The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

loh_oro

For the people who say they believe marriage is only between a Man and a women can I ask you a question. Were you against interracial marriage? Using the logic some are using you see marriage between a man and a woman but before interracial marriage was allowed people saw marriage between people of the same skin color.

I think that your religious beliefs should not be a factor when your deciding Civil rights of an entire group people who Deserve equal rights

lazybones32

Bridget Whining Knitter wrote: »

I am a Roman Catholic who has read enough of the Bible to notice that homosexuality is held to be sinful and abhorrent by God. There is a major referendum coming up next year, which may result in redefining the Christian concept of marriage by including homosexuality within its ambit. I am wondering are there any Christian organisations which will be actively campaigning for the "no" vote? The Catholic Church itself is eerily silent on the topic lately.

Mod: Merged with the megatread.

The Referendum shouldn't infringe upon Christian marriages but will examine whether people consider homosexual unions as deserving as the same rights, protection and recognition as heterosexual unions. (This could be seen as being financially motivated - tax credits - or to open up the possibility for adoption of children)
There will be Christian individuals and organisations highlighting the differences between the two groups and how they are not the same and therefore, should not be treated equally.
The Church is silent now but will issue statements in due time; most likely through a letter from the Bishops. The Church has stayed quiet since the last time it publicly endorsed a "Yes" vote on an abortion Bill some years ago and the Bill/Referendum was defeated - by the Pro-Life and Abortion groups.

gaynorvader

Bridget Whining Knitter wrote: »

I am a Roman Catholic who has read enough of the Bible to notice that homosexuality is held to be sinful and abhorrent by God. There is a major referendum coming up next year, which may result in redefining the Christian concept of marriage by including homosexuality within its ambit. I am wondering are there any Christian organisations which will be actively campaigning for the "no" vote? The Catholic Church itself is eerily silent on the topic lately.

Mod: Merged with the megatread.

I only know of two places in the Bible where homosexuality is referenced. Once in Leviticus where it also tells us that it is sinful to eat certain animals, wear mixed cloths, cut hair, etc. and once in Paul's letters, where it also mentions that women should not speak in church and mentions that homosexuality should be an offence punishable by death.
The Bible says a lot of things, if you're going to pick and choose what to follow from it, try to only pick the positive and leave out the negative.

Bannasidhe

Christian Pastor sets himself on fire as a protest against homophobia and other injustices.

A retired United Methodist minister in Texas who had championed civil rights for African-Americans and LGBT people has committed suicide in dramatic fashion to protest continuing injustices, setting himself afire in a public parking lot.

The Rev. Charles Moore, 79, doused himself in gasoline and set himself aflame in a strip-mall parking lot in the small town of Grand Saline, where he had grown up, about 70 miles east of Dallas on June 23...

He left a letter on his car windshield explaining the reasons for his action, and his son-in-law, Bill Renfro, discovered other notes at Moore’s home in Allen, a Dallas suburb, detailing his discontents. Moore cited continuing discrimination against LGBT people, the ban on the performance of same-sex marriages by Methodist clergy, the continuing use of the death penalty, cuts in social programs for the poor, and other injustices he saw around him. He also felt he had not done enough to alleviate these problems, even though he had been a longtime activist against racism, sexism, and homophobia, and poverty. He once went on a 15-day hunger strike to protest his church’s treatment of gays, and he worked with the poor in India.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/religion/2014/07/14/minister-dies-self-immolation-protest-homophobia-other-injustices#.U8R9j7xSVI8.facebook

Rest In Peace Charles Moore.

You were too good for this world.

Benny_Cake

Mod: I've removed a few posts, one of which was an unnecessarily nasty remark, and one which was an attempt to pick an argument based on the same remark. Please report posts where necessary.

Nick Park

gaynorvader wrote: »

I only know of two places in the Bible where homosexuality is referenced. Once in Leviticus where it also tells us that it is sinful to eat certain animals, wear mixed cloths, cut hair, etc. and once in Paul's letters, where it also mentions that women should not speak in church and mentions that homosexuality should be an offence punishable by death.
The Bible says a lot of things, if you're going to pick and choose what to follow from it, try to only pick the positive and leave out the negative.

Would you please cite the reference in Paul's letters where you claim he says homosexuality should be an offence punishable by death?

gaynorvader

Nick Park wrote: »

Would you please cite the reference in Paul's letters where you claim he says homosexuality should be an offence punishable by death?

Romans 1:26-32

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Nick Park

gaynorvader wrote: »

Romans 1:26-32

That's certainly a very novel way of interpreting that passage. Of course it would mean that Paul was also advocating the death penalty for boasting, being proud, whispering or being envious.

Such an interpretation would seem to be at odds with Paul's writings elsewhere, his view on how Christians should relate to the civil authorities and their legal processes, with the overall argument of the Book of Romans, and with the verses that immediately follow.

