The bible and homosexuality

Dan Carroll asks:

quote:

---

Why would God be so cruel as to give someone a genetic predisposition to a trait he finds unacceptable?

---

Makes perfect sense when you consider this is the same God who ordered the genocide of the Amalekites and who hated Esau for no reason. I still don't understand what it is that makes him so much better than Satan.

truthlover understates:

quote:

---

Since that time is the general opinion of a lot of people that one or two things he endorsed or tolerated should not be endorsed or tolerated, such as slavery or a subordinate role for women.

---

Why the trepidation? Slavery and subordination of women are pretty big, immoral no-noes in my estimation. The fact that Paul promoted both is enough for me to conclude that his epistles are of no moral value whatsoever.Incidentally, you never answered my question about Paul's condemnation of effeminacy. You said that Paul really meant 'cowardice' and that scripture condemns cowardice. I asked why it is that the bible never condemns the cowardly actions of Lot in Genesis 19. Care to answer that?

quote:

---

...there are a very, very few (people) who would agree with you that many of the practices he endorsed or tolerated are immoral.

---

I think I could find more than a very, very few people who would agree that slavery is immoral. Perhaps I might also find at least a significant minority who would agree that women should be allowed to speak in the church.

quote:

---

"We have come to realize" is utterly meaningless in the west, where the idea of how people should live varies immensely.

---

Perhaps I'm naive, but I have enough faith in mankind to feel safe in saying that almost all civilized people, at least here in the Western Hemisphere, have come to realize that slavery is immoral. I say this in spite of being fully aware that the Southern Baptist Church didn't get round to recognizing that slavery was immoral until the 1990s, but now that they have taken that bold, trailblazing step I think this statement would be true even here in the Deep South.

You mean PG is actually trying to make a point? He has no idea how to construct a sentence, let alone a whole paragraph. He can't punctuate properly. He therefore can't make coherent statements. When challenged on one of his incoherencies, he can't understand the questions being asked of him. It should be no surprise to anyone that, on the rare occassion when he manages to convey a complete thought, he contradicts himself. How can he be coherent when he doesn't even understant what it means to be coherent?If I'm wrong and the guy does have some minuscule degree of intellect, then it should be blatantly obvious that he refuses to debate in good faith. Either the moderators are ignoring this thread or they don't care.

truthlover writes:

quote:

---

Slavery has been common in a number of societies where it bore no resemblance to the awful things that happened to blacks in the United States, and where it was little different than an employer/employee relationship in the U.S.

---

Meaning what? That the ownership of one human being by another can, under certain circumstances, be moral? What circumstances would be necessary for moral slavery to exist? How is American slavery different from slavery in Paul's time?

quote:

---

Any of the single ladies living here, and there's a dozen or so, could walk away today, and not one of them wants to.

---

Well, I'm glad things are so nice there in Stepfo..., um, Selmer. You seem to have your women well-trained. Still, I'm sure there are other women who feel that teaching women and girls that they are inferior to men or boys simply because of their gender is immoral. There is no scientific basis for teaching this, only the rantings of barely-civilized men written thousands of years ago.

quote:

---

You're welcome to call a submissive role for women immoral. I don't agree with you, a significant percentage of America doesn't agree with you, and I don't think I see anything in mainstream western society that lends much authority to its views on the matter.

---

I realize that a significant percentage of Americans disagree with me. What's the point, might makes right? A significant portion of Americans supported slavery in 1860, that didn't make it right.

quote:

---

I'm not sure that I'd agree that the 19th century version of slavery in India was immoral, although the caste system that it was a part of I agree is awful.

---

Again, what's your point? Was Paul speaking of future slavery in India?

quote:

---

I think what Lot did was awful.

---

That's refreshing, but you were the one who said that when Paul spoke out against effeminacy he was really speaking about cowardice. I asked you why, if that was true, the bible is silent on the subject of Lot's cowardice. This isn't an answer.

quote:

---

...people who agree that women should be allowed to speak in church might very well not agree that a man who didn't allow that speaking 2,000 years ago, in that society, was necessary immoral for going along with his society's attitudes in that area.

---

If he was just going along with his society's attitudes, what is the point of his epistles? Wasn't he supposed to be telling us what God thinks of society? Why did he refuse to speak out on unjust practices and policies in that society?

truthlover writes:

quote:

---

...there wouldn't have been a whole heck of a lot Paul could do about it, besides what he does, which is to ask for a master to treat his slave kindly.

---

Oh? I thought Paul was God's spokesman (that's what the fundies say, anyway). God couldn't think of anything to have Paul say? Like, for instance, "if you own slaves, free them!"? Was Paul so impotent that he couldn't speak out against something as horrible as slavery?And why is it that Paul chooses his words so poorly, especially if God's there to tell him what to say? Why does he say 'effeminacy' when he means 'cowardice', or 'slavery' when he means either 'indentured servitude' or 'the caste system in India'?

quote:

---

I never said anything about women or girls being inferior.

---

Then what was the point of saying that the single women in your small town don't want to move away?

quote:

---

My answer was that your question is irrelevant.

---

In message 118 upthread, you state: Therefore you brought up the idea that Paul meant 'cowardice' when he said 'effeminacy'. You said further that cowardice is considered a major sin and is condemned by scripture. My question is most certainly not irrelevant if you wish to assert that the bible condemns cowardice. Since you refuse to answer the question but instead call it irrelevant when it clearly isn't, I can only infer that you can't answer the question and wish to divert attention from it.

quote:

---

The Bible is silent on everything.

---

Then how can it possibly condemn homosexuality?

quote:

---

No, I think he was supposed to be telling disciples of Christ how to live in a society that they could expect to be opposed to them.

---

That's interesting. So he was only speaking to Christians? Then why is it that so many Christians want homosexuality condemned by law? Can't Christian men trust themselves around other men without needing the law to keep them in line?

quote:

---

...reforming society had nothing to do with his mission or message.

---

Then why did he speak out against homosexuality? If you are to be believed, he must have been pretty obsessed about it since he mentions it over and over.But if he didn't want society to change, why does he bother speaking out against anything?As an aside, I'd like to point out that although we are not discussing the specific subject topic, what we are discussing is still germane to it. I maintain that the bible never says one word against committed, monogomous homosexual relationships. However, many people don't agree and it is therefore quite relevant to establish that the bible is not a reliable moral guide and therefore anything it might say about homosexuality can be safely ignored. There is no way to do this without discussing other issues related to the bible.

Zachariah splutters:

quote:

---

The states keep handing out condoms like they're going out of style and allowing the kids to believe that they are full proof against STDS.

---

Next thing you know they'll be serving them at lunch, huh?Where are they teaching kids that condoms are "full proof" (I assume you meant 'foolproof') against STDs?

quote:

---

The papilloma virus is spreading like crazy and condoms DON'T stop it.

---

I should think you're referring to the form of HPV that affects female organs. That being the case, what does HPV have to do with the discussion at hand? We were talking about homosexuality and the bible. HPV is not even tangentially connected. The sexually transmitted form of HPV affects women, and since it is inconceivable that a woman would need a condom to have sex with another woman, what the hell does HPV have to do with anything?

quote:

---

And guess what I had anal sex with a girl I dated...

---

Do tell!

quote:

---

...and thought it was great. Does that make it right? No. It makes what I did wrong.

---

Meaning what? That things that are great are wrong?

quote:

---

But lust is a powerful thing and there's not much that can stop it.

---

Then stop trying.No, don't! I'm not sure why, but I rather like you. You're like desdemona-lite. In a bizarre sort of way, you're fun!

