Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?

Hi H, I have no doubt.But I am not here to debate. I was just showing what the 20th chapter of Leviticus said and now you jump back to the 18th chapter which is discussing what you are putting forward.Since you aparantly did not read the 20th chapter it is below as it comes from the Greek Septuagint LXX:
If you pay close attention it covers a lot of things concerning sex but it has no mention of ritual, ceremony, pagan practice or anything of the like. It is just a list of dont's and if you do what the penalty is. I did not look up anything that would come from the NIV as that would have come from the newer Masoretic Text.The Hebrew word that was translated in the Greek Septuagint LXX:
as abomination has the meaning:
1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominablea) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)This definition came from my Chaldee Hebrew Lexicon. I don't know who your we is but it don't include me.I see no way you can take verse 13 which is between Levi. 20:10 and 20:16 and say it is concerning anything other than 2 people having sex as in verse 10, 11, 12, verse 14 involving 3 people, verse 15 involving man an beast, and verse 16 involving woman and beast. First I am not an Xians.
Second I don't even claim to be a Christian.However I do claim to be a born again child of the King.As I said I am not here to debate this issue. I was simply pointing out some of the 613 laws God gave to the children of Israel.It makes no difference what is said about homosexuality, the word does not appear in the Hebrew text anywhere. Neither does it appear in the LXX, in fact it does not even appear in the KJV.This will be my last post concerning this subject.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

You worship Elvis?Cool! At least the hymns would be better.

---

Mutate and Survive

iano responds to me:

quote:

---

All I need to know is that they are a) a person b) not Christ.

---

Well, Christ wasn't the only one, if we are to believe the Bible, but you are still missing the point:If everyone is a "sinner," then "sinner" doesn't mean anything. Something that explains everything actually explains nothing.

quote:

---

You seem to be under the impression that I should not judge the Bible as the word of God

---

Incorrect. I seem to be under the impression that you are not able to apply what the Bible says (whatever its origin) to anybody. To do so is judgement.

quote:

---

If I am not to do so then how am I meant to judge the meaning of the mote/plank passage?

---

Exactly as I have been saying: Worry about yourself. You are in no position to say one word about the actions of others. You have your own problems to deal with. You need to stop seeking the glory of man and start seeking the glory of god.

quote:

---

You repeat it so often I cannot but assume you intend I make some kind of judgement about it.

---

You need to start paying attention to it. Your god is trying to tell you something and you aren't listening.Edited by Rrhain, : Dropped a not which completely inverted the meaning of a sentence.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I'll let Rrhain bring in any scholarly links he might have on the subject, or you can search it on your own... including past threads at evc. I simply do not have the time to get in depth on this.However, I can deal with what we have seen already. I have read Lev 20 and what's the difference? They are very similar passages, practically a retelling. So the first one was a bit more explicit up front?Why could you not admit what I said was shown in Lev 18? But let's move to 20 if you insist on putting the cart before the horse... How can you not see that that plainly opens with a discussion on ritual, particularly ritual stemming from other nations? You do know what giving one's seed to Moloch is a direct reference to, right? And like 18, 20 ends with nearly identical admonitions... These sections are on customs and rituals, specifically separating Jews from the customs of the nations around them. It may be true that the proscriptions mean all acts so as not to allow anything similar to those rituals, but that is open to reasonable debate.If you look at the usage of the word you "looked up" in a lexicon, as it appears in the Bible, it was routinely used in the sense of 1a) ritual uncleanliness. Scholars have noted this, and that different terms are used consistently for other "wicked" things. Yes, if I am trapped into reading only that line, and other lines, on a line by line basis, unable to set it in context with the full passage as set out by its opening and closing remarks, and willfully ignoring the scholars I have read discussing the usage of the term that was later translated as "abomination"... I see where I would agree with you.Without all those limitations, a legitimate debate on what was being discussed in that passage actually exists.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

That is not logically valid. Everyone is a human, yet the word "human" means something does it not? We are all mammals, yet the word "mammal" means something does it not? We are all descendants, yet the word "descendant" means something does it not? So now you can speak for God and judge iano? Edited by Silent H, : clarity

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

but that is a bit unfair... or at least not logically valid... to judge his interpretation based on your own.

---

Two things:First, I am not the one saying that one must not judge. I am therefore under no admonition.Second, this isn't a question about judgement, per se. This is about things that actually are or are not there. Everybody "knows" that Bogart said, "Play it again, Sam" in Casablanca, but it turns out he didn't. Everybody "knows" that Mae West said, "Come up and see me sometime," but it turns out she didn't.Judgement involves questions of good and bad, not questions of existence. But, only god can say if what you have done is good or bad. Thus, we can say that god has said that X action carried out by Y is a sin, but that doesn't let us know anything about how god will feel about Z.

quote:

---

I am unaware of any Xian Bible... particularly english language Xian Bible, which has not used that specific language.

