Homosexuality vs. Mildew

Ghost Buster

JimiTime wrote: »

Oh right, so thats what you mean by interpretation. Looking for anything you want and saying its valid. I'll leave you to it as I prefer honesty and integrity.

Not what I mean by interpretation at all. Im not remotely interested in interpretating anything in that book but by Odins beard lots of religious types are.
Im not looking for anything I want. I just choose to live and let live and not take issues with those who do me no harm. I book isnt going to change my mind.

Ghost Buster

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't really the argument some Christians make. The argument is that Lev 18 if a referring to a specific bunch of people within a specific context. It says to the Hebrews do not do like the pagan Egyptians and Canaanites did. And like all of the Bible there is debate over how the passage is actually translated

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm

So not clear then as claimed by others.
Sloppy. That would be an "F" in English class.

Fanny Cradock

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I cant say, to be honest' what the exact lines in the bible are regarding sex but that certainly seem to be the line from the catholic church for one. Why would there be an issue with contraception for starters?

What's this about contraception?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

And like all of the Bible there is debate over how the passage is actually translated

That would be all translations from one language to another.

JimiTime

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Im not remotely interested in interpretating anything in that book

Then stop trying.

but by Odins beard lots of religious types are.

If these 'religious types' are, then what I said applies to them also.

I just choose to live and let live and not take issues with those who do me no harm. I book isnt going to change my mind.

Thanks for that.

PDN

Ghost Buster wrote: »

So not clear then as claimed by others.
Sloppy. That would be an "F" in English class.

One atheist making a claim about the Bible based on the word of another atheist.

Still earns you an F, even if you think putting it in big red letters somehow makes it more convincing.

Now, who are accusing of being sloppy? (Bearing the Forum Charter in mind)

JimiTime

Ghost Buster wrote: »

So not clear then as claimed by others.
Sloppy. That would be an "F" in English class.

Why don't you just toddle back under your bridge.

Zombrex

Ghost Buster wrote: »

So not clear then as claimed by others.

Yeah but I'm a dirty black atheist :pac:

All religions tread a fine line between the concept that the interpretations of their holy books are flexible enough to keep up with shifting discoveries (eg. Earth going around the Sun, billion year old Earth, evolution of humans, slavery) while at the same time ensuring that they don't lose the notion of authority to dictate position.

It is not surprising then that some believe others have invalid interpretations of their holy books. I'm sure others believe their interpretations are invalid. How extreme this position is is largely up to the believer, ask a Creationist what he thinks about PDN's interpretation of Genesis to see that PDN is not alone in think that some interpretations of the Bible are invalid and agenda driven.

The issue, for me at least, isn't really convincing others of the "correct" interpretation, but simply that people are not drummed into the idea that there is only a certain set of correct interpretations by those who abuse their position of authority.

I would hate for a gay Christians only exposed to a narrow set of view points that Christianity is utterly incompatible with a loving and sexual homosexual relationship, to go through his life being ignorant of other positions and interpretations because they are hidden/dismissed/or misrepresented by those who he/she turns to for guidance in these matters.

It is like in the old days when nurses and doctors apposed to abortion would lie to teenagers and young adults over the effects of abortion on the body, such as saying if you have an abortion you will never get pregnant again.

Present the facts honestly, it is really up to the Christian to decide what is for them

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

It is like in the old days when nurses and doctors apposed to abortion would lie to teenagers and young adults over the effects of abortion on the body, such as saying if you have an abortion you will never get pregnant again.

Present the facts honestly, it is really up to the Christian to decide what is for them

I'm trying to be patient, but there's a point where honest debate and differences just crosses the line into downright nonsense.

Somebody saying, "I believe that these are the correct interpretations of certain passages of Scripture (following basic principles of exegesis agreed by most scholars) and I disagree with some alternative interpretations for the reasons given. Therefore the intent of the authors would seem clear." is nothing like someone deliberately lying about the physical effects of abortion.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Somebody saying, "I believe that these are the correct interpretations of certain passages of Scripture (following basic principles of exegesis agreed by most scholars) and I disagree with some alternative interpretations for the reasons given. Therefore the intent of the authors would seem clear." is nothing like someone deliberately lying about the physical effects of abortion.

Correct. It isn't.

And if that was the only thing you were doing I would have absolutely no issue with your posts.

Like I said your personal views are not my concern. You putting forward your personal views is not my concern. You will notice that others have expressed views similar to yours and I didn't say boo to them.

You deliberately misrepresenting other people's views, painting them in an inaccurate and derogatory fashion, well that is a concern.

