Actually, Jewish law is consistent on that point. Jewish law mandates that any sex act between a husband and wife end with ejaculation in the vagina. Condoms are forbidden. Any man who has willingly castrated or emasculated himself is forbiden to marry a Jewish woman. Unless there is a compelling medical reason vasectomies and tubiligations are forbidden.
“Be fruitful and multiply.”
As I said, there is some thought that many of the laws serve to ban the practices of other religions. Even though those religions have generally disappeared, that is not by itself sufficient to declare the law void. But, if it can be demonstrated that the law is indeed a prohibition against visiting male temple prostitutes of Baal, Aphrodite, etc, then it remains valid, and Jews are still forbidden to visit male temple prostitutes (IIRC female prostitutes as a form of idolatry are covered in a different section), but David and Saul are free to get married by their local rabbi (Though this leaves us with the question of the glass- Do they step on it simultaneously? Take turns? Do they step on two different glasses?)
I’ve been lurking, too, Freyr, and have had some ideas but haven’t contributed them yet so as not to distract from the thread.
So far, we’ve had a thread where someone without much knowledge of Christianity asked if it’s compatible with acceptance of homosexuality; that poster had heard it wasn’t. Some people came in and gave the reasons that some people who have been able to reconcile the two have used, and raindog argued against those reasons. Which is fine, I guess… that’s where the factual/philosophical question ended and the related debate began.
But a comment led to this second thread… with Diogenes directly asking how
…makes sense. The raindog hasn’t answered this directly, at least not in any way that I’ve been able to recognize.
My understanding of this statement by the raindog is that he believes the statements “God tells us to love each other” and “Homosexuality is okay” are mutually contradictory. At least in the eyes of God.
My guess is, unless raindog is skirting the question, there’s been some kind of miscommunication. I’ve got a bunch of ideas in my head as to how the two (raindog and Diogenes) could be taking the quoted staement differently, but most of them still don’t make sense. But my favourite is this:
Diogenes is looking at it and saying: “Oh, God is love? God’s greatest command is to love? Then how can he condemn someone for falling in love?”
raindog is looking at it and saying: “The statement ‘God is Love’ or ‘The greatest command is to love’ isn’t enough to justify love between two men, because that kind of love is specifically admonished as bad elsewhere in the bible. Thus, if your only biblical argument supporting the idea God is okay with a guy falling in love with a guy are these statements, your argument is very weak. Far weaker than the argument for the idea that God’s okay with a guy falling in love with a girl.”
This is the best I can do to try and defend the idea that the raindog has actually answered the OP’s question.
So let’s look at this answer. Maybe I’m wrong, and we can discard my reasoning if the raindog tells me he means something else, but here we go: this answer has flaws.
Firstly, “The greatest of these is love.” The greatest. That doesn’t sound like a weak argument to me. Especially beside that story in one of the gospels (I’m not sure where, my bible being packed in a box in another town) of Jesus being asked “What of the old laws?” and answering “Moses gave you those because you’re hard to teach… follow my simple command to love.” Ergo, love isn’t bad. And, this is convenient, because it would seem gay people fall in love with each other just as naturally as straight people do. You love someone, and want to care for them? Go for it. God approves of love.
Other little rules are secondary. Or at least, that’s how I remember it.
Second, what of those other little rules? Raindog hasn’t posted any passages from the bible that unambiguously declare that a guy falling in love with a guy is wrong, or, for that matter, that gay sex is wrong. We’ve had a couple of passages brought up that have obscure words from ancient greek and hebrew that scholars figure probably mean something else than this, but that have been traditionally translated to english in a way that can be read as meaning this.
Sadly, raindog appears (as best I can tell) to be convinced that the traditional reading of these words is the right one… and I don’t know if any amount of argument will shift that. Let me try. Raindog:
A translator during a time when the church persecuted gays might well have taken an obscure word and read in an anti-gay connotation.
A committee of religious leaders in recent years, during an age when homosexuality is viewed as bad by the religions those leaders lead, might not expunge such connotations from their own translations. A third party, however, such as a non-christian linguistics scholar, might well lack bias. An example: Lets’ say that the US constitution was going to be translated into Chinese because, well, for whatever reason. Let’s say that in Chinese, (Mandarin, for the pedants) there’s no phrase that means precisely “Right to Bear Arms”. But there’s one that means, roughly, “Privilige to have weapons” and one that means, depending on context, either “Right to keep weapons on your person during daily business” and “Right to bring your weapons to bear when you see fit”. Now, what meaning do you think the translators wil imbue if they’re pro-gun leaders? Similarly, what translation choices do you expect from a bunch of priests and rabbis who give sermons on the sabbath about how gay is sinful?
Thirdly, no text… no speech, even, is without ambiguity – despite your claims to take the bible as it really is, and not interpret at all – unless it’s in extremely literal language, and is in the language it was originally written in. The bible is neither of these. It’s full of colourful language, parables, allegory, descriptions of visions, and so on. It’s also very old. And it’s been translated from, what, three old languages (and isn’t aramaic more or less a ‘lost language’?) into a modern one. There are two problems that come from this. One, the Muslims have got a real good point in insisting the Qur’an be printed always (more or less) in arabic - the language in which God is said to have given it to the Prophet, and in which the Prophet dictated it to those who wrote it down. Barring copying mistakes, they’ve only got to worry about the languge changing and shifting in time. The second problem is that each reader of a biblical passage will take a subtly different message from it, unless it’s exteremely explicit. And, especially in the original languages, the bible isn’t explicit at all about this.
Fourthly, if gay people really are in love, and they really are born that way and can’t change, and their relationships really aren’t inherently harmful (and how could they be, any more than hetero ones?)… well, why did God make them that way? Just to give them a hard time? I mean, an alcoholic, sure, he harms himself and others, and we can chalk that up to original sin or something, but what the heck is sinful about love? If it does no harm, isn’t it easier to imagine a loving God who makes you that way so you experience life that way, rather than a loving God who makes you that way just so you can restrict yourself and feel bad and live without knowing love? Unless you insist that a tendancy to fall in love with boys is original sin – but only if it pops up in boys. Which leads to so many questions my head spins. But most of all, if God is pro-love, why has he decided that this very real love… is sin? It seems so inconsistent with all the commands to love my neighbor and forgive and be kind and the whole doctrine of people before rules that I got from reading about Jesus that I can’t make sense of it.
So, there’s a beginning.