---

Well, you can start with the King James. It doesn't really say anything. This is partly because the modern concept of homosexuality is precisely that: Modern. People back then simply did not think like we do.And since the Bible wasn't written in English....

quote:

---

You cannot make out that Iano is errant in his interpretation of english Biblical scripture

---

But it isn't my burden of proof. It's his. He's the one making the claim.

quote:

---

The rest of your post attacks the validity of english language interpretations of OT and NT passages.

---

(*chuckle*) Nice try, but you're the one who was just harping on English translations. I wasn't talking about English translations. In fact, I quoted Greek to you. But if you want to talk about English, fine: The very word Paul makes up, "arsenkoitai," is a portmanteau of "male" and "temple prostitute."

quote:

---

And this does not address the other negative references to homosexuality

---

But that's just it: There aren't any. You can count the references on one hand and still have fingers left over. And since those references are all in the context of ritualistic sex, those who say that the Bible condemns homosexuality need to come up with the evidence because there doesn't appear to be anything there.

quote:

---

It seems beyond dispute that Paul was against homosexuality as he was against much sex all around.

---

But then why the harping on homosexuality? If the admonition is against sex, why do straights get a pass? If we're going to use a general anti-sex attitude to condemn gays, then we need to be just as condemning of straights...but that never seems to happen.

quote:

---

That author's ideas are in dispute

---

His name is Boswell and his ideas are in dispute in much the same way that evolution is "in dispute." People who can't show him where he has gone wrong simply say that he is.

quote:

---

the practice was neither common nor recent even according to his work.

---

Irrelevant. The point is not the frequency or the recentness. It's that the attitude was different in the past and to pretend that the cultural attitudes were some sort of monolithic universal is to simply deny reality. People act as if the moral framework that we have today was delivered to us unchanged from Adam.Well, it hasn't. Even if we want to base our morality upon the Bible, there is no way to possibly claim "original intent."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT responds to Silent H:

quote:

---

I can say anything I want to but that does not make it what God said.
I can say God said anything I want to but that does not mean that is what God said.

---

Exactly. Just because you say it doesn't mean it's what god says. We know you think that's what god says, but your say so is not good enough.

quote:

---

You do realize it is impossible to argue the Bible with someone who does not believe the Bible don't you.

---

Incorrect. One does not need to believe in order to understand.I don't believe in Romeo and Juliet, but I can argue about what it says, the themes it brings up, and interpretive justifications. You simply need to understand its own terms.It's called "internal consistency." Surely you learned this in your literature classes, yes?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT writes:

quote:

---

Why do I have to interpet the following passage to get the idea God thinks sex between man and man is wrong?

---

Because all linguistic comprehension necessarily requires interpretation.Thus, we learn that the passage you quote doesn't say what you seem to think it says. It isn't referring to gay people.

quote:

---

You could probably get a better picture by reading the entire chapter.

---

That's the point: If you read the whole context in which it is presented, it is clear that it isn't referring to gay people.Note: Placing it in context is an act of interpretation.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT writes:

quote:

---

The original text was in Chaldee Hebrew.

---

No, it wasn't. We don't have any original sources of any of the texts of the Bible and thus, we have no idea what the original languages were. The Old Testament, in particular, is a recording of oral tradition. And that written transcription was destroyed and had to be reconstructed by those who had memorized the text.And human memory is quite fallible.We don't know what the original material said because there is no record of it.

quote:

---

The text's I quote in the 20th chapter of Levi. was given to the descendants of Abraham and had nothing to do with any culture around them as they were in the desert.

---

Except they were. To think that because the law was given unto the Jews in the desert means it is completely divorced from cultural context is to ignore the text.

quote:

---

There is no room for any other interpretation.

---

Except it doesn't mean that. It doesn't even say that.You're confusing English for Hebrew.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

If everyone is a "sinner," then "sinner" doesn't mean anything. Something that explains everything actually explains nothing.

---

​

That is not logically valid.

---

Incorrect. I have merely restated the truism: A difference that makes no difference is no difference.If everything is X, then nothing is Y and it is useless to try and distinguish X from Y because there is nothing that is Y.If everyone's a sinner, then it doesn't matter what anybody does because there is no way not to be a sinner.

quote:

---

So now you can speak for God and judge iano?

---

I'm not the one saying that we should not judge. I am not bound by the same restrictions.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Everyone is a human being. Everyone is an air breather. Everyone is a warm blooded mammal. Everyone is a sinner. I'm not sure I follow your thinking That impression is gleaned from your own interpretation of the Bible I presume. And if it's incorrect? I think you misunderstand what the dilemma is.If I accept and apply your interpretation of the mote/plank passage then I am still judging the passage - whereas you seem to be insisting that I should not judge the passage.