It would seem better to interpret this passage in the straightforward way as Christians have done for nearly 2000 years - namely that Paul lists a number of sins that demonstrate the sinful condition of mankind, and that such sinfulness (if people don't accept the offer of salvation) will result in hell - or eternal death.

This explains the passage that immediately follows, which would be incomprehensible if Paul was advocating capital punishment for a list of sins:

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realising that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God ‘will repay each person according to what they have done.’[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honour and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. (Romans 2:1-8)

The argument is very clear. Everyone has sinned. Our sin is manifested in various ways, including sexual immorality (both heterosexual and homosexual) and more socially acceptable sins such as greed. But judgement of these sins is God's prerogative, and a day of wrath is coming when He will judge them eternally.

This thought is developed throughout Romans. Sin is a universal human condition, for all have sinned and fallen short (Rom 3:23). And the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23).

So, sorry, you would have to work really hard, and ignore everything we know about biblical studies, to argue that Paul was advocating capital punishment for homosexuality in that passage.

gaynorvader

Nick Park wrote: »

That's certainly a very novel way of interpreting that passage. Of course it would mean that Paul was also advocating the death penalty for boasting, being proud, whispering or being envious.

Such an interpretation would seem to be at odds with Paul's writings elsewhere, his view on how Christians should relate to the civil authorities and their legal processes, with the overall argument of the Book of Romans, and with the verses that immediately follow.

It would seem better to interpret this passage in the straightforward way as Christians have done for nearly 2000 years - namely that Paul lists a number of sins that demonstrate the sinful condition of mankind, and that such sinfulness (if people don't accept the offer of salvation) will result in hell - or eternal death.

This explains the passage that immediately follows, which would be incomprehensible if Paul was advocating capital punishment for a list of sins:



The argument is very clear. Everyone has sinned. Our sin is manifested in various ways, including sexual immorality (both heterosexual and homosexual) and more socially acceptable sins such as greed. But judgement of these sins is God's prerogative, and a day of wrath is coming when He will judge them eternally.

This thought is developed throughout Romans. Sin is a universal human condition, for all have sinned and fallen short (Rom 3:23). And the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23).

So, sorry, you would have to work really hard, and ignore everything we know about biblical studies, to argue that Paul was advocating capital punishment for homosexuality in that passage.

Fair enough, thank you for pointing that out to me. If you are to take that chapter alongside the previous chapter you'd surely have to concede that homosexual marriage should be allowed or else you'd fall under "passing judgment on someone else"?
I find it odd, however, that Paul seizes upon homosexuality, which is only mentioned in one other place in the Bible. If that passage is the only justification for calling homosexuality a sin, it's an extremely weak reason as Paul was an apostle and not a prophet, perhaps he intentionally or unintentionally allowed his own prejudices interfere with his writings, or perhaps there was a political reason behind it.

Nick Park

gaynorvader wrote: »

Fair enough, thank you for pointing that out to me. If you are to take that chapter alongside the previous chapter you'd surely have to concede that homosexual marriage should be allowed or else you'd fall under "passing judgment on someone else"?
I find it odd, however, that Paul seizes upon homosexuality, which is only mentioned in one other place in the Bible. If that passage is the only justification for calling homosexuality a sin, it's an extremely weak reason as Paul was an apostle and not a prophet, perhaps he intentionally or unintentionally allowed his own prejudices interfere with his writings, or perhaps there was a political reason behind it.

Defining the word 'marriage' to have a particular meaning (the union of a man and a woman) is hardly equivalent to passing judgement on someone's sin, is it?

Anyhow, as I have discussed elsewhere, my own opinion is that the State has no business meddling in marriage at all.

I don't think it is correct to say that homosexuality is only mentioned in one other place in the Bible. Off the top of my head I can think of at least seven biblical references to it.

Also, the argument that Paul was an apostle, not a prophet, is not going to cut much ice with Christians. Christians generally believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of Scripture (including Paul).

Penny 4 Thoughts

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't think it is correct to say that homosexuality is only mentioned in one other place in the Bible. Off the top of my head I can think of at least seven biblical references to it.

Actually homosexuality is never mentioned in the Bible. There is no word for homosexuality in Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew.

There has been endless debate as to what was actually being meant by the terms used in the Bible that are commonly taken to mean homosexual acts. For example there is a common belief in Christianity that Paul's use of the term "Arsenokoitai" (a word he seems to have made up), was referring to men sleeping with male prostitutes.

I think everyone can agree that if that is what Paul was talking about there is a world of difference between condemning men sneaking away from their wives to sleep with male prostitutes, and two gay men in love getting married.

We will probably never know what Paul actually meant, and certainly it would not be at all surprising if he was homophobic and viewed all homosexual acts as morally wrong. That would not have been an uncommon view at the time.

But it is certainly not clear cut what is being referred to. Christians have spend thousands of years debating the ins and outs of other meanings in the Bible, it would seem odd to pick this as something that is decided.

Or to put it another way, there is nothing in the Bible that stops a Christian fully supporting gay relationships and gay marriage other than how they choose to interpret these passages.

Nick Park

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

Actually homosexuality is never mentioned in the Bible. There is no word for homosexuality in Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew.

This could turn into some really tiresome semantics, but ....


ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-al-i-tee, or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
noun
sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex. (dictionary.com)


There are at least seven Scriptural references to behaviour directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.

There has been endless debate as to what was actually being meant by the terms used in the Bible that are commonly taken to mean homosexual acts. For example there is a common belief in Christianity that Paul's use of the term "Arsenokoitai" (a word he seems to have made up), was referring to men sleeping with male prostitutes.

It's actually not that common at all. It's a minority view.

If you approach the Bible with a genuine desire to understand what it says, rather than looking for a way to make it say what you want it to say, then it seems pretty clear.

We know that Paul used the Septuagint (the standard Greek translation of the Old Testament in his day). When the Septuagint translates the prohibitions of homoerotic behaviour from Leviticus it uses two Greek words: arseno (a man) and koitai (lying with - hence our English word 'coitus').

Paul puts these two words together to form a compound word - arsenokoitai You really don't need to be a hotshot Greek scholar to work out what he means.

To be honest, the whole thing about Paul inventing a new word and therefore we can't be sure what he meant is a smokescreen. If you join together two words (eg 'Bible' and 'bash') to form one ('biblebasher') then it insults everyone's intelligence to claim we can't make the connection.

Penny 4 Thoughts

Nick Park wrote: »

There are at least seven Scriptural references to behaviour directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.

None of the passages in the Bible describe anything like a modern homosexual relationship and no where in the Bible is there comment on such relationships. The Bible references homosexual acts only in the context of lust and fornication.

Nick Park wrote: »

We know that Paul used the Septuagint (the standard Greek translation of the Old Testament in his day). When the Septuagint translates the prohibitions of homoerotic behaviour from Leviticus it uses two Greek words: arseno (a man) and koitai (lying with - hence our English word 'coitus').

Paul puts these two words together to form a compound word - arsenokoitai You really don't need to be a hotshot Greek scholar to work out what he means.

To be honest, the whole thing about Paul inventing a new word and therefore we can't be sure what he meant is a smokescreen. If you join together two words (eg 'Bible' and 'bash') to form one ('biblebasher') then it insults everyone's intelligence to claim we can't make the connection.

The problem with that is that no Biblical scholar takes that theory seriously, because language does not form like that. People do not just join words together in a literal sense to make new words. Take the word breakfast. No one is actually fasting and thus breaking the fast with breakfast, compound words rarely if ever mean literally what they mean (even Bible basher does not mean someone who literally bashes a Bible)

So with such a simplistic reading of the Bible you fall into the trap you just complained about, honestly evaluating the Bible, which that theory does not do. Of course if you want homosexual relationships to be considered bad you will find the interpretation that fits that desire.

Nick Park

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

None of the passages in the Bible describe anything like a modern homosexual relationship and no where in the Bible is there comment on such relationships. The Bible references homosexual acts only in the context of lust and fornication.

So, you want to limit the use of the word 'homosexuality' to relationships where there is no lust or fornication?

The problem with that is that no Biblical scholar takes that theory seriously, because language does not form like that. People do not just join words together in a literal sense to make new words. Take the word breakfast. No one is actually fasting and thus breaking the fast with breakfast, compound words rarely if ever mean literally what they mean (even Bible basher does not mean someone who literally bashes a Bible)

Maybe you should think a bit more carefully before making claims about what 'no Biblical scholar takes seriously'? I have a postgraduate degree in theology and have discussed this at length with a number of leading Biblical scholars who take it very seriously indeed.

So with such a simplistic reading of the Bible you fall into the trap you just complained about, honestly evaluating the Bible, which that theory does not do. Of course if you want homosexual relationships to be considered bad you will find the interpretation that fits that desire.

Actually, if I thought the Bible could honestly be viewed as supporting homosexual relationships that would make me very happy indeed (due to some people I care about very much who are in long term same sex relationships). However, I cannot honestly reach such a conclusion. And I've yet to see anyone follow sound hermeneutics and exegesis to reach such a conclusion.

Penny 4 Thoughts

Nick Park wrote: »

So, you want to limit the use of the word 'homosexuality' to relationships where there is no lust or fornication?

Again the word "homosexuality" is not in the Bible.