I’m with Diogenes, here. How can God tell us to love, and make people such that they fall in love, and then tell them that that love is bad? The evidence in The Book that God actually condemns a man’s romantic love for another man is pretty sketchy, at best, and any of it at all next to a command that “The greatest… is love”, it appears pretty irrelevant. And, further, I was under the impression that as Christianity expanded, it was decided Jewish converts could keep practicing the old laws if they wanted, but Gentiles who embraced the new religion didn’t have to; that was the point of Christ fulfilling those old covenenants, no? That you only had to follow Jesus to be saved? So, then, wasn’t it settled that Gentile converts - and ultimately the broader Christian community - wouldn’t need to keep kosher, or circumcise their sons, or follow any of a number of other customs that the Jews did? Why is boys kissing boys different than all these?
Or am I wrong all over, raindog? Tell me, why doesn’t a God of love accept certain kinds of love - love that doesn’t include inherent harm to anyone?
That’s a good start and how I perceive it as well. I’ll start from this.
Yes, I will try. It feels to me that I have answered the question, however it would seems to lack clarity. I think that is due to the many different posts, and splintered nature of the exchanges. I’ll do my best to be more cojent, and by condensing my answer into one post perhaps it will have more continuity.
To begin with, the basic question relies on some basic premises, sometimes direct sometimes implied, as it’s foundation. If I (we) accept those basic premises, than I would have to say that the argument would look (to me anyway) fundamentally sound. I don’t believe for a moment that anyone is anything but genuine, but I find the underlying premises, that are required to believe this belief, biblicly false. (And we are, after all, talking about the bible’s view)
What I would like to do is address the basic premises that I find to be unsupported biblically. If I’m correct, the dynamics of the question change dramatically.
**Premise #1: Since God’s foremost quality is love, it is a contradiction that God would condemn something based on Love **
to requote Calliope’s statement above, :*" … if you assign to God the quality of being omniloving, or wholly love itself, then He cannot condemn that which is love…"
*
Are there instances where God has indicated that certain types of potentially loving relationships were unacceptable? So, can love ever be wrong? Is it possible to have “bad” love, or in other words, misguided love?
The Israelites were directed to not take foreign wives. (De 7:2,3) (Jos 23:12-13, Ezra 9:12, Ezra 10:2) This included even King Solomon. In the “new covenent” Paul wrote that one should not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers." (1 Cor 6:14)
Now it is true that God had specific reasons for condemning these relationships, but the fact remains that he indentified loving, or potentially loving relationships, that were unnacceptable.
What about loving, sexual relationships between unmarried heterosexuals? The bible makes it clear that fornication is unacceptable, and makes no distinction if the couple is in love and in a monogomous relationship. One cannot therefore claim that any relationship, as long as it is sincere and based on love, must by definition be acceptable because God is the embodiement of love.
Premise #2 Homosexuality may, or not be, condemned. However love is the most powerful force in the world and ‘overrides’ any apparent condemnation.
In the examples above what was the result of those Israelites who defied the clear instruction and took wives, no doubt whom many loved? In the case of Solomon, it was distastrous, in spite of having previously been arguably the wisest man of all time. (1 Kings 11:1-8,) In the case of the Israelite nation the consequences were severe (De 7:3,4) (See Ezra &:12, 26, Ezra 10:10-13) In the case of Dinah, Jacob’s daughter, she was in a relationship with a Hivite, a foreigner. It’s worth noting it wasn’t a booty call, for at Gen 34:3 he is said to feel about Dinah, “3 And his soul began clinging to Di´nah the daughter of Jacob, and he fell in love with the young woman and kept speaking persuasively to the young woman. 4 Finally She´chem said to Ha´mor his father: “Get me this young lady as a wife.”” He is further described as “the most honorable of the whole house of his father.” (verse 19) And what happened to this young man and his clan? They were slaughtered. Now in fairness to this thread, God didn’t order the ‘hit’, and Jacob was pretty upset that his sons had done this. However, the sons correctly noted that as a foreigner he was not to be in a relationship with Dinah, and by having sex with her he had violated her. Yet, he was both honorable and loved Dinah very much!
And as noted in item one above, what of non married heterosexuals in loving monogomous sexual relationships? The bible says that “adulterers and fornicators will be judged”, withiout making any exceptions for love or sincerity. (Heb 13:4)
Therefore one cannot make a biblical claim that there is a precedent that allows one to defy God’s requirements, and get his implicit approval, simply by being sincere, monogomous, or in love.
Premise #3 God “made” homosexuals.
This begs at least 2 questions: 1) Are homosexuals made by God and here by design, in other words “part of the plan?” (or to the contrary, “made” by someone/something else) and; 2) Is homosexuality an “approved” behavior? (or to the contrary condemed?)
This will leave us, naturally, with 4 possible combinations:
a) By design, approved
b) By design, but unapproved (condemned actually)
c) Not by design, but approved
d) Not by design, not approved (condemned actually)
It’s for this reason that I appealed to Diogenes, that it would be best to resolve the texts in Genesis, Leviticus, Romans and 1 Corinthians before tackling this thread.
I say this because it is fundemental to the question. Here’s why I feel this:
If the biblical text can show homosexuals are here *by design, and approved.
this whole issue is moot, and bordering on plain silly. We wouldn’t be making a case for the legitmacy of married heterosexual marriages and sex with a “God is Love” rationale. We’d get a lot of blank looks. The evidence supporting it is so overwhelming that we’re way past taking it’s legitimacy for granted. It’s central to our existence as a species. I think this is the status that all caring thoughtful homosexuals long for from society; the right to marry, have kids etc. But, if you jump straight to the God is Love argument you leave many thoughtful non-gay bashing, not homophobic heteros feeling conflicted. They are conflicted because there is a sense of unfinished business; that depite wanting to fully accept all of the wondeful things that often come from gay couples there is a sense that they are still engaged in a lifestyle that God specifically forbids. IMHO, this is the hardest case to make by far. There is no specific biblical cites that says God made homosexuals. For those who believe that we descended from Adam, it is clear that he was identified as having a female wife, created specifically for him. **(Ge 2:20-22)**Throughout the bible, the cites that identify people as having been created as heterosexual are legion. The bible speaks of marriage, and the basic family unit universally in heterosexual terms. (Ge 2:24) Jesus re-arrirmed this when describing the marriage arrangement, and he spoke extensively about families and relationships, always in heterosexual terms. Paul was the most prolific writer in the bible and wrote extensively about relationships in rich detail, yet universally gave advice/counsel/admonishment in hererosexual terms. (1 Tim chapter 3, and literally dozens of other cites) Yet, there are no cites that offer encouragement, counsel, direction, admonishments in a specifically homosexual context, or even infer or assume a homosexual context that would identify homosexuals as being made with a purpose, as was the case for heteros. (The purpose of which goes far beyond breeding) Further there are no cites that specifically approve the homosexual relationship, nor that offer counsel on how to maintain a happy relationship, or the many things that clearly identify heterosexuals as the approved means of organizing humanity.