Jesus

If I may press the "pause" button on your not permitting me to interpret the Bible.. for a moment.To be a sinner basically means your nature is geared towards sinning. It doesn't mean that it doesn't matter what you do. If every sin is going to be judged and punished according to law then it matters very much what you do. Hell might be hell. But that doesn't mean there aren't shades of torment.Then there's the Christian. Their sinful nature has been destroyed - meaning that they are not geared towards sinning in the same way a sinful natured person is. They will sin, but technically and in relation to judgement and Hell, things have shifted. They will likely refer to themselves as sinners all the same.There is one sure way not to be a sinner anymore. And that's die a Christian.Edited by iano, : Add rider regarding Christians being sinners but not sinners. If you know what I mean..

quote:

---

A senior Roman Catholic bishop has launched a scathing attack on the "gay lobby", accusing homosexual campaigners of a "huge and well-orchestrated conspiracy" against Christian values.

​

The Rt Rev Joseph Devine, Bishop of Motherwell, said homosexual rights organisations aligned themselves with minority groups and attended Holocaust memorial services to project an image of "people under persecution".

​

The 70-year-old bishop, who is president of the Catholic Education Commission in Scotland, added that he would "not tolerate" a child trying to come to terms with his or her homosexuality.

---

News: Breaking stories & updates - The TelegraphCould mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?Current examples seem to suggest the answer is no.

I'm answering your last two replies to me in this post... Well I've already stated something similar. Though a Xian can point out that X is a sin to their God, they cannot say how God feels about any particular sinner. Then again, I don't think it takes much to understand from God's statements in Lev and Deu that he thinks these things are bad. We've been over this before. Yes, we both know and agree that the concept of homosexuality is modern and unknown in those times. There was no word for it. However the act of people having sex with others of the same sex was. It was described. Additional commentary was used to make it refer to ritual aspects. You are missing the point. Iano is not reading anything but an english language version. Most Xians know only that. I agree you have a valid point that the english translation might differ in meaning from the original text. But that does not change the fact that a person born and raised on the english version, and believing in the existence of THAT God, and THAT rulebook, can cite the passages rather clearly. First of all, there are more than ten references to it throughout the Bible. Excluding references to Sodom and the like (which I agree may not be related to sex), there are still more than ten negative references so you must have one very large mutant hand. One quick way to check this is to go to skepticsannotatedbible dot com. They have a breakdown list of references.But more importantly, you only need one to make something clear. Assuming less than 4, if all of these statements by God are negative, or indicate they are negative aspects of human life, there isn't much more you need to show. When do straights get a pass? It was only by great effort within the last century that sex outside of marriage was allowed by law, and if most fundies had their way those laws would return. It was only with great effort within the last 30 years that people could discuss sex legally in an explicit positive way (entertainment), and if fundies have their way that would also be reversed. Prostitution is still illegal in most states, and if fundies had their way would end it completely...You have a very selective program running. They've been digging in their heels on sex for centuries and homosexuality is simply the latest issue where laws are being overturned, thus it is getting the most hype right now. To portray them as focusing on homosexuality alone is like I said, rather selective.But let's turn that around. If people are supposed to be adopting a pro sex attitude, why are we not lifting all sexual condemnations, instead of just focusing on gays? Unlike your false accusation of what Xians are doing, it is true that gay rights orgs (and most lib ones) are only giving a pass to gays, while combating remaining minorities. That's an assertion on your part, as well as BS. Man I cannot believe you are trying to equate that with evolutionary theory. He has an interesting idea, but very scant evidence, and there are plausible alternative explanations for the ceremony described which do not amount to homosexual marriage. You claimed it was done recently, not me. I was disputing that claim as well as pointing out that it wasn't commonly practiced, even according to the author putting his theory forward. An uncommon ceremony would not suggest attitudes were different in the past.And if we want to discuss past attitudes toward gay marriage, not even homosexual positive cultures had marriage ceremonies in the past. That's one of the reasons Boswell's theory doesn't hold a lot of water. They had brotherhood-type ceremonies in the past and that's what it looked like. I'm sorry, but your original statement was that if everyone is a sinner than sinner doesn't mean anything... that it explains nothing. I was correct in pointing out that that statement is wrong.If you meant to make the above claim, that's another bundle of problems altogether. To start with the claim is not everything is X and nothing is Y. The claim is that all humans are X, as none fill the criteria for Y. While you are correct that in a practical sense it means there's nothing anyone can do to avoid being a sinner, that does not end its explanatory value nor what they have to do since they are sinners.All humans are air-breathers as they fulfill the criteria for that category and do not fulfill the criteria for being water-breathers. While they might never be capable of changing that fact, it does have explanatory value, and allows for instruction for what they ought to do around... or when entering... water. Yeah, but it gets into a circular problem for yourself given your line of argument against him. Edited by Silent H, : +prostitution

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard