexual a “sinner.” For the heterosexual, sex outside of the confines of marriage is sinful. For homosexuals, any sexual behavior is condemned. This naturally brings up the question of “fairness”, amd how a loving God could deny any homosexual life togther. You didn’t specifically ask this question, and for the sake a brevity I will not address it tonight. A couple other people have brought it up and I would like to respond to that directly tomorrow.
I do not believe that diseases like the ones you sited above are inherently sinful. A case can be made by many that even alcoholism should be in this group. For many with debilitating diseases will power itself can never be brought to bear to make themselves “healthy.” As a result, even their behavior is not subject to “will.” In those instances, both the “orientation” (for lack of a better term) and the “behavior” that comes from the orientation are outside the person’s control. For this reason, diseases like this are not germaine to disussions like this IMO, nor have I seen many other people include them no matter what side of the debate a person is on.
I’m not sure what celibacy example you’re referring to but I would almost never asociate this with willpower. There is an absolutely outstanding example that illustrates how little willpower should be considered. 2 Cor 12:7-10 speaks of not willpower, but gaining strength through prayer. So, the issue for me is of obedience and of humility. To the extent one has trials, one can gain strength from God, rather than through force of will. (Phil 4:13, 1 Cor 10:12) But one has to have the humility to turn one’s trials over to God and accept the strength that comes from him.
[qoute] For His own reasons, God has created some people with harder innate spiritual tests than others (is this not the point of Job, or perhaps even Jonah?). These people must endure more, suffer through their life on earth, and (once they have Jesus revealed to them) accept the Christ as their savior and use His love as a supplement to their strength. The beatitudes discuss how having “hard luck” here on earth is actually a blessing – enduring your suffering for the sake of your faith fortifies you in God’s eyes.
[/quote]
I would largely agree with this, although there is some additional perspective I would add. Those suffering, or facing harder spiritual tests, need not be simply ‘no-deposit no-return.’ there is always hope, and even a measure of happiness that can be found even in trials.
[quote]
I’d like to hear the raindog’s interpretation, though; am I close here? It has been a long time since I’ve studied the Bible closely, but I have studied it. If my interpretation is close, then the raindog might also agree that – at least in his limited knowledge of God – that it’s almost certainly possible for a homosexual to enter into Heaven. The caveat would be “it’s just a little harder.” God still loves them, but He has also burdened them (for His own ineffable reasons) with temptation to sin.
[quote]
I would largely agree with this, although obviously I might word it a bit different. I would add though that God may allow burdens, but he doesn’t impose them. They are a product of our enviornment and the sin that we are born with. (Rom 5:12, 1 Cor 10:13) Read James 1:12-15
That’s harsh dude.
We’re all sinners. That’s a fact of this life. But it is not sinful to be born with a homosexual orientation (any more than any sinner that is born). So we are all sinners innately, inherently. The key to this life, and to whatever hope you cling to, is to overcome this sinful tendency and aspire to Christs’s model. it’s the whole good vs evil thing and the need to develop. So, with humility, diligence and help from God, one can figuritively rise above their conditions. Trials are part of this excercise. Jesus walked the earth to show humans that one can keep one’s integrity, even in trials. (although God certainly doesn’t expect perfection, which was jesus’s status) So, both people in your example are sinners. If one accepts the biblical admonition that both homosexual sax, and premarital sex are condemned, than the homosexual in your example is displaying faith and refraining in conduct that is disapproved. The heterosexual in your example has embarked on a course of behavior that embraces his imperfection and belies any faith or sense of obedience. I’m not God, so I don’t get to keep the box scores; it’s not my place to say anyone is more or less sinful than another. But in your hypothetical example, the hetero is is more sinful. I agree with your hypothetical analasys.
That’s exactly what you’re doing though. You are telling people what God is trying to say. Tell me raindog, do you think who someone chooses as their partner is more important than them having a relationship with God? You, your religion and your judgment cause pain and anger and you keep people from seeking God. You are actually leading people away from him. I usually don’t participate in this topic anymore because it always make me cry and people like you never understand the harm you do. You don’t need to respond. I won’t be back and I’ve said nothing that I could possibly debate any further with you.
All this wonderful advice. I wonder what advice raindog would have for me, someone who is looking forward to committing to the man I love and spending the rest of my life with him.
You make it sound like I advise against reading the Bible. What I actually said was
I didn’t say anything about getting knowledge of the Bible from Polycarp. I mentioned him as a source for “Knowledge of G-d as revealed to Christians.”
He is just another man. He may be a very good human being. But, he’s just a human being.
Polycarp does read the Bible. The wisdom is partly from the fact that Polycarp is a wise man, and is occasionally the actual voice of G-d who is using him as His instrument.
Again, I didn’t say Polycarp would give wisdom from the Bible. I said that the Lord often speaks through him.
Again, I am Jewish. ;j I admit to naming the wrong Apsotle. I may even have misremembered the conversation with Meros in which that passage was mentioned. There are many, many gaps in my knowledge of Christianity.
Easy to read? Only if you’re willing to accept whatever translation you have as correct and ignore contradictions and inconsistencies.
Genesis gives two accounts of the creation. It can be argued that they don’t contradict eachother. But just reading the Bible will certainly make it seem like they do.
“The nephilim were in the earth in those days.” Nephilim gets translated as a bunch of different things.
‘The sons of heaven lay with daughters of men’ is sometimes translated as ‘angels lay with the daughters of men’ and is sometimes translated as ‘the sons of the righteos lay with daughters of heathens.’
Many translations capitalize the word Satan in the book of Job. Hebrew has no capital letters. More, the original Hebrew gives no indication that satan is a proper noun. It simply means ‘adversary’. Which changes the story from G-d and Satan having a contest to a Socratic dialogue between G-d and an unnamed interlocutor.
The Bible is many things. But it is not G-d. It is not the only way to know G-d. Raindog do you understand this?
Last things first. I apologize if you are upset, or if I have offended you. It is never my intent to harm anyone, and I have no malice for you or anyone here, including Diogenes, whom I’ve had the sharpest exchanges with.
Believe it or not, I am reluctant to participate in dicussions like this, for very similar reasons. This thread was started for me to respond to Diogenes’s question in the other thread. Everyone here feels strongly about their feelings, me included, and the emotions can run high.
I wasn’t naive about responding to Diogenes. I was aware that my comments would not be popular with most of the ‘regulars’ here. I was a lurker for months before I posted.
I will say this again; although I’ve tried to say this in various forms already. I don’t think that anyone should take my word for a single thing that I say here. Similarly, I understand that polycarp, and Diogenes are respected members here. I would suggest that anything that they say should receive the same level of caution.
Rather, if one has an intrerest in what the bible has to say on this topic, my suggestion is to read the bible to see if what is said is true. There has been more than a few comments that would suggest that that is futile because it is all so subjective that it’s anyone’s guess what anything says or means. I don’t agree, and ironically I believe that even that can be mitigated by reading the bible. So many people, including many here although I’ve seen it everywhere, don’t ever pick up the bible for the first time because they’re convinced that it is all subjective and esentially "unknowable. " Even if that’s true, the way to prove it or not, is to pick up the bible and read it. This will likely earn me more of the peanut gallery comments about “worshiping the book.” To me, that is more intellectual atrophy. Reading the bible is just one component of practicing one’s faith. Prayer, fellowship, so many other things play into faith. “Worshipping the book” is extreme and unfulfilling. Refusing to pick up the book at all represents the other polar extreme, and I would suggest is equally unprofitable spiritually. It should also be noted that many perhaps don’t agree. **DocCathode **apparently doesn’t recommend reading the bible. (If I have that right…) Decide for yourself if that’s true. If you decide to attempt to spend time with it, (my words are global and I’m not saying that you specifcally don’t read the bible currently) recognize that the raindog believes that the bible is as pertinent as a guidlebook for life—family life, relationships, child rearing, business affairs as it has ever been in human history. I believe that Christ is who he says he was: God’s son. There are others here who believe that it is archaec and outdated, and not worthy of a modern society. There are some who believe that it is no more than a series of error riddled stories by inherently biased and sinful men, and those bias’s are rampant. it’s for this reason that some pick and choose that they feel is valid; there are many who refuse to consider paul’s writings. Some might say **the raindog **would appear to be a doe eyed, slack jawed religionist from the dark ages. Diogenes, it would appear, sees the bible in more academic or historical terms, and is not a Christian.