But what if homosexuals are *here by design, yet unapproved? * If this were the case one could reasonably say that God is non-loving, perhaps even cruel. It would inspire comments like this one by Calliope, "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! "
If a person believed that God made homosexuals, by design and with a purpose, and yet forbade them to enjoy all of the things extended to heteros, that would indeed be cruel. However, as I noted, there is no parallel accounts for homosexuals that would specifically identify them as having been made with the same level of forethought that produced Eve. (Gen 2:20) There are no texts that show God had specific intent, forethought or a plan for homosexuals within the framework of the human experience. Many, many times however God specificly spoke with purpose, direction and meaning in a heterosexual context. Nonethless, Diogenes and others offer up the inateness, or normalcy of the homosexual experience as “proof” of God’s design, in lieu of specific texts that say that. Yet, normal does not, by definition, mean intent or design. There are many, many things in our day to day lives that are, or appear to be, normal. Hurricanes are “normal” in the SE USA, so are tornadoes in the Texas panhandle. Fornication is rampant, including extra-marital affairs, and much more pervasive than homosexuality. Certainly most people would say that there is a air of “normalcy” to it. Further, pre-marital sex is so widespread that it is an afterthought. The incidence of people simply living together without the benefit of marriage is so widespread it’s taken for granted, and in most social circles carries no social stigma whatsoever. For many people in those relationships, the presence of love and monogomy, makes the relationship feel entirely “normal.”
There is just no way to make the case that the existence of “normalcy” is “proof” that there is intent, purpose and design associated with it. Normal just doesn’t mean designed or intended.
What about, not by design, but approved? Maybe homosexuals may feel that while there isn’t clear texts that show an intent to “make” homosexuals, or that there isn’t a purpose articulated, that’s not important. Because it feels normal, and because God loves us all, it must certainly be approved. Yet, this approval is not direct or specific. One may say, but God never specificlly says, “heterosexuals are my approved arrangement.” However, cites that show intent, purpose, direction and support number in the thousands. There is no such biblical parallel in the homosexual experience. More than that, one must accept approval in the face of numerous cites that condemn homosexuality. As to those cites, we started down that road in the thread that preceded this, and with all due respect to Diogenes, we hadn’t scratched the surface before coming here. Of the cites that do speak to the issue directly, we only dealt with one in any detail at all, and even that one was not completed (1 Corinthians) Later in that thread, and I think in this one also, Diogenes has said something along the lines of “There are no such scriptures, as has been abundantly explained to you”,and, * “I have addressed those passages quite thoroughly.” *
But we hadn’t! We rolled around a bit with 1 Corinthians and the literal meaning, but didn’t spend much time at all with any of the other cites. Just about none.
In the end, I think the position that homosexuality is not designed, and not approved by God is the only ones that can be supported biblically. The bible doesn’t specifically say, “I didn’t create homosexuals.” But if he hadn’t, God wouldn’t have said that anyway would he? I mean he didn’t create millions of things. He didn’t create martians, klingons or a myriad of other things. He is not said to have created pedophiles, alcoholics or others who have either proclivities or orientations that are considered part of the social spectrum. He has however created man in the heterosexual model, and given him specific meaning purpose and direction. Further, the only language directed towards homosexuality in the bible, of any kind, is language that identifies homosexual behavior as deviant. (Which perhaps we’ll get back to)
If God didn’t make homosexuals, who did? The bible speaks of sin extensively and with continuity throughout the bible. The bible points to Adam as the originator of human sin, and that through simple genetics we’re born sinners. (Romans 5:12) I’m aware that Diogenes and others find this account to be hogwash. If, however, God did not specifically create homosexuals, then homosexual tendencies are a function of the sinful state that we all find ourselves in. If one accepts the straight forward language that deals with homosexuality, it is rational to believe that God is not responsible for “making” homosexuals any more than he could be said to make any other person with “normal” pre-disposition to sin. This would include philanderers or alcoholics.
Premise #4 Punishing or condemning homosexuality, given that it can be loving, is inconsistent with his nature.
This is a slight variation of the premises above. It is true that God’s foremost quality is Love. To think God would punish someone who is sincere, and in love, may seem a contradiction. Calliope’s comment below is a common sentiment,* "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?
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?"*
But God’s other cardinal attributes include Wisdom, Power and Justice. While God loves us, he has the absoulte right to set down requirements that we must follow. And, as any loving father would, he is willing to discipline his children when they (willfully) err. (Heb 12:5,6)
Throughout biblical history, God disciplined those he loved but who had rebelled against his direction. Certainly it can be said that he truly loved the nation of Israel. But any serious student of the bible will recognize the many times that he severely punished them, and in some cases specific servants of his who had gone defied him. In more than one occasion, the person who was in rebellion had good motives. Good motives are not an acceptable reason to defy clear instruction.
Further, it is God alone who has the right to set the rules. While God is abundant in love, this love doesn’t paralyze him to his other attributes, and doesn’t keep him from punishing those who defy his requirements, even when the one being punished he loves.(Heb 12:7, Pr 8:33, Pr 12:1-3, Heb 12:11)
Ultimately, we must have a balanced view of all of God’s attributes, and recognize that any loving parent will establish requirements. We can’t simply re-write the rules because they don’t make sense or because they don’t seem fair.
Looking at the thread title, I see “Why Can’t A Loving G-d Accept Homosexual Relationships?” not "What Does The Bible Say About Homosexuality
It hasn’t been a great day, and I can’t remember the name of the prayer but ‘And there was a nothing which was not by G-d created and Made.’.
Here Judaism and Christianity differ. In Judaism, humans are not born tainted by Original Sin. But, we are born with the consequences of that sin-we have knowledge of good and evil, and we have an innate inclination to do evil. This is called the yetzer horah.
As our souls are fashioned by G-d, He’s the one who givies each of us a yetzer horah. Thus, G-d is indeed responsible for our urge to sin. There’s an old Jewish teaching “When does a man embrace life?” “When he kills himself.” This means that a human finds happiness and becomes a force for good in the world when they fight to destroy their yetzer horah.