The Biblical actions described are directed to lust and fornication, not loving relationships. You will notice the Bible is also pretty strong against heterosexual lust and fornication, but no one interprets that as meaning the Bible doesn't support heterosexual relationships where the persons involved love each other. Oddly enough.

Nick Park wrote: »

Maybe you should think a bit more carefully before making claims about what 'no Biblical scholar takes seriously'? I have a postgraduate degree in theology and have discussed this at length with a number of leading Biblical scholars who take it very seriously indeed.

Those "leading Biblical scholars" must not know very much about how language works. Theology would not seem the relevant disciple here, rather diachronic linguistics. I would be very interested in how any Biblical scholar with an understanding of linguistic justifies such a simplistic interpretation of these passages. One without an anti-gay agenda I mean.

Nick Park

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

The Biblical actions described are directed to lust and fornication, not loving relationships. You will notice the Bible is also pretty strong against heterosexual lust and fornication, but no one interprets that as meaning the Bible doesn't support heterosexual relationships where the persons involved love each other. Oddly enough.

It's hardly odd when you consider that the Bible contains numerous passages that speak very positively of heterosexual relationships. Whereas, as we both know, there are no such passages affirming homosexual relationships.

So, what we have are a number of biblical passages that speak negatively about homosexual activities, none that speak positively about homosexual activities, but if you work really hard at doing so you can try to explain away the negative passages (but not very convincingly). Then you are left with an argument from silence that can only be maintained by steadfastly rejecting any interpretation that doesn't fit your theory.

It would be interesting to see what results we could produce if we approached other biblical passages with a similar method.

"Ah, but idolatry is just fine - it's just worshipping the bad kinds of idols that is wrong."

"No, stealing is OK. It's only bad if you steal from really nice people."

Nick Park

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

Again the word "homosexuality" is not in the Bible.

Biblical scholars disagree with you. Modern Bible translations are produced by some of the leading Biblical scholars in the world. In fact when any Biblical scholar serves on a translation committee that is something to put on their CV. This is how some of them translate arsenoikoites in 1 Timothy 1:10

"and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching" (New American Standard Bible)

"They are people who are sexually unfaithful, and people who have intercourse with the same sex. They are kidnappers, liars, individuals who give false testimonies in court, and those who do anything else that is opposed to sound teaching" (Common English Bible)

"for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine" (New International Version)

"The Law was written for people who are sexual perverts or who live as homosexuals or are kidnappers or liars or won’t tell the truth in court. It is for anything else that opposes the correct teaching" (Contemporary English Version)

"the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine," (English Standard Version)

"who take part in sexual sins, who have sexual relations with people of the same sex, who sell slaves, who tell lies, who speak falsely, and who do anything against the true teaching of God." (New Century Version)

"sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers—in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching." (New English Translation)

"fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching" (New Revised Standard Version)

"for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and for any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;" (World English Bible)

"whoremongers, sodomites, men-stealers, liars, perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that to sound doctrine is adverse," (Young's Literal Translation)

A few translations use more generalised terms (eg 'sexual perversion')

So, to sum up, the majority of translators see this term as referring to homosexuality in general. A minority opt for a more generalised term - but never for one that would exclude the kind of homosexual relationships that you seem to think are somehow supported by Scripture.


Now, let me make clear that this should never be used to support homophobia, or to advocate any kind of legal discrimination against homosexuals. But the weight of the evidence contradicts your claim that the Bible does not refer to homosexuality. It does refer to homosexuality - and always in negative terms.

Penny 4 Thoughts

Nick Park wrote: »

It's hardly odd when you consider that the Bible contains numerous passages that speak very positively of heterosexual relationships. Whereas, as we both know, there are no such passages affirming homosexual relationships.

There are also passages that speak very negatively about heterosexual relationships. So much so that the death penalty is used on those who have the wrong type of heterosexual relationship. So God must not like heterosexuality very much...

Of course it is more complicated than that. Throughout the Bible heterosexual relationships based on love and companionship are treated favorably, and heterosexual relationships based on just lust and sex are treated negatively. Umm, I wonder what message the Bible is trying to say here ....

You also find the same condemnation of lustful homosexual relationships. Loving companionship homosexual relationships are not commented on in the Bible as such concepts would have been largely alien to the populations at the time. You will notice the Bible also doesn't comment on antibiotics or trains or computers either.

It takes a particular type of view point to say that because the Bible condemns lustful homosexual relationships it must also condemn loving homosexual relationships when the Bible takes the exact opposite position on heterosexual relationships (condemning lustful ones but celebrating loving ones).

Again the Bible never mentions antibiotics, trains or first past the post voting systems. Most Christians seem able to figure out if they are good things or not without having to say that the Bible never explicitly mentions them therefore we should do them.

