Okely-dokely, I want to start by making something very clear. I have nothing against homosexuality. I support the legal institution of gay marriages (or civil-unions if it'll make Xtians cringe less). I am even for gays adopting children.
But let's get serious, in order to make Xtianity look gay-friendly one has to really twist and turn biblical passages to one's own agenda.
Since I do not read Hebrew or Greek, I admittedly cannot speak firsthand about the actual meaning of words used in the original versions of the Bible, and must rely upon English translations and comparative (translation) research done by others. Yet I do not feel I am left at some major disadvantage (given the amount of research out there).
Rrhain writes:
No, in the Bible, homosexuality as we understand it is never mentioned. Instead, there are 4 (or 6, depending on how you interpret it) admonitions against temple prostitution and ritualistic sex.
The first sentence is absolutely correct. The ancient world had no conception of a "homosexual lifestyle", or of a person confined to a strict life of homosexuality.
The second sentence is way off. Just because the Bible does not talk about homosexuality itself, does not mean the Bible was incapable of blasting into specific sexual practices which define homosexuality as we know it today.
Leviticus 18:22--- "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it [is] an abomination."
Now before someone from version control rips my head off, I am well aware that the original (ie non-English) passage is said to read: "Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman's bed: it is ritually unclean."
Even so, is that some sort of acceptance of male on male sex? There is a reason it is unclean and that is because male on male sex is so unclean it defiles the "marriage" bed.
We can further put this into context, a little bit further on.
Leviticus 20:13--- "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have commited an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
This is not simply an admonition against ritual sex, or at least not a simple admonition. If the original version says something different I have not seen any mention of it in articles meant to defend homosexuality from Xtian teachings.
Anyway, I think it is somewhat deceptive to label all anti-gay-sex-act commentary as relating to temple prostitution and ritualistic sex, when Corinthians sets things out in a pretty straightforward manner and does not put its labels "in context".
1 Corinthians 6:9--- "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornication,... nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,... [will get into heaven]"
One can desconstruct the reasons for this any which way, but when all is said and done, it is obvious that--- like all the other evils on that long list (for example: theft)--- homosexual sex acts are not supposed to be engaged in.
And for those that think none of this is supported more than once in the New Testament, Paul practically restates Corinthians in 1 Timothy 1:8-10.
Rrhain writes:
This is in comparison to over 300 admonitions against various types of heterosexual sex (including heterosexual temple prostitution and ritualistic sex.)
This hardly cuts down the argument that homosexual sex acts are bad according to the Bible. If anything it should indicate how bad homosexual sex acts are. There may be 300 admonitions that whittle down what heterosexual sex acts are allowed, but you only need one admonition if you are wiping out a whole class of sex acts altogether.
Your argument would be much more persuasive if those 300 admonitions pertained to both, so that we could see the Bible setting up under what conditions both are allowed.
Rrhain writes:
This doesn't mean god loves straights any less than gays...just that they need more supervision.
Exactly right. And I think this is where both camps get their arguments all bunched up.
The anti-gay Xtian side misses the point that none of these passages state that people who engage in sex acts are ultimately more or less bad or irredeemable than other sinners.
Corinthians and Paul's restatement of this passage makes this quite clear, especially given the punchline to both...
1 Corinthians 6:11---"And such were some of you, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."
So yes, God can forgive and love people who commit homosexual sex acts, just as much as others on that nice long list of bad people (again, let's use thieves as an example).
On the other hand, pro-gay Xtians are majorly missing the point in believing this forgiveness or love somehow legitimates the practice of homosexual sex. I mean come on, to think so is the DIRECT equivalent of a thief feeling his actions are somehow okay, because God will forgive him. Does ANYONE really believe a thief should come away from Xtianity feeling that?
And this is easily carried over to the topics at hand.
Should the Xtian church sanctify the union of two men as blessed before God? Well... should it bless--- or otherwise recognize as legitimate business--- a carjacking operation?
Should the Xtian church support gay adoptions? Uhhhh... should the Xtian church accept babies being adopted by known thieves, who continue to openly ply their trade? If there were no other options, then maybe. But in reality, not likely.
Should the Xtian church allow gay clergy? Sure. They certainly have accepted all sorts of sinners into the ranks of clergy. But should the Xtian church allow ACTIVELY gay clergy? Ahem... should it allow active thieves into the clergy? Wouldn't that make most of the teachings ring just a little hollow?
Remember, I'm not saying I'm for any of this bigotry. I'm simply saying once moral lines are adopted (and in the Bible it is clear that homosexual acts are at least the equivalent of acts of theft), certain decisions or judgements are clearcut. It is just a matter of following moral proscriptions to their logical conclusions.
------------------
holmes
[This message has been edited by holmes, 08-09-2003]
™ Version 4.2