What does it matter what the anus was designed for? The fact is having sex with it does work. Someone already pointed out that the mouth wasn't designed for oral sex, but that doesn't mean it can't perform oral sex nor that many people can't enjoy using it for that purpose.Our heads weren't designed for punching balls, but soccer players use their heads for that purpose every day. Our arms weren't designed for walking but some gymnasts like to use them for walking. I don't see the point in this line of argument.

custard posits:

quote:

---

I think it is a specious and unnecessary argument to claim the anus to be considered to have a sexual function/purpose in order to substantiate the claim that anal sex is 'natural.'

---

Unnecessary, yes. Specious, no. There's nothing deceptive in saying that the anus works as a sexual organ.

truthlover, I used to have some respect for your opinions, but in this post you do nothing but lie and obfuscate. To wit:

quote:

---

My point was that your definition of slavery was too narrow.

---

Slavery is the owning of one human being by another. Whether or not there is a time limit on the ownership is irrevelant. The fact that you don't see anything immoral about slavery is telling, indeed!YOU were the one who tried to link Paul's words to the 19th century caste sytem in India. YOU brought that up, I didn't.

quote:

---

I can only guess this was said in order to make the argument continue or something. It's pointless.

---

Again, I didn't bring it up, YOU did. I simply asked why it was relevant that the young women of your town don't want to leave.

quote:

---

Ok, great. I'm not wanting to assert that the Bible condemns cowardice, and I've told you that repeatedly.

---

Yes you are and no you haven't. You said it and then you tried to run away from it. You said, and I quote: "I do think cowardice is among the major sins condemned by the Scriptures". I quoted the full passage in my last post and even provided a link to the post where you said it. Quit lying!When I said: "I maintain that the bible never says one word against committed, monogomous homosexual relationships. However, many people don't agree and it is therefore quite relevant to establish that the bible is not a reliable moral guide and therefore anything it might say about homosexuality can be safely ignored." you replied:

quote:

---

These two sentences are two completely different subjects. The first one is just wrong, and you have pretty much had to admit it is wrong.

---

I have admitted no such thing. STOP LYING!

quote:

---

...you said some really awful things about Paul...

---

You're damned right I did!

quote:

---

In my opinion, since you couldn't defend your tirade against Paul specifically...

---

I can and I have.

quote:

---

...you're wanting to expand the topic to the whole Bible...

---

No, I'm satisfied to stick to the Pauline epistles.

quote:

---

...I am satisfied at this point with the effectiveness of my defense...

---

Fine with me if you're ready to give up defending the racist, sexist, homophobic apostle Paul.

Zachariah asks:

quote:

---

Why is it that homosexuals seem to "almost" always refer to someone with a differnt view of homosexuality (that it is wrong and immoral) that they are a homophobe.

---

You may believe it is wrong and immoral yourself all you want, but when you begin speaking out and actively attempting to deny homosexuals equal rights you become a homophobe. You have an irrational fear and/or hatred of something that poses no threat to you.

quote:

---

What a bunch of cowards you are.

---

So, in your mind, cowardice means NOT hating and/or fearing something that poses no threat to you? That's interesting.

quote:

---

I guess that means you are a heterophobe, and a christianaphobe, devinaphobe, Godaphobe, conservativaphobe, Bushaphobe, Americanaphobe, womanaphobe, etc............

---

I have no hatred or fear of heterosexuals, God, conservatives, Bush, Americans or women. I DO have some fear of Christians, but only because they are a strong voting block and certain groups of them have demonstrated a hatred/fear of gays. I am not so much afraid of them as I am afraid of what they might do to America in order to have their bigotry enshrined into the law. Therefore my fear is not irrational and thus cannot be described as a phobia.Paul is a homophobe because, if we take the word of people like you, Almeyda and truthlover, then Paul shares your irrational fear and/or hatred of homosexuality. I'm still not convinced that his words refer to monogamous, loving gay relationships, but if they do then clearly Paul's fear is irrational and thus he is indeed a homophobe.Since I have been kind enough to answer your questions, may I beg that you answer one for me? Why is it that the conservative Christian faiths have always been on the wrong side of history whenever a question of equality for certain groups is raised? Why is it that things like equal rights for women and African-Americans are only supported by conservative Christians long after such rights have become the law of the land?