Most Jewish scholars argue that homosexuality is part of the yetzer horah-that it is inherently sinful and must never be acted upon. Some even argue that it may be ‘cured’. Others (gay and straight) argue that homosexuality is not evil or sinful, that acting upon is moral within most of the limits set upon heterosexual behavior. This debate should be definitively settled about the same time as ‘Which is a better color-blue or green?’
I disagree. It certainly doesn’t seem loving. But the Lord moves in ways which pass human understanding.
The Bible very seldom gives clear instruction. I’ve often heard Hebrew scholars argue that ‘Thou shalt not take My name in vain’ is usually mistranslated and misunderstood. It is properly ‘Thou shalt not carry nor bear My name in vain’. It isn’t a prohibition on saying ‘goddamned losers lost the season opener again’ and the like. It is a prohibition on falsely claiming to the Lord’s work or act in His name.
The law understood to command the seperation of meat and milk (to the point that many Jews have two sets of silverware, dishes, etc. There are Rabbis with chemistry degrees so that they can better define what is and is not a meat or dairy product. ) is ‘Thou shalt not boil a kid goat in the milk of its mother’.
What’s often quoted as ‘Thou shalt not kill’ is properly ‘Thou shalt not commit murder’
Considering that the relevant passages of the Torah are in Hebrew, and have no vowels, I wouldn’t call them clear.
While the standard Haggadah tells the same Passover story, it contains some of the great sages arguing over the difference between ‘in the days of your life.’ and ‘in all the days of your life.’ Then there are the epxlanations that the Torah can be read as meaning that there were 40 plagues, as each plague was four-fold. Then another sage uses the same passage to say that there were 50 plagues as each plague was five-fold. Then, another sage cites a passage describing the plagues as the finger of the Lord and another saying that at the Red Sea the Egyptians saw the hand of the Lord to argue that there were 300 plagues- 10 five-fold plagues(from one finger) in Egypt and 50 five-fold plagues (10 from each finger of one hand) at the Red Sea.
Consider that OTTOMH there are less mentions of homosexuality in the Torah than I have fingers, I wouldn’t call it clear.
I’m gonna cut out and quote-tag little snippets, because you’ve got a bit of a long-monologue motif going on. I’ll address a few of the little issues that I think call into question. Then I’m going to draw a conclusion, as best I can, from your argument.
So gay marriages are, so far, no worse than interracial marriages or interfaith marriages. Further, I was under the impression that these old Hebrew laws were out of date post-Jesus. Also, Paul isn’t God, and he didn’t write about yokes in 1 Cor 6:14, he wrote about rising from the dead.
Of course, we so far have no clear indication of a “Thou Shalt Not Fall In Love With a Person of Thine Own Gender” command.
So, we’ve got the Old Testament and some old rules. Rules like ‘don’t marry foreigners’, which I imagine Christianity gave up on when they started spreading the Gospel to Gentiles. I’ve come to understand that the old Hebrew laws don’t apply to Christians, right? Like the kosher laws and the circumcision covenant and so on? And still, no clear “Boys must not kiss boys” command.
Moving on…
Such as? Most of the times it comes up, it says something like “And God made them male and female, so that they might reproduce.” Makes sense… takes two kinds of genitals to make a baby. It never seems to say “And God made them male and female, so that they might pair in single one of each of these, and never to couple in any other way.”
… nor any that specifically disapprove of them.
If the bible doesn’t talk about gay marriage, I’d assume it’s because gay marriage wasn’t much of an issue in ancient Israel. Apparently, sleeping with temple prostitutes was an issue, though, so it got addressed.
On the subject of ‘normal’:
Hurricanes exist. They are a very normal weather phenomenon in some places. Similarly, individuals with an innate attraction to others of their own gender exist. They are a very normal biological phenomenon in some species, including, for example, Adelie penguins and humans. I assume God intended the world to have hurricanes every bit as much as he intended them to have gay people. Also banana tress, blizzards, and mountain ranges.
Fornication, extramartial co-habitation, etc, are not, however, natural phenomena. They are behaviours that people exhibit. Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. They are ‘normal’ in that they are accepted in certain cultures. So is cannibalism, so is tipping the waitress, so is wearing neckties. The bible, as far as I know, is silent on these last three, just as you say it is on homosexual relationships. If a boy can wear a tie, why can’t he go on a date with the boy who gave him the tie? I still don’t see any biblical proscription of this.
The existence of
is irrelevant. As far as I recall, there’s no texts about making black people, or Innu. There’s no texts about making cockatiels. There’s no texts about making the planet Jupiter. There’s no texts about making algae, littoral diatoms, tomatoes, or fat people. Are you saying “Straight is better because it’s mentioned in the bible?” You might as well say 'Monarchy is better than democracy". After all, he wasn’t President Solomon.
The idea that 'If it isn’t in the bible, it can’t be good.", or “can’t be the approved way to aorganize humanity” is treading a little dangerously, IMO. These days we organize ourselves pretty strangely, with constitutions and treaties and spreadsheets and laptop computers and societies of mixed ethinicities and races… all of these things are either not mentioned in the bible, or contraindicated by things like 'don’t marry foreigners" orders.
You keep saying this, If there are a zillion passages that say “God says being gay is bad”, post them here. then we can actually talk about them, instead of arguing back and forth whether they exist.
Please do get back to that. Show me the language.
Now, what’s the sin to which they have a predispositon? Boys kissing boys? A boy falling in love with a boy? I suppose you can label any act a sin, but falling in love is an awfully involuntary act. I did it pretty much by accident a while ago… wouldn’t it suck if gay people get to be called sinners for that? It’s like being a sinner for having a zit.
And as for your premise #4, it’s more of the same. The conclusion you come to is that if a man falls in love with a man, it’s due to original sin. Let me see if I’ve got this right:
Homosexual love (that is, the love that John has for James which is very much indistinguishable in form from the love Matthew has for Mary) is a wretched thing. It’s a sin.
Heterosexual love (that is, the love that Matthew has for Mary which is very much indistinguishable from the love John has for James) is a wonderful thing. It’s what God commands us to do above all else.
There are certain sexual behaviours which are bad, according to God. These are the ones listed very clearly in the bible in unambiguous language.
Well, then, bottom to top:
Show us where in the bible God unambiguously proscribes homosexual sex.
Oh, no quibble with number 2.
Show us where in the bible God unambiguously declares that if you fall in love with someone of the same gender, it’s a sin.