Why you insist in doing this I've no idea, it simply reminded me of the campaign of disinformation that groups such as the anti-abortion crowd used to do.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Correct. It isn't.

And if that was the only thing you were doing I would have absolutely no issue with your posts. .

That is quite clearly not true, because the only reason we are having this exchange is because you chose to quarrel with my views when I was explaining them to Sam Vimes.

You deliberately misrepresenting other people's views, painting them in an inaccurate and derogatory fashion, well that is a concern.

Why you insist in doing this I've no idea, it simply reminded me of the campaign of disinformation that groups such as the anti-abortion crowd used to do.

If I was misrepresenting other people's views, then that would be wrong of me. However, you are the one who has grossly misrepresented me.

I don't why you keep doing it. I'm quite sure that if I said black was black then you would find some way to butt in and argue something else.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

That is quite clearly not true, because the only reason we are having this exchange is because you chose to quarrel with my views when I was explaining them to Sam Vimes.

Groan

You will notice that the very first line in the very first post on this thread was me correcting a misinterpretation you had presented about the position of these Christians, in your reply to DaraMcG

"Therefore you produce a nonsensical interpretation (that homosexual acts are fine if you think you're gay, but sinful if you're not gay)"

"Not quite, homosexual acts are fine if you are gay (thus homosexual acts are your "natural use" for your sexual orientation) and done for love rather than lust, but not fine if you aren't and are just doing them for lust

The interpretation is that Romans 1 is arguing again unnatural acts of lust, heterosexuals who leave their men or women and, in lust, lie with others of the same sex. It doesn't cover a loving homosexual relationships.

That is the argument at least. Don't really want to get into an argument about exegetics or what ever, simply pointing out you don't seem to be following the interpretation.

The post is here is you don't believe me and couldn't be bothered reading back through the thread.

I wasn't debating your views, I was debating you misrepresenting the other side's views, which you have done constantly and consistently throughout this thread. The most recent example was you representing the view of the pastor on whosoever.org views on celibacy before marriage as "Do you want to shag"

Like I have said, your views on homosexuality is not my concern. I'm happy to discuss them with you, as we were doing before this latest bit of nonsense, but I have no strong desire to attempt to "correct" you. But when you willfully misrepresent the position of others in a derogatory and misleading fashion, I feel a correction is in order.

PDN wrote: »

If I was misrepresenting other people's views, then that would be wrong of me.

Great, we are in agreement. It would be nice if you stopped doing it please.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Groan

You will notice that the very first line in the very first post on this thread was me correcting a misinterpretation you had presented about the position of these Christians, in your reply to DaraMcG

No, I'm not talking about posts earlier in the thread that are unrelated to this particular exchange.

This current exchange we are having, where you have greviously misrepresented my views, - trace it back from this post, in response to your post, in response to my post etc. It goes back to post #45 where you started trying to pick apart my response to Sam Vimes.

I wasn't debating your views, I was debating you misrepresenting the other side's views, which you have done constantly and consistently throughout this thread. The most recent example was you representing the view of the pastor on whosoever.org views on celibacy before marriage as "Do you want to shag"

Once more that is totally untrue.

What I pointed out was that a private agreement between a couple, with no legal standing or witnesses, cannot possibly be accepted by Christians as a marriage as we have no way of knowing whether it was meaningful or whether it was simply "Will you marry me? Yes? OK let's shag!" In fact I have heard one particularly bone-headed (heterosexual) individual claim that he was married on that very basis. Of course when he wanted to marry somebody else he quickly changed his tune and said, "Well it wasn't a real marriage, was it?"

Great, we are in agreement. It would be nice if you stopped doing it please.

You are the only person I see misrepresenting others in this thread. Please stop it.

Fanny Cradock

I was largely enjoying the latter parts of this thread until about a page ago.

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I was largely enjoying the latter parts of this thread until about a page ago.

I want more mildew discussion please.

Fanny Cradock

Maybe the powdery mildew form is the place for you.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That would be all translations from one language to another.

True, when any document is translated there is always questions about the original meaning as very few if any languages have 1 to 1 relationships with each other.

The Bible is no different, though with holy books that are supposed to be inspired by a deity there is obvious a great emphasis put on getting the meaning exactly correct in order to understand the wishes of said deity.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Maybe the powdery mildew form is the place for you.

"Uncinula necator Forum"

AWESOME!

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I was largely enjoying the latter parts of this thread until about a page ago.

Agreed.