Rrhain apparently refers to me when he writes:

quote:

---

When was it determined that I'm gay? At least one gay person here is absolutely certain that I'm straight.

---

Not absolutely. I lean in that direction because it's hard for me to imagine a gay person taking the view you did on the issue we were discussing at that time. It sounded like the sort of thing a straight person who is concerned with equal rights but who has no personal experience with the nature of bigotry might say. I do hope you didn't take my comments as insulting; I have a great deal of respect for you and your opinions. You are a very fair-minded man and if I knew you personally I feel sure we'd be friends. I rarely disagree with you, but in this one case I did and still do.

truthlover writes:

quote:

---

I couldn't even find this quote by me.

---

Yes, you do seem to keep forgetting it. You'll find it in your post 118 upthread.My point in bringing the story of Lot from Genesis 19 into the discussion was to rebut your assertion that the bible (or scripture, if you prefer) condemns cowardice. If it did, it should certainly say something about what is probably the most disgusting act of cowardice ever conceived. It does not, and in fact in 2 Peter 2 it refers to Lot as being just and rightous.

quote:

---

I cannot imagine what that has to do with anything at all...

---

Not surprising when you consider that your memory is rather faulty. It has to do with your assertion that the bible (er, scripture) condemns cowardice.

quote:

---

Because of his constant references to Paul as "homophobic," I made an assumption that he agreed. It seems bizarre to call someone homophobic and then to suggest he approved of loving, monogamous homosexual relationships, but if that's what he says he's doing, then I'll grant that.

---

My bad; perhaps I didn't state my case as well as I should have, but I think you're carrying the point a little too far. I consider Paul homophobic if we are to take the Romans passage as condemning homosexuality in all its forms. I don't take it that way because the passage doesn't seem to condemn homosexual activity. If anything, it seems to condemn lying about God. God's punishment for doing so, as described by Paul, consisted of forcing straight men and women to perform gay sex acts. This must have been revolting to the people who apparently lied about God; I know I would be revolted if forced to perform a heterosexual act, or even a homosexual act for that matter.By the way, I never said that Paul approved of loving, committed homosexual relationships, only that he doesn't appear to have condemned them.

You really haven't studied much history, have you Zach?

quote:

---

Tell me about all the nasty conservatives that tried to get in the way of the civilrights and womens movements.

---

Okay, where were the conservative Christians when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on that bus in Montgomery? Where were the conservative Christians when Emmit Till was brutally murdered? Where were the conservative Christians when Goodman, Cheney and Schwerner were murdered? Where were the conservative Christians when MLK gave his historic I Have A Dream speech on the Washington mall? Where were the conservative Christians when the firehoses and attack dogs were loosed on peaceful protesters in Birmingham? Where were the conservative Christians when the Little Rock 9 were being persecuted for the simple act of registering for classes at Central High School?I'll tell you where they were: They arrested Rosa Parks, they killed Till, Goodman, Cheney and Schwerner, they arrested MLK and tried for all they were worth to paint him as a communist, they loosed the atttack dogs on the Birmingham protesters and they issued death threats against the Little Rock 9!The Southern Baptist church, the largest of all protestant faiths in the US, was founded for the purpose of defending slavery (the national Baptists had taken a position opposing slavery). To this day, the Southern Baptists insist that women not be allowed to preach and that they submit to their husbands. This disgusting faith only got round to condemning slavery in 1996! My, what brave soles they were for doing that, huh?Why don't you show me where, at any point in our history, conservative Christians have ever once stood up for any socially progressive movement?There are other points in your post that beg a response, but I see that Rrhain has beat me to it.