For that last, especially, it’s not enough to say ‘He doesn’t mention he likes it’. We know he approves of love, in general, so he’d have to specifically make an exception. Further, if you manage to find this in the Old Testament, please supply a good argument (with biblical passages, ideally) that indicates this law wasn’t ‘completed’ or ‘fulfilled’ or ‘superseded’ by the coming of the Christ, along with all the other laws that don’t apply to Christians anymore, like not marrying foreigners.
Re Laptops And Spreadsheets
The Torah doesn’t directly address these things, but many scholars have applied it and come up with reasonable answers. For Example- One must never write the name of G-d, lest it be erased. What about computers? If I type the word and save it to disk, do I have to treat the disk according to the rules on holy text? If I save and exit, the screen changes. Does this count as erasing the name of G-d? After a lot of thought, the general consensus was that images on a CRT or LCD, as well as magnetic media lack a realness and permanence. So the rules about writing the name don’t apply. However, if somebody prints out that text, the rules do apply. Thus, whether I hyphenate G-d depends on whether I think a thread or post will be printed.
Re Marrying Foreigners
The intent here seems to be to prevent Jews from marrying gentiles and becoming assimilated. Solomon married a bunch of gentile women and allowed them to build temples and idols to their gods. Marrying somebody from a different country or culture is fine, so long as they’re Jewish. Considering the rate of intermarriage and assimilation in America, this makes sense to me.
It also presents a good argument for rabbis to perform same sex marriages. Making David and Irving outcasts and pushing them out of the Jewish community results in the loss of two nice Jewish boys. Marrying them, and then engaging in the standard ‘You’re married now. Hurry up and give me grandchildren already!’ and constantly reminding them of artificial insemination or adoption results in two nice Jewish boys raising another generation of Jews.
On number 1: Is the Bible the word of God? I submit that it is not, or at least, it cannot be proved to be so. Nowhere in the Bible itself is it put forth that it is the inerrant word of God. It does, however, call Jesus the word of God (And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us"John 1:14) Therefore, if you want to make an argument using the word of God, you are limited to the words of Jesus. Nothing else can be definitively claimed to be the word of God, per the Bible itself.
On number 2: No, the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Set aside for a moment that the scriptures used to make this claim have been shown to be misunderstood, mistranslated, and misused. But also, by using the Hebrew scriptures to make your point, you fail to understand that these texts were not written for you. The various books of the Bible were written for a very specific purpose and with a very specific audience in mind. The Old Testament was written for the Jews and the scriptures most often cited are from the covenant between the God of Abraham and the Israelites. You’ve asked me to go to the Bible to find out more about the God of the Christians, and so I have.
As a Christian, concerning yourself with what is clean or unclean to a Jew is largely irrelevant. I will contain my arguments to biblical cites, because that is what you have outlined as acceptable to you. But I would like to ask you to cite the Gospels and show where, if it can be found, that Jesus had anything to say about homosexuality as an orientation and where, if anywhere, he condemns the practice of homosexual love. If Jesus is the Word of God, as defined by the bible itself, this is a reasonable limit to set on arguments.
Number 3 can only be partially addressed because I submit that the Bible does not comdemn homosexuality. One would think that a text largely written in Greek would make use of the greek root “homos” if this was at all the intention. As has been demonstrated by several posters with a knowledge of Greek, the Bible texts you use to show God’s condemnation of homosexuality show only a condemnation of promiscuity and prostitution. And right alongside this condemnation of certain sexual practices, which could be summed up as lust or inappropriate use of sexuality–not orientation and love of one by another of the same sex, there is an equal condemnation of money lending, sex during menstruation, sowing fields with mingled seed, etc. Why are these prohibitions not equally important? Could it be because the Law of Moses does not apply to Christians? Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, thus it would seem it does not apply.
Number 4: I don’t know what you mean when you refer to homosexuality as a social institution. Homosexuals are members of our society, differing only in their desire for a partner of the same sex. What social institution does this create?
As to some of your other suppositions:
Again, these are OT scriptures and as such, should be weighed against the actual word of God, as embodied by Jesus (please note, I am assuming you consider Jesus to be God in the flesh).
And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”* (NIV, John 13:34-35)
Jesus apparently holds love, and the advancement of love above all other laws.It is Jesus, and not the Bible, that Christians must look to for answers. There are many scriptures that could be said to be in direct opposition to the words of Jesus. As a Christian, it would seem to me that one must not hold so tight to the words in the Bible, but rather they must be evaluated from an understanding of the teachings of Jesus. To ignore the cultural context of the Old Testament, and to give so much weight to what is an ancient text, particularly when that text contradicts the spirit of Christ’s words, seems to contrary to a true understanding of God’s will.
Jesus said absolutely nothing at all about homosexuality. Homosexuality, as an orientation, is not only not mentioned by Jesus, but orientation is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible.
All of the Holiness Code in Leviticus arose out of a desire to keep the Israelites pure of foreign influence. These are societal taboos that prescribe accepted religious practices, not morality codes. It is much like the Church of Christ’s refusal to use church music. This is a part of being a COC member, but does not reflect an overall moral code. Mormons don’t drink alcohol, pentecostals don’t dance, Catholic’s don’t eat meat on Fridays(at least very orthodox ones like my brother)and Jews were forbidden to engage in many of the practices that the non-Jews did. It was a cultural taboo, not a moral proclamation.
Additionally, the Bible condones polygamy, slavery, and in many cases, rape. Do you read these texts with equal scriptural authority? If not, why not?You yourself said:
Paul echoes this sentiment that Christians are no longer under the Law of Moses:
“But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after the faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.”(Galatians 3: 23-25)
Jesus tells us that when the scripture and the exercise of compassion are mutually exclusive, compassion wins. What do you make of John 8:3-11? What does it mean that Jesus does not follow the law as set down by Moses, but instead says, “Let he that is without sin cast the first stone” and “I do not condemn thee” ?
What if your honest and humble appraisal of God’s will discerned by you through prayer and meditation reveals to you that the scripture is in error? What then?
but also says:
According to my Bible, love is defined thusly:
*Love is always patient and kind; it is never jealous. Love is never boastful or conceited…It is never rude or selfish It does not take offense, and it is not resentful. Love takes no pleasure in other people’s sins but delights in truth. It is always ready to excuse, to trust, to hope, and to endure whatever comes.*1 Corinthians 13:4-8
This seems to me to contradict the notion that God would mete out consequences for defiance. Love, which you yourself concede God is does not take offense. It is always ready to excuse.
You also said:
to which I submit:
“All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:3)
Greetings, Raindog. I’d enter into this dialogue with you, if I may.
There are only a couple of things I feel appropriate to bring up. First one is referencing the Peter story in Acts 10 which you and others have dealt with, principally in addressing why Christians are no longer subject to the Jewish dietary law.
But it’s Paul’s contention that we are free from the Law – not a pick-and-choose dietary-is-out, ritual-is-out, moral-well-that’s-still-valid (and, by the way, I gather there’s a fair amount of overlap in Talmud between those categories; they’re Christian moral theological inventions, not ways in which the Jews subdivided the Law). And it’s particularly worth noting what Peter says when he speaks with Cornelius after the vision of the bedsheet of clean and unclean foodstuffs.
Peter got the message. It’s not the dietary law that’s been abrogated – it’s the whole separation of man from God and from fellow man.
Unfortunately, despite claiming the opposite, most Christians still, perhaps unconsciously, divide the world into righteous and sinners (the righteous being sinners who are aware of it, repent, and try to eschew their sins).
And that doesn’t work. We’re all sinners, and we’re all forgiven for our sins – at least when we repent, and I think God’s mercy extends well beyond that. It’s His love and grace, not our own efforts to avoid sin, that make the difference.
Now, does that make us antinomian, Lawless in the strict sense? Not on your tintype.
We’re free from the Law, not to sin, but to live a new life characterized by love. “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” And the key commandments are to love God, love one’s fellow man, love each other as He loved us, do unto others as one would have them do unto yourself. That is what Jesus gave as the Summary of the Law, the New Commandment which He gave on Maundy Thursday night, and the Golden Rule which is the only thing aside from the Summary of the Law which He stated to encapsulate Law and Prophets.
So if I sin, or am tempted to sin, what am I supposed to do? Well, have faith in God’s forgiveness of me and His faithfulness and lovingkindness towards me. Try to avoid sin. But that isn’t easy. How to do it? Well, the Holy Spirit convicts of sin, inducing repentance, and gives strength to avoid it in future.
That’s the key point on moral theology – it’s the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin – not Jerry Falwell or Polycarp or the Raindog or Vanilla or Diogenes – or even the Bible. The Bible gives some good clues as to how to live a moral life, sandwiched in with a lot of other stuff, some of high importance and some of interest only to a Jewish genealogist or etymological researcher. But the day it gets converted to a rulebook for living is the day that people have stopped following the Living God to Whom it bears witness, and started becoming a legalistic group of historicists.
If and when God the Holy Trinity wants Esprix to live a celibate life, He is more than capable of convicting him of his sin, and over four years of friendship have persuaded me that Esprix is a man who would listen to such a call. In the interim, God wants Esprix – and you, and me – to keep His most important laws – and that involves love of our fellow man. It involves speaking up when they are misunderstood, ostracized, condemned by people who refuse to believe the plain truth about them. It involves defending them when they are assaulted, physically or verbally. It involves standing foursquare against unjust laws that would harm them, no matter how “Biblical” those laws are. (Might I point out that if one went back with a time machine and brought the major Old Testament figures to the present, approximately three-quarters of them would immediately be thrown in jail for sex crimes, notably bigamy? “One man and one woman” is about as Biblical as Jerry Falwell’s polyester suit!)
Are you prepared to stand up and do what Jesus told you to do – even if it means that a lot of “good Christians” will condemn you for it?
The last time I got into one of these, I was in between the Fundamentalists, and the folks throwing rocks at them, because of their hypocrisy, and intolerance. I was asked why I hated homosexuals. This time I am gonna stand in between the homosexuals and the folks thinking of picking up rocks to throw at them. I suppose this will make me an Atheist.
God is not limited to our understanding of His desires. The Law of Moses was the Law for the people of Moses. The Bible is not a complete design specification for God, or even the Universe, or, in fact, even the World. It’s the story of the People of Moses. So, it is (as is the rest of the Bible, and probably other books as well) a story about people who sought to know God.
Now, Jesus himself was of the people of Moses. He lived in the way that those people lived in those times. He taught that the love of God was greater than the Law. He did not condemn those who broke the law, nor did he glorify flouting the Law. He came to fulfil and satisfy the Law. Now, comes the time of the Love of God.
He never mentioned homosexuals. He didn’t mention mixed fabrics, or women without bonnets. He did mention love, fairly often. And He certainly never mentioned the commandment to go out and speak of one particular sin of some other person, as if it mattered more than some particular sin of my own. What is it about the hyperfetish over homosexuality with some people? It’s a sure thing that more people wore Cotton/Polyester blend leisure suits, than there were homosexuals. More people shop than are homosexual, how come the First Church of Stonin’ Sinners isn’t camped out at the Mall every Sunday?
Whatever. God made up His own mind, and He said Jesus was to be the sole and final Judge. And Jesus said He condemns no one.
So, tough luck, for the guy’s with a ringside seat to watch folks sliding into Hell. You get to be lonely over there as long as you want, I guess, cause Jesus said no one is coming.
Now, for all the Gay folks.
Phelps is wrong. (Big surprise, huh?) God loves you. He has mentioned how he feels about those who lead His children away from His love, but let’s leave that to Him, as well. We have to Love each other. And it isn’t up to anyone to prove it to you, or to anyone else. Your heart is secret from all who walk among us, and will be open to the Lord when you meet Him.
“But I never met Him.”
Been there, done that, He was there, when you had the chance to show the love in your heart and soul. And He is there when Phelps has his chance, too. Don’t be angry if He finds a way to save Phelps, too. He’s God, it’s His Job.
I probably have too much on my plate to venture back into this particular fray, but Straight Dope addict that I am, I can’t resist. I should warn you it’s early; I haven’t had my morning cup of tea; and I’m not fully awake. But, you see, I’ve found the discussion on law fascinating, but I can’t resist my urge to see your references to Peter and raise you Christ, specifically Christ in Matthew 15 1:28 (thank you Bible Gateway!). I’m quoting a bit more of it than I usually do because at this early hour, the bit before and after the section I usually quote struck me as relevant, and this time I’m leaving some of the numbers which indicate specific verses in.
I included the first bit, verses 1-9, because it seems to me Jesus and the Pharisees were having the exact same type of discussion we have around here, arguing over the letter of the law and how it is carried out.
The part of this chapter I usually quote is verses 16-20, and I’m particularly curious about what the words “out of the body” really meant and implied in the original text since some translations I’ve read look like they at least imply defectation. Raindog, I will grant that verse 19 includes “sexual immorality” or, in the King James Version, “fornication” among the list of unclean things which come out of a person’s mind. I, personally, have never been damaged by sexual immorality. One of the reasons I’ve avoided this thread for the past few days is I’ve had to deal with damage done to me, personally, by others indulging in evil thoughts and slander. The damage was years in the past, but it was great enough to leave deep scars and nearly kill me.
Even so, I read this as Christ talking about what comes out of a person’s mind and heart, not what he or she does with his body. To me, sex in and of itself is not inherently immoral. There have been times, to my wonder and awe, when it has felt downright holy. In my, admittedly limited, experience, sex can form a bond between two people which is truly profound. If approached with the right intent (and it’s too early for me to articulate that intent), it is a natural, beautiful, and wonderful as the sunrise I’m about to watch. I also know that it’s highly unlikely that I’ll be able to have such an experience with another woman or alone. Women don’t produce the same response in me men do, and when I’m on my own, the profound connection with another human is, by definition, missing. By the same token, if Esprix or gobear or that old friend I mentioned have such an experience with the men they respectively love, I cannot call that “sexual immorality” if what is in their hearts and in their minds is similar to what’s in my heart and my mind when I have sex with a man I love, honor, and respect.
Sex covers a wide range of activities. Even if we limit it to what happens between 1 man and 1 woman, you’ve got everything from rape to a married couple enjoying each other while hoping that what they’re enjoying will reduce in a child who will be much loved and welcomed. The former, almost everyone would consider “sexual immorality”, and I’d prefer not to meet anyone who doesn’t. The latter almost everyone would consider sexually moral except those who consider all sex immoral and they, too, are people I wouldn’t care to associate with. At what point on that scale does sex become “sexual immorality”? I don’t know the answer.
I included the story of the Canaanite woman because it, too seemed relevant. This is a woman who is quite definitely unclean and unfit for good men to associate with. The disciples urge Jesus to turn her away, and even he demurs for a moment. What comes out of her heart, even though I hear desperation and despair in it, is sufficient for Christ not only to speak to her, but to grant her wish and heal her daughter. I’m not aware of Christ turning anyone away because they were too sinful or unclean to associate with. Indeed, it seems to me he saved some of his greater acts and revelations for those who were most sinful, be it the Samaritan woman at the well or the thief on the cross next to him.
Raindog, I wanted to give you my take on one other thing you said. You posited the idea that homosexuality exists “Not by design, not approved (condemned actually)”. I’m afraid this directly contradicts one of my more basic beliefs which is that God knowingly and willfully created each soul and the attributes thereof. I regard homosexuality as a basic attribute, just as I do traits such as stubbornness, intelligence, etc. I am innately curious and questioning. In discussing Christianity over the years, I’ve come to realize that there are Christians in good standing who consider those traits sinful in that they make it extremely difficult for me to accept the Word of God, or, as I see it, what someone says the Word of God is, without questioning. I was told my stubbornness, willfullness, and general inability to conform were faults and, if my family had been more Christian, perhaps they might even have been condemned as sins. Life and God, or at least God as I know Him, have taught me they are virtues or at least essential parts of what He intended me to be and do. Actually, right now, I’m relying on stubborness and willfullness to get me through the current situation!
A very dear friend of mine, whom I’ve known since 5th grade and to whom I owe, to some degree, my life and my soul is homosexual. He and his partner have been together for 10 years and it’s as loving a union as any heterosexual marriage I know of, and I know of some very good marriages. The reason I owe him so much is when things were at their worst in high school, when evil thoughts and slander, not to mention gossip and slander, were destroying me inch by inch and when treating me kindly put a person at risk of similar treatment, this man stood by me and called me his friend. He dried my tears at a time when my own family wouldn’t. I didn’t know he was gay at the time; I found out years later, and I still remember he sounded afraid when he told me. I don’t know why he took a risk to be my friend; I suspect if I asked him, he’d say, simply, why wouldn’t he? I do however, wonder, if perhaps being gay in a town in which homosexuality wasn’t acknowledged (the decade was the 70’s; the town was in the 50’s) made it easier for him to reach out and befriend the girl who couldn’t help but wear her differences on the sleeve. I pose to you the possibility that my friend’s homosexuality was not only by design and approved, but perhaps done so with the idea that my experience of this genuinely good man’s friendship and my knowledge of his hardships would better equip me to serve God as I do here, among other things.
I was all too often dismissed and demeaned because I was (rightfully! :rolleyes: ) labelled as different. My best friend was wrongfully dismissed and demeaned because she was handicapped. An essential part of my vows and my service to God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit is not to dismiss a person because of one aspect of his or her character, and not to demean him or her ever. I consider that as holy and binding an obligation as any sworn by a monk in his cell. God knew what He was doing in creating each of us, even those whose behaviour I cannot understand. We do choose to disregard what He intends us to be and to go astray. On the other hand, I’ve been accused of doing just that because of the stances I’ve taken here and elsewhere. I don’t believe I’ve gone astray.
Excuse me. This has been long-winded and rambling as usual, and the sun is now well over the horizon. I will, as is my habit and as I am commanded, pay more attention to what comes out of a man’s heart and mind than what he does with his body. On that note, Esprix, I wish you many, many years of happiness, even if you did misspell my handle in the Pit!
Thanks for the info, DocCathode, I had no idea. Is that part of the Torah or the commentaries?
What I’ve found very compelling about Judaism is the thoughtful commentary and intepretation on the Law, such as what you’ve given above. Fascinating. I could only wish that Christianity would take up such a practice.
I’ll agree with you about the Law condemning other religious practices and when seen in the cultural and historical context of (the J/C/I) God choosing the Jews as His people, it makes perfect sense.
As for Poly, Tris and Seige, to add anything would be gilding the lily! Thanks.
Jesus did in fact fullfill the law. (and try 2 Cor 6:14 instead…)
Of course, I never said anything about this.
While there is no language saying that falling in love with the boy is a sin, (anymore than the sin we’re all born with) But kissing the boy is another matter. And, yes there is language on homosexual behaivior in the bible, both in the OT and the NT.
That’s true I would guess. But then we’re both assuming, right? I would assume then that no language about homosexual marriage was included because it wasn’t done or allowed. Giving that the Jews would have been under the Mosaic law, I wouldn’t imagine a homosexual couple would have received a hospitable hearing from their rabbi. Homosexual behavior was known however, and condemned.