If PDN thinks I'm grossly misrepresenting him (by saying he is grossly misrepresenting others) he can either discuss it with me over PM or he can, as a moderator, take action against me.

I've made my point, I think it is clear. Anyone else can make up their own mind by reading the links I posted to and seeing if they come to the same conclusion as PDN.

Move on to the mildew...

Fanny Cradock

Of course, you could simply email the people involved and ask them outright what their is and then hammer it out with PDN via PM.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

That is sort of the point. We have non-Biblical reasons why bestiality and pedophilia are immoral.

What is the non-Biblical reason against homosexual partnerships?

If you discover the absence of a moral objection against genuine homosexual partnerships, rather than lust driven heterosexual same sex partnerships, as the authors of the passages above believe they have, then you are left with no other reason why homosexual partnerships based on love and companionship are immoral according to God.

I'm not sure all societies did/do agree that both bestiality and paedophilia are immoral.

But that has nothing to do with what the Bible says about them. Many societies say worshipping idols is a good thing. And worshipping God a bad thing. The Bible teaches God's view of the matter. We can like it or lump it. But it is utter dishonesty to pretend it says something it does not.
_________________________________________________________________
1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not sure all societies did/do agree that both bestiality and paedophilia are immoral.

True, but that isn't that relevant. There are moral arguments why both are immoral (for example one is a form of animal cruelty, the other harms the child).

wolfsbane wrote: »

But it is utter dishonesty to pretend it says something it does not.

I'm not claiming the Bible says anything it doesn't, in fact the argument is the exact opposite, the argument is that the Bible is silent on the types of mature loving homosexual relationships that are common in the gay community. These types of relationships are not referenced in the Bible, the argument is that the Bible only talks about lustful same sex promiscuity like found in Egyptian and Roman societies.

I think we can both agree that there is a difference between a married man slipping off in secret to a gay bath house to have an orgy and a gay couple in a stable life long monogamous relationship.

These Christians are arguing that the Bible is giving out about the former while silent on the latter as these type of relationships were almost non-existent in Biblical times.

It is sort similar to the argument Christians today make against slavery, that slavery in the Bible referenced a specific thing of a specific time, not slavery in general and there is no issue with thinking that Jesus would not approve of modern slavery than thinking Jesus would approve of modern homosexual relationships. It seems to be only people who view homosexuality only as the pursuit of lustful sexual encounters who take great issue to this difference.

Again, to stress, I'm not arguing for this interpretation, I'm simply presenting it. Like most religious/theological arguments I could spend all day poking holes in it.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not claiming the Bible says anything it doesn't, in fact the argument is the exact opposite, the argument is that the Bible is silent on the types of mature loving homosexual relationships that are common in the gay community. These types of relationships are not referenced in the Bible, the argument is that the Bible only talks about lustful same sex promiscuity like found in Egyptian and Roman societies. .

No actually, the law was quite direct. 'A man should not lie with a man as he would a woman'. This would fall under 'sexual immorality' and is referenced again in the NT several times when we are told to continue to stear clear of sexual immorality. If you can redefine the law, then you have a case, but its as plain as the nose on my face, that whatever the framework, a man having sex with another man is biblically speaking, sexually immoral. It really is that simple. Anyone who says otherwise are either agenda driven, ignorant, dishonest or foolish.

Miracletown

I have to say I think the overall picture painted of gay Christians in this thread is false. Also the assumption that gay people are not interested in saving sex for marriage ignores the fact that most gay people are not welcome in their churches if they pursue a relationship, celibate or not, as well as the fact that the church will more than likely refuse to recognise the status of their marriage.

If the church doesn't reach out to gay people and assist them in pursuing non-sexual relationships until they are married then why on earth would they? After all how many straight people outside of church do you see desiring to wait until marriage to have sex. I don't think this indicates that gay people are somehow not interested in a true covenant definition in marriage or that they would not desire to save sex until marriage. I think it actually highlights how the churches attitude has been well you're already going to hell anyway so you might as well enjoy the ride, which was basically said earlier in this thread and is also incredibly offensive to someone who is gay and still believes in sexual morality.

JimiTime

Miracletown wrote: »

I have to say I think the overall picture painted of gay Christians in this thread is false. Also the assumption that gay people are not interested in saving sex for marriage ignores the fact that most gay people are not welcome in their churches if they pursue a relationship, celibate or not, as well as the fact that the church will more than likely refuse to recognise the status of their marriage.

If the church doesn't reach out to gay people and assist them in pursuing non-sexual relationships until they are married then why on earth would they?