The claim that you are honestly interpreting the Bible rings hollow if you are applying an argument only in this specific case to reach a particular conclusion.

Penny 4 Thoughts

Nick Park wrote: »

So, to sum up, the majority of translators see this term as referring to homosexuality in general.

Again your weakness in linguistics is an issue here.

There was no concept of "homosexuality in general" when these works were written. All of the original Hebrew and Greek terms referred to lustful homosexual practice, mostly in regard to male prostitution and rape of men (two common phenomena in Paul's time).

When the Bible would speak of loving relationships between heterosexuals it would speak of marriage or romantic love. No where is marriage or romantic love between homosexual condemned (or even mentioned) in the Bible, which isn't surprising because they would have been alien concepts at the time. What the authors of the Bible were concerned about was male prostitution and homosexual rape.

As for your translations you conveniently ignore that the translations that use "homosexuality in general" tend to be from older translations or anti-gay churches who, like the people of the time, also seem to think loving homosexual relationships are an alien concept.

Modern translations that look at these passages honestly do not use homosexual in a general sense. They mostly use sexual perverse or male prostitution to convey the generally understood meaning of these terms, forced male and male sexual relationships.

Again if you want this to be anti-gay you will find an interpretation, no matter how linguistically or historically inaccurate it is. But you set out to do this, against the facts.

Nick Park

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

There are also passages that speak very negatively about heterosexual relationships. So much so that the death penalty is used on those who have the wrong type of heterosexual relationship. So God must not like heterosexuality very much...if they are good things or not without having to say that the Bible never explicitly mentions them therefore we should do them.

The claim that you are honestly interpreting the Bible rings hollow if you are applying an argument only

Of course it is more complicated than that. Throughout the Bible heterosexual relationships based on love and companionship are treated favorably, and heterosexual relationships based on just lust and sex are treated negatively. Umm, I wonder what message the Bible is trying to say here ....

You also find the same condemnation of lustful homosexual relationships. Loving companionship homosexual relationships are not commented on in the Bible as such concepts would have been largely alien to the populations at the time. You will notice the Bible also doesn't comment on antibiotics or trains or computers either.

It takes a particular type of view point to say that because the Bible condemns lustful homosexual relationships it must also condemn loving homosexual relationships when the Bible takes the exact opposite position on heterosexual relationships (condemning lustful ones but celebrating loving ones).

Again the Bible never mentions antibiotics, trains or first past the post voting systems. Most Christians seem able to figure out in this specific case to reach a particular conclusion.

So, nothing other than an argument from silence then. And an insinuation that anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest.

Nick Park

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

Again your weakness in linguistics is an issue here.

Hmm, we're discussing Greek words, and my linguistic abilities are sufficient for me to read Greek. What about you Penny? How's your Greek?

There was no concept of "homosexuality in general" when these works were written. All of the original Hebrew and Greek terms referred to lustful homosexual practice, mostly in regard to male prostitution and rape of men (two common phenomena in Paul's time).

So, you're seriously arguing that the concept of homosexuality didn't exist in the First Century AD? You really want to make such an assertion? People didn't understand the concept of two people of the same gender engaging in sexual activity, and were unable to differentiate that concept from two people of different genders engaging in sexual intercourse?

When the Bible would speak of loving relationships between heterosexuals it would speak of marriage or romantic love. No where is marriage or romantic love between homosexual condemned (or even mentioned) in the Bible, which isn't surprising because they would have been alien concepts at the time. What the authors of the Bible were concerned about was male prostitution and homosexual rape.

Unfortunately most biblical scholars don't agree with you here. So maybe, Penny, you could tell us your own experience and expertise in biblical studies. Where did you study theology?

As for your translations you conveniently ignore that the translations that use "homosexuality in general" tend to be from older translations or anti-gay churches who, like the people of the time, also seem to think loving homosexual relationships are an alien concept.

The NASB was revised in 1995 and is acknowledged by liberals and conservatives from all denominations as being the best word-for-word translation in the English language.

The CEB was published in 2011 and was sponsored by a number of churches including the Presbyterian Church in the USA (which ordains practicing homosexuals and conducts same sex marriages) and the Episcopalian Church (which has a practicing gay bishop).

The NIV was revised in 2011.

The CEV was produced in 1995, not by any 'anti-gay churches' but by the American Bible Society.

The ESV was produced in 1971 by the National Council of Churches. It is rejected by most conservatives due to its ggender inclusive language.

The New Century Version was published in 1987 and revised in 2007.

The New English Translation was published in 2005. It was commenced at the suggestion of the Society for Biblical Literature and completed by the Biblical Studies Foundation.

The New RSV was produced in 1989 by the National Council of Churches.

The World English Bible was published in 2000.

If these are "older translations" then what do you define as newer translations? Ones produced since last Tuesday?

It is patently untrue that the majority of these translations were produced by "anti-gay churches". Why on earth didn't you bother to check the facts before making such an extraordinary claim?

Modern translations that look at these passages honestly do not use homosexual in a general sense. They mostly use sexual perverse or male prostitution to convey the generally understood meaning of these terms, forced male and male sexual relationships.

Ah, now this is interesting.

Earlier in this thread you were claiming that biblical scholars supported your view. Now that it transpires that most of the best biblical scholars don't agree with you, as evidenced by their Bible translations, you dismiss all those who disagree with you as being dishonest.

That's a nice tactic.

Again if you want this to be anti-gay you will find an interpretation, no matter how linguistically or historically inaccurate it is. But you set out to do this, against the facts.

I've already stated that I haven't set out to prove one side, nor do I want anything to be anti-gay.

But, hey, I guess ascribing false motives to a poster who disagrees with you is more fun than learning Greek or studying theology.

tommy2bad

Nick Park wrote: »

So, nothing other than an argument from silence then. And an insinuation that anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest.

No, Nick, not an argument from silence, rather an argument from context.
Any part of the bible can be isolated and used in isolation. However doing this is no better than a distortion of the piece.
It's a simple fact that the entire thrust of the bibles comments on sex are about how people are treated. It's not a list of sexual acts that are forbidden or disalowd, it's a list of examples of using people for selfish ends.
This is the context we must read the pieces in, not a context of exclusions and exceptions.

Nick Park

tommy2bad wrote: »

No, Nick, not an argument from silence, rather an argument from context.
Any part of the bible can be isolated and used in isolation. However doing this is no better than a distortion of the piece.
It's a simple fact that the entire thrust of the bibles comments on sex are about how people are treated. It's not a list of sexual acts that are forbidden or disalowd, it's a list of examples of using people for selfish ends.
This is the context we must read the pieces in, not a context of exclusions and exceptions.

Tommy, that sounds great, but it simply isn't true. You are making an assertion that the 'entire thrust' (no pun intended, I'm sure) of the Bible's teaching on sex is about not acting selfishly, rather than on particular acts and forms of relationships themselves being inherently immoral. But the evidence clearly contradicts that assertion.

For example, in Leviticus 18:22 we have the famous verse about homosexual acts (note it is the act, not the person, which is described as an abomination).

Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

This is clearly referring to general homosexual acts, not just to rape or prostitution. We can see that because it is contrasted with a general heterosexual act (lying with a woman). And the construction of the sentence carries the obvious implication that it is just the lying with a man that is prohibited, not the lying with the woman.

If you try to argue that this refers to rape or prostitution, then you would be left with it saying: "Do not rape a man, as one rapes a woman." That is nonsensical. So context is against you here.

Furthermore, look at the verse that follows:

Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion

This is not just 'addressing selfish behaviour'. It is clearly saying that a sexual practice (bestiality) is inherently morally wrong before the Lord.

Again, if we look at the context, the same passage refers to incestuous relationships. It is not saying that incestuous rape and prostitution is wrong, but that loving incestuous acts are grand. It is clearly saying that incest as a practice is inherently morally wrong.

So, both linguistics and context lead us to the inescapable conclusion that Leviticus 18:22 is a prohibition of homosexual acts in general, not just a prohibition of homosexual rape or prostitution.

This is what we call exegesis - it means discerning and drawing out the original intent of the author of the text. The opposite is eisegesis - bringing our own preconceptions, inserting them into the text, and trying to make the Bible say what we want it to say.

Now, I don't believe that Leviticus is binding on Christians today, nor do I think that Christian morality about homosexuality should be enforced on anyone by the law of the land. But, as someone who works in the field of theology and biblical studies, I think it is important to correct assertions about Scripture which cannot be supported by the evidence.

tommy2bad

Nick Park wrote: »

Tommy, that sounds great, but it simply isn't true. You are making an assertion that the 'entire thrust' (no pun intended, I'm sure) of the Bible's teaching on sex is about not acting selfishly, rather than on particular acts and forms of relationships themselves being inherently immoral. But the evidence clearly contradicts that assertion.

For example, in Leviticus 18:22 we have the famous verse about homosexual acts (note it is the act, not the person, which is described as an abomination).



This is clearly referring to general homosexual acts, not just to rape or prostitution. We can see that because it is contrasted with a general heterosexual act (lying with a woman). And the construction of the sentence carries the obvious implication that it is just the lying with a man that is prohibited, not the lying with the woman.

If you try to argue that this refers to rape or prostitution, then you would be left with it saying: "Do not rape a man, as one rapes a woman." That is nonsensical. So context is against you here.

Furthermore, look at the verse that follows:



This is not just 'addressing selfish behaviour'. It is clearly saying that a sexual practice (bestiality) is inherently morally wrong before the Lord.

Again, if we look at the context, the same passage refers to incestuous relationships. It is not saying that incestuous rape and prostitution is wrong, but that loving incestuous acts are grand. It is clearly saying that incest as a practice is inherently morally wrong.

So, both linguistics and context lead us to the inescapable conclusion that Leviticus 18:22 is a prohibition of homosexual acts in general, not just a prohibition of homosexual rape or prostitution.

This is what we call exegesis - it means discerning and drawing out the original intent of the author of the text. The opposite is eisegesis - bringing our own preconceptions, inserting them into the text, and trying to make the Bible say what we want it to say.

Now, I don't believe that Leviticus is binding on Christians today, nor do I think that Christian morality about homosexuality should be enforced on anyone by the law of the land. But, as someone who works in the field of theology and biblical studies, I think it is important to correct assertions about Scripture which cannot be supported by the evidence.

This is a good post, I'll reply properly when I have more time.
I'm not saying that their are no proscriptions on homosexuality in the bible but that these proscriptions are set in certain contexts, no more than we are forbidden from tattoos now as they were in the context of Leviticus or mixed fabrics for that matter though I do tend to like cotton or wool without the added polyester, homosexuality was proscribed for a certain set of circumstances which no longer apply. Where do we get direction as to what our position should be once the circumstances change? Or are we stuck with legacy laws and rules that are no benefit other than Signifiers? Not that that isn't reason enough to keep them but it's not reason to justify them as absolutes.

Penny 4 Thoughts

Nick Park wrote: »

Hmm, we're discussing Greek words, and my linguistic abilities are sufficient for me to read Greek. What about you Penny? How's your Greek?

We are discussing linguistics. You claimed Paul formed a new word by simply sticking two old ones together. I explained that isn't how language works.

But since you are fluent in ancient Greek you should also know that there was already a word for homosexual acts in Greek at the time, a common word that would have been well understood by the readers of Paul's letters. Why would Paul invent a new word that was not in common usage if he was simply trying to say those who engage in homosexual acts are sinners?

Nick Park wrote: »

So, you're seriously arguing that the concept of homosexuality didn't exist in the First Century AD?

I'm arguing that loving homosexual relationships would have been so uncommon (since they were frowned up by nearly all societies) that the authors of the Bible would not have even been concerned with commenting on them. What they were concerned about was married men and priests having lustful relationships with other men.

Nick Park wrote: »

Unfortunately most biblical scholars don't agree with you here. So maybe, Penny, you could tell us your own experience and expertise in biblical studies. Where did you study theology?

Why do you keep mentioning theology? What has theology got to do with anything? This is a question of linguistics and history.

Nick Park wrote: »

The NASB was revised in 1995 and is acknowledged by liberals and conservatives from all denominations as being the best word-for-word translation in the English language.

The CEB was published in 2011 and was sponsored by a number of churches including the Presbyterian Church in the USA (which ordains practicing homosexuals and conducts same sex marriages) and the Episcopalian Church (which has a practicing gay bishop).

The NIV was revised in 2011.

The CEV was produced in 1995, not by any 'anti-gay churches' but by the American Bible Society.

The ESV was produced in 1971 by the National Council of Churches. It is rejected by most conservatives due to its ggender inclusive language.

The New Century Version was published in 1987 and revised in 2007.

The New English Translation was published in 2005. It was commenced at the suggestion of the Society for Biblical Literature and completed by the Biblical Studies Foundation.

The New RSV was produced in 1989 by the National Council of Churches.

The World English Bible was published in 2000.

I suspect that you used "revised" and "published" throughout that piece you are already well aware of the point I'm about to make, that most of these Bibles are based on translations from decades ago, and are mostly published by churches and Bible groups.

Nick Park wrote: »

Ah, now this is interesting.

Earlier in this thread you were claiming that biblical scholars supported your view. Now that it transpires that most of the best biblical scholars don't agree with you, as evidenced by their Bible translations, you dismiss all those who disagree with you as being dishonest.

Bibles are published by churches, not Biblical scholars. Churches who attempt to convey that the Bible is clear and easy to understand in English and more often than that not what the church already taught is still valid.

Biblical scholars know the opposite is true.

Case in point...

Nick Park wrote: »

"Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

This is clearly referring to general homosexual acts

Except as a scholar of the Bible yourself you should be well aware that the Bible does not say that

The passage actually translates directly into

"And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"

Which even in Hebrew doesn't make sense grammatically.

Traditionally it is has been changed to be "not lay [as the] lying of a woman", ie do not lay with a man as you lie with a woman.

But that is an inserted interpretation, because no one knows what this passage actually means.