Who’s right? From the OP of the original thread, I’ve endeavored to share what the bible has to say on the matter. That discussion hasn’t been resolved by any means, although it may become unprofitable to continue here shortly. I don’t want to “speak for God” although considering that I believe the bible is the word of God, it might seem that way. If the bible is the word of God, it may lead you to him. If it isn’t, your careful consideration of it will reveal it as a fraud. My hope is though, that you don’t get your faith or truth from me, or Diogenes. Take what you see here and investigate for yourself. That work, and your diligent prayers, will likely lead you to God, if he exists.
Esprix added:
I have no advice, other than what I stated in this post and elsewhere. When I speak of my faith, I speak in the singular. I don’t believe that a person should tell another person how to live. My advice I would guess, is to consider God’s word carefully, and take all matters to him earnestly and humbly. And, I wish you the best.
the raindog, I have read through this entire thread and though you have answered many questions with what seems to be a great deal of care and thought, you have yet to answer the question of the OP. Perhaps if I frame it the way I understand the question being asked you will make another attempt?
Diogenes has put forth the argument that if you assign to God the quality of being omniloving, or wholly love itself, then He cannot condemn that which is love. If I’ve misunderstood this argument, he can correct me.
In any case, the question then becomes if God is indeed always loving, how can you assign to him acts or motives that are not consistent with this nature? How, exactly, is it loving, in your interpretation, for God to create a homosexual and then deny him or her the moral ability to express him or herself in love? This would be akin to me creating a recipe for a chocolate cake but insisting that all cakes only taste like vanilla. It makes no sense!
To say that God created homosexuals with greater spiritual challenges may or may not be true, but it certainly is NOT loving. So the question still remains how can you reconcile your definition of God as always loving with a God who denies to homosexuals that which makes them human and that which allows them to express love, which by definition, is Godly?
I don’t know if you’re referring to me, but I’ve never said that nor do I feel that way. I do feel that many parts of the Bible are subjective and open to interpretation. But I never said not to read the Bible. I said to study the original language and research alternate interpretations or translations. The Torah has no vowels. Sentences sometimes lack pronouns or articles. The meaning of the text is (in most cases) knowable, but it takes effort.
Well, in a thread asking what G-d says, you keep telling us what the Bible says. You tell people that if they want to know G-d, they should just read the Bible.
There are other ways to know G-d.
Again I said I don’t often urge people to read the Bible. My earlier objections about translation and interpretations apply. Additionally, I don’t believe the Bible to be inerrant. Between the two, the Bible and G-d can say very different things.
If somebody asks what G-d has to say on something, I generally don’t say “Go read the Bible.”. I say “Ask Him.” That’s why I don’t often recommend reading the Bible. I see it as vastly inferior to having a little chat with the Lord. Additionally, in my experience it’s knowing G-d that leads people to read the Bible and become observant, reading the Bible and being observant leads not to knowing G-d but only to ‘Why the heck am I doing this stuff?’.
Esprix
I’ve never met this boy, and you announce you’re spending the rest of your life with hiim? What, you’re hiding him from me? Or is it maybe you’re ashamed of me? Is that it? Am I some sort of embarassment to you? Fine. Go get married. I’ll just sit right here, never leaving the house or showing my face in public, for the rest of my life so that G-d forbid, I don’t shame you.
I’ve been lurking in this thread but wanted to join in when I read this comment.
I can understand why some activities and behaviors are condemned, for example drunkeness or stealing or murder or sex with someone else other than your spouse. All have specific and detrimental consquences with their actions. But homosexual sex does not. Nothing comes of homosexual sex other than two people of the same sex sharing physical pleasure. But yet it is condemned in the same fashion as murder and adultery, etc. Why is this? What is so bad about homosexual sex other than because God said so!.
I suppose one could argue that it’s not procreative. The counter argument to that is that many things heterosexuals do is also non-procreative, yet they (both the people and the actions) aren’t condemned. Why are homosexuals and their activities singled out? There’s no logic to it.
If the (J/C/I) God did indeed say and condemn homosexual sex simply on a whim (which appears to be the case) then I cannot see how He can be conceived as all loving. Such behavior is appropriate for a 5 year-old, not a being that is called a god.
If He did not (and this IMHO makes more sense), and the prohibition is simply a cultural bias left over from some two to three thousand years ago, then I think that the followers of the J/C/I God ought to rethink their theology.
Does the bibble say anything about static cling? I think I’ve figured out where all those other socks went…