Thats a bit of a red-herring though. I wish Christians didn't get bogged down with what framework the gay sex occurred. The fact is, 'Biblically' there is absolutely no provision for homosexual activity being anything but immoral.

After all how many straight people outside of church do you see desiring to wait until marriage to have sex. I don't think this indicates that gay people are somehow not interested in a true covenant definition in marriage or that they would not desire to save sex until marriage. I think it actually highlights how the churches attitude has been well you're already going to hell anyway so you might as well enjoy the ride, which was basically said earlier in this thread and is also incredibly offensive to someone who is gay and has also managed to keep some morals, thanks.

Again, it matters not. Biblically, homosexual sex can never be moral. The red-herring, from a Christian perspective, is thinking that there is a context that it it can be moral. This whole 'but if they were married'. You can set up 'any' framework, but biblically its always immoral. One of the issues with homosexuality compared to other sexual immorality IMO, is that there seems to be a push to say it is not sinful once its in a relationship etc. An adulterer for example, will 'usually' realise his behaviour is sinful. Whereas with homosexuality, there seems to be a push to say that theres nothing wrong with it. Fair enough, outside of Christianity. Within it though, God, not our desire, is what dictates morality. If this proves problematic for a homosexual who wishes to be Christian, then it is not the church he needs to look at, but himself. As Christ said, 'If your eye causes you to stumble, cut it out.' Its about desiring God, and seeking first the Kingdom. This is a struggle for most, but at least most recognise when they are being sinful.

Miracletown

Fair enough. But if that is the case then the fact that PDN has never met a gay couple who want to get married and save sex till the wedding day should be pretty irrelevant to this discussion. As should the motives and validity behind a marriage that takes place between people who have beliefs from sites such as Whosoever.

I have no problem if you view homosexual relationships as a sin whatever the context. Ideally you should recognise that some gay people will be having casual sex multiple times a week with random partners and others will be in long term commited marriages in which they pursued their dating relationships in a way pleasing to the Bible with the one obvious exception of homosexuality. There will also be other situations, the specifics of which make no difference because you believe homosexual relationships are a sin no matter what.

The problem is that if the marriage taking place between two gay Christians or "Christians" if you prefer the term is being attacked on any other premise other than the fact that they are both of the same sex, then what purpose is that serving other than to damage the reputation of homosexuals and their relationships? I don't see a point to it. A lot of this conversation has seemed to revolve around devaluing homosexual relationships and marriages because they are based on sex or a "shag" and not on a desire to please God. Why? If the Bible says homosexuality is wrong then there should be no extra need to make presumptions about gay people and how they choose to conduct their relationships. The motives behind a gay marriage should not matter either, whether they are noble or horrible.

Stating scripture is one thing. Reinforcing harmful prejudices about gay people is another. Let's keep it clear what the discussion is about. Homosexuality and the Bible.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

No actually, the law was quite direct. 'A man should not lie with a man as he would a woman'. This would fall under 'sexual immorality' and is referenced again in the NT several times when we are told to continue to stear clear of sexual immorality.

I'm aware of that interpretation, I'm not arguing for or against, just trying to accurately put forward the interpretation these Christians use.

They considered both Leviticus and references in the NT to Leviticus to be talking about lustful same sex fornication by heterosexual men of the kind that took place in Egypt, rather than what we would know as modern loving homosexual relationships.

They point to the end of the passage where it states it is unclean (often translated to it is an abomination, though they argue that this is a poor translation and that the word simply means unclean), as a sign that this law is similar to other laws about cleanliness, rather than God proclaiming he finds the idea disgusting.

Basically the interpretation is that a married man should not have lustful sex with boys or men (ie male prostitutes) as this is an unclean/unsafe sexual practice (possibly God warning about STDs being brought back to the wife?). Such things were common in Egypt.

JimiTime wrote: »

If you can redefine the law, then you have a case, but its as plain as the nose on my face, that whatever the framework, a man having sex with another man is biblically speaking, sexually immoral.

It is not really about redefining anything, they argue the original interpretations of the passages are wrong, just as Christians for centuries have revised rather than redefined interpretations when understanding in modern times has forced a re-evaluation (you guys no long thing the Bible says the sun goes around the Earth, not because you have changed what the Bible says but because you have re-interpreted it in modern context).