Most of this I’ll leave alone. I know it pithy, but it seems to get inane along the way.
Once again…The point is getting tripped up by the wit… But, I’m not saying that “Straight is Better.” What I’m saying…I’m saying what I said.
You’re getting late to the party. We were in a thread that started, absoultely just started, and we stopped that discussion to come here. I would think that anyone interested in that disussuion is fully aware of the biblical cites that speak apparently about homosexuality.
[quote]
And as for your premise #4, it’s more of the same. The conclusion you come to is that if a man falls in love with a man, it’s due to original sin. Let me see if I’ve got this right:
Homosexual love (that is, the love that John has for James which is very much indistinguishable in form from the love Matthew has for Mary) is a wretched thing. It’s a sin.
Heterosexual love (that is, the love that Matthew has for Mary which is very much indistinguishable from the love John has for James) is a wonderful thing. It’s what God commands us to do above all else.
There are certain sexual behaviours which are bad, according to God. These are the ones listed very clearly in the bible in unambiguous language.
Well, then, bottom to top:
Show us where in the bible God unambiguously proscribes homosexual sex.
Oh, no quibble with number 2.
Show us where in the bible God unambiguously declares that if you fall in love with someone of the same gender, it’s a sin.
[quote]
I never said that “God proscribes homosexaul sex” (??)
I never said that it was a sin “if you fall in love with somone of the same gender.” (??)
No there isn’t. Repeating something over and over again doesn’t make it true. There is nothing in the Bible which can clearly be said to condemn all homosexual relationships and even if there was, that would only prove that the Bible is not the word of God.
Why? says who? And how do you reconcile such a morally reprehensible view with a loving God?
God says to be heterosexual above all else? Not. God says to love. Genetalia does not enter into it.
No they aren’t. Not only is homosexuality not condemned in “unambiguouis language,” the Bible fails to condemn polygamy and rape. And I repeat, a God of love cannot condemn loving relationships, be they homosexual or be they interracial. A God which condemns loving relationships is unjust, is not good and is not God.
Well, then, bottom to top:
Show us where in the bible God unambiguously proscribes homosexual sex.
Oh, no quibble with number 2.
Show us where in the bible God unambiguously declares that if you fall in love with someone of the same gender, it’s a sin.
Proscribe means prohibit. Are you saying that you haven’t claimed that God prohibits homosexual sex?
Your distinction between simply loving a person of the same gender and expressing that love through sex is a distinction without a difference. God is still evil if he condemns them for having sex.
I don’t know where to begin with this. I don’t know you, your background, age or anything. It’s possible that you’re not a Christian. How you get from John 1:14 to *“Therefore, if you want to make an argument using the word of God, you are limited to the words of Jesus.” *, confuses the bejeebers out of me, no matter how many times I read it.
I am aware the audience the Hebrew Scrpitures were written for. That doesn’t make them entirely irrelevent. The Hebrew Scriptures were quoted extensively through the NT, including by Jesus himself. Nor have I limited my comments to the OT.
This may be a reasonable limit to you, and it would certainly help your case. But to say that 90% of the bible is illegimate because it is not the words of Jesus can’t be supported. I don’t know of a single (Christian) religious group that rejects everything in the bible except for the 4 gospels. (Which obviously weren’t written by Jesus) Suffice it to say that I find your logic and restrictions to be peculiarly your own and biblically unsupportable.
This comment is the one that had me replying, the truth be told. This thread was born of a previous thread that started to look into those cites. Go back and review the thread! In that thread we discussed the scrpitures at 1 Corinthians that spoke of homosexual behavior. We hadn’t scratched the surface when then persistent “God is Love” rationale surfaced, with a growing chorus of posters were asking that I respond. So, here we are. But the fact is that we never resolved those texts, and the overwhelming amount of them we didn’t discuss at all. I posted some translations of a cite in Romans, and other to say that they were cherry picked to support condemnation of homosexaulity (all 10 of them?) no other explantion was ever given as to it’s correct application.
Instead, we spent what little time we had on a cite at 1 Corinthians. And, rather than consider the context and over all weight of the account, we went back and forth of the literal meaning of 2 Greek words. In the end, we didn’t even finish the texts at 1 Corinthians. And what was the basis of our discussion? Diogenes 2 years of college Greek, and another poster who had 1 year and was admitedly “rusty.” When I persisted with Diogenes that it would appear that he was getting information from homosexual web sites he responded with, and I quote, “For God’s sake, Raindog, Google isn’t my source, my knowledge of Greek is my source…”
Yet you say here, “As has been demonstrated by several posters with a knowledge of Greek…” as if somehow I should look past the fact that, A) Most of those texts we didn’t discuss at all as practical matter, and the one we did (1Cor) we never finished, and; B) the posters are hardly “knowledgeable” about Greek. (Diogenes by his own account isn’t even fluent in the language)
I think I’m going to scream the next time a poster essentially says, “As has been demonstrated by several posters with a knowledge of Greek…”
If you say so…
OK…
I’m guessing that these are your thoughts and not something you could cite…
I’m aware that different churches have certain practices that are no biblically supported, but I’m struggling to see that relevence as regards your overall point.
That may be a valid argument, although I think out of context, but it doesn’t explain Paul’s condemnation of homosexual behavior post Mosaic Law.
I’m tired and I don’t type well, so I’ll go easy on this answer especially since I think I answered this in the rather long post the other night. I think you are misapplying this scripiture, and IMHO, doesn’t speak directly or even directly about the legitmacy or approval of homosexual behavior. Still, it has me wondering, for those who believe in hell, (Or some adverse judgement) who goes? I mean, there are things in the bible that specifically say will meet with God’s disapproval, including destruction. Yet, again and again I see scrpitures like these as a “Get out of Jail Free” card.
Love is the greatest command. It’s not the only command. Nor does love paralyze God towards judgement of those who are willfully disobedient. Just as “normal” doesn’t mean “approved”, “greatest” doesn’t mean “only”, or ‘Do what you want, love’ll handle it’
We have an obligation to love. But we have an obligation to be obedient to God also, and to not use God’s love to mock his rules.
You’re still missing the point that a loving God cannot condemn homosexual relationships. To condemn a loving relationship is an act of evil. If God is all good then he doesn’t condemn homosexuality, period. It’s a contradiction in terms to say that he does.
And the Bible doesn’t say anything about homosexual relationships, as has been abundantly pointed out to you by people who know more about Greek than you.