It seems odd that Christians would have issue understanding this, look at something like slavery. Everytime a naive non-believer stumbles on to this forum and says something like "God condones slavery! That is terrible" they are met by a long and detailed discussion about what "slavery" actually means, the context that it is used in, what life was like in 1000BC Israel, the various rules regarding slavery, how these don't mean what we understand as slavery today etc etc

It seems odd then that people over this issue would be like Nope it means exactly what it says there, any other interpretation is false agenda driven drivel.

JimiTime wrote: »

Anyone who says otherwise are either agenda driven, ignorant, dishonest or foolish.

Possibly, but such accusations are some what pointless.

I imagine you feel you are no more agenda driven for having a different interpretation to a Creationist or a Catholic or a Calvinist than these Christians feel they are for having a different interpretation to you.

Robin has often posted research suggesting that in fact the vast majority of religious people are biased in how they interpret religious text, and mold their interpretation around what they already believe, consciously and subconsciously believe and hold to be the correct way things should be. Most of you here naturally reject such an idea, no one thinks themselves as particularly agenda driven, and everyone thinks they are doing a relatively honest job of interpretation of their religious text.

Are they agenda driven? Who knows?
Are the rest of you agenda driven? Who knows?

With no way of testing these interpretations until you are dead and standing before God it becomes some what pointless to throw accusations around here on Earth.

As is so often said, it is between them and God to determine if they (or you) are honestly interpreting the Bible as best they can.

JimiTime

Miracletown wrote: »

Fair enough. But if that is the case then the fact that PDN has never met a gay couple who want to get married and save sex till the wedding day should be pretty irrelevant to this discussion.

I completely agree that it is irrelevant to discussing if Homosexuality is immoral from a Christian POV.

I have no problem if you view homosexual relationships as a sin whatever the context.

Again, its got little to do with my view. If the discussion is if homosexuality is against Gods moral statutes, then looking to what we see as the source of Gods communication with us is what we need do. Again, outside of God, what you see as moral is your perogative. Within God though, we need to honestly look at what he indicates.

Ideally you should recognise that some gay people will be having casual sex multiple times a week with random partners and others will be in long term commited marriages in which they pursued their dating relationships. There will also be other situations, the specifics of which make no difference because you believe homosexual relationships are a sin no matter what.

I agree. I don't understand why some folk complicate it with anecdotes of 'loving relationships' on one side, or 'they're all promiscuous sex maniacs' on the other. (Obviously exagerated to make the point)

The problem is that if the marriage taking place between two gay Christians or "Christians" if you prefer the term is being attacked on any other premise other than the fact that they are both of the same sex, then what purpose is that serving other than to damage the reputation of homosexuals and their relationships?

Forgive me, but I'm not sure of what you are asking here?

A lot of this conversation has seemed to revolve around devaluing homosexual relationships and marriages because they are based on sex or a "shag" and not on a desire to please God. Why? If the Bible says homosexuality is wrong then there should be no extra need to make presumptions about gay people and how they choose to conduct their relationships. The motives behind a gay marriage should not matter either, whether they are noble or horrible.

I agree. From a Christianity POV, there is no homosexual 'marriage' first of all. Second of all, the context of their sexual encounters is of little consaquence.

Stating scripture is one thing. Reinforcing harmful prejudices about gay people is another. Let's keep it clear what the discussion is about. Homosexuality and the Bible.

I concur.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm aware of that interpretation, I'm not arguing for or against, just trying to accurately put forward the interpretation these Christians use.

No problem. I'm merely saying that they are being dishonest. Likely due to their agenda.

They considered both Leviticus and references in the NT to Leviticus to be talking about lustful same sex fornication by heterosexual men of the kind that took place in Egypt, rather than what we would know as modern loving homosexual relationships.

Its their perogative what they read into the text. All I would hope for is honesty. If they insist on their being honest, then God will judge if they or I or whoever have been truly honest.

It is not really about redefining anything, they argue the original interpretations of the passages are wrong,

Well its quite plain that they're wrong, but if they insist that they're being honest, then God will be the final judge.

just as Christians for centuries have revised rather than redefined interpretations when understanding in modern times has forced a re-evaluation (you guys no long thing the Bible says the sun goes around the Earth, not because you have changed what the Bible says but because you have re-interpreted it in modern context).

Is this a reference to 'the sun stands still'? for if it is, the bible 'never' tries to tell its readers that the sun goes round the earth. The context has nothing to do with teaching about the cosmos, but rather intended to describe Gods power, and his delivering Israels enemies into their hands. Whereas the law concerning homosexuality, is aimed at telling you that homosexuality is immoral.

It seems odd that Christians would have issue understanding this, look at something like slavery. Everytime a naive non-believer stumbles on to this forum and says something like "God condones slavery! That is terrible" they are met by a long and detailed discussion about what "slavery" actually means, the context that it is used in, what life was like in 1000BC Israel, the various rules regarding slavery, how these don't mean what we understand as slavery today etc etc

Again, this has nothing to do with what God has plainly stated about sexual morality. Bringing in such things only serves to muddy the arguement, be it intentional or not.

It seems odd then that people over this issue would be like Nope it means exactly what it says there, any other interpretation is false agenda driven drivel.

If something is plain, it is plain. If something isn't, then it isn't. Some things are more open than others. This is not one of those occasions.

I imagine you feel you are no more agenda driven for having a different interpretation to a Creationist or a Catholic or a Calvinist than these Christians feel they are for having a different interpretation to you.

All i seek for myself, and from others is honesty. In certain circumstances though, it can become apparent that people are not being honest.

As is so often said, it is between them and God to determine if they (or you) are honestly interpreting the Bible as best they can.

Indeed, when it comes down to it, if they insist that they are being honest, or me for that matter, God will see the truth of the matter.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm aware of that interpretation, I'm not arguing for or against, just trying to accurately put forward the interpretation these Christians use.

They considered both Leviticus and references in the NT to Leviticus to be talking about lustful same sex fornication by heterosexual men of the kind that took place in Egypt, rather than what we would know as modern loving homosexual relationships.

They point to the end of the passage where it states it is unclean (often translated to it is an abomination, though they argue that this is a poor translation and that the word simply means unclean), as a sign that this law is similar to other laws about cleanliness, rather than God proclaiming he finds the idea disgusting.

Basically the interpretation is that a married man should not have lustful sex with boys or men (ie male prostitutes) as this is an unclean/unsafe sexual practice (possibly God warning about STDs being brought back to the wife?). Such things were common in Egypt.



It is not really about redefining anything, they argue the original interpretations of the passages are wrong, just as Christians for centuries have revised rather than redefined interpretations when understanding in modern times has forced a re-evaluation (you guys no long thing the Bible says the sun goes around the Earth, not because you have changed what the Bible says but because you have re-interpreted it in modern context).

It seems odd that Christians would have issue understanding this, look at something like slavery. Everytime a naive non-believer stumbles on to this forum and says something like "God condones slavery! That is terrible" they are met by a long and detailed discussion about what "slavery" actually means, the context that it is used in, what life was like in 1000BC Israel, the various rules regarding slavery, how these don't mean what we understand as slavery today etc etc

It seems odd then that people over this issue would be like Nope it means exactly what it says there, any other interpretation is false agenda driven drivel.



Possibly, but such accusations are some what pointless.

I imagine you feel you are no more agenda driven for having a different interpretation to a Creationist or a Catholic or a Calvinist than these Christians feel they are for having a different interpretation to you.

Robin has often posted research suggesting that in fact the vast majority of religious people are biased in how they interpret religious text, and mold their interpretation around what they already believe, consciously and subconsciously believe and hold to be the correct way things should be. Most of you here naturally reject such an idea, no one thinks themselves as particularly agenda driven, and everyone thinks they are doing a relatively honest job of interpretation of their religious text.

Are they agenda driven? Who knows?
Are the rest of you agenda driven? Who knows?

With no way of testing these interpretations until you are dead and standing before God it becomes some what pointless to throw accusations around here on Earth.

As is so often said, it is between them and God to determine if they (or you) are honestly interpreting the Bible as best they can.

To this and your previous to me, I ask if words have any meaning? If none of the Bible can be certain of interpretation, can any communication? Are we expected to make sense of your posts here? Or is their meaning up for grabs to anyone who wants to understand it whichever way?

I don't think any reasonable person would permit such abuse of language. Most communication is easy to understand, some takes a little more care, and some is hard. The pro-homosexual interpretation is totally bogus, flying in the face of both common sense and scholarly exegesis, and the historic consensus of the Jewish and Christian religions since the relevant Biblical texts were written.

The promoters of 'Christian' homosexuality and 'Christian' non- marital heterosexual practice are just making it up as they go along.

Sexual offences worthy of death under the Law of Moses:
Leviticus 20:10 ‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.

11 The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

12 If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. They have committed perversion. Their blood shall be upon them.

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

14 If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is wickedness. They shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there may be no wickedness among you.

15 If a man mates with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal.

16 If a woman approaches any animal and mates with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood is upon them.
_________________________________________________________________
Matthew 5:27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.