Let me say that again. No one knows what this passage means

You can just as easily say do not lay with a man in the lying of a woman, ie do not have sex with a man in a womans bed, and in the context of the wider chapter that makes much more sense. Why would a gay couple in a loving relationship have a woman's bed in their house? Well they wouldn't. A husband and wife would, and this passage in this context would be saying don't cheat on your wife with a man in her bed (ie don't have sex with male prostitutes)

Of course Biblical scholars know this, one of the reasons they aren't going to write a Bible cause it would be twice as long given the amount of the different options they would have to give as to the interpretations of passages. Churches and Bible groups on the other hand push the agenda that these passages are clear, and clearly support the traditional interpretation

The more you pretend these passages are clear cut the more you either are not quite the Biblical scholar you claim to be, or you are pushing an agenda.

Nick Park

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

We are discussing linguistics. You claimed Paul formed a new word by simply sticking two old ones together. I explained that isn't how language works.

And you are wrong. New words are often formed by sticking two words together. I've done it myself - which makes me a wordjoiner.

So, given that haven't answered my question about your own Greek fluency - are we to assume that you are blithely telling us that the majority of biblical translators (who are very proficient in Greek) have got it wrong, even when you yourself have no familiarity with the language?

But since you are fluent in ancient Greek you should also know that there was already a word for homosexual acts in Greek at the time, a common word that would have been well understood by the readers of Paul's letters. Why would Paul invent a new word that was not in common usage if he was simply trying to say those who engage in homosexual acts are sinners?

First off, you are aware that we are talking two different versions of Greek here, aren't you? There is classical Greek (the language of Homer etc) and koine Greek (the language of the marketplace). So which words do you think Paul should have used?

Also, you are contradicting yourself. Yesterday you were claiming that the concept of general homosexuality (as opposed to homosexual rape etc) didn't exist. Now you're arguing that there were plenty of words to describe a concept that didn't exist. Do you see the problem with that line of thinking?

I'm arguing that loving homosexual relationships would have been so uncommon (since they were frowned up by nearly all societies) that the authors of the Bible would not have even been concerned with commenting on them. What they were concerned about was married men and priests having lustful relationships with other men.

And it is an entirely circular argument.

You argue that the biblical writers weren't interested in commenting on homosexuality. Therefore they didn't write about homosexuality. Therefore the words they use must refer to something else other than homosexuality. Therefore you reach the conclusion that they weren't interested in commenting on homosexuality.

That looks extremely circular. Of course once we allow that they may conceivably have been commenting on homosexuality as a general concept, then the circle disintegrates.

Why do you keep mentioning theology? What has theology got to do with anything? This is a question of linguistics and history.

You were the one who first mentioned biblical scholars. Biblical studies is a branch of theology.

So, just to confirm, would I be correct in assuming that you don't have any expertise in biblical studies? Yet that doesn't stop you from happily dismissing the majority of biblical scholars as dishonest because they don't agree with you?

I suspect that you used "revised" and "published" throughout that piece you are already well aware of the point I'm about to make, that most of these Bibles are based on translations from decades ago, and are mostly published by churches and Bible groups.

And anyone with even a smattering of knowledge on the subject knows that a revision is carried out by biblical scholars, proficient in Hebrew and Greek, using the latest insights from scholarship.

And are you seriously going to argue that a Bible translation should be viewed as suspect because it is published by churches or Bible groups - the very groups of people who are most interested in accurately translating the Bible?

What would you prefer? That we only use Bible translations produced by people who think the Bible is a load of rubbish anyway?

Bibles are published by churches, not Biblical scholars. Churches who attempt to convey that the Bible is clear and easy to understand in English and more often than that not what the church already taught is still valid.

Biblical scholars know the opposite is true.

Now you're just making stuff up as you go along.

Why did you mention biblical scholars in the first place if you're now going to dismiss the work of the world's leading biblical scholars as dishonest hypocrites who deliberately mistranslate stuff to keep the churches happy?

This is a bit like discussing science with a creationist.

Except as a scholar of the Bible yourself you should be well aware that the Bible does not say that

The passage actually translates directly into

"And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"

Which even in Hebrew doesn't make sense grammatically.

Traditionally it is has been changed to be "not lay [as the] lying of a woman", ie do not lay with a man as you lie with a woman.

But that is an inserted interpretation, because no one knows what this passage actually means.

Let me say that again. No one knows what this passage means

You can just as easily say do not lay with a man in the lying of a woman, ie do not have sex with a man in a womans bed, and in the context of the wider chapter that makes much more sense. Why would a gay couple in a loving relationship have a woman's bed in their house? Well they wouldn't. A husband and wife would, and this passage in this context would be saying don't cheat on your wife with a man in her bed (ie don't have sex with male prostitutes)

Of course Biblical scholars know this, one of the reasons they aren't going to write a Bible cause it would be twice as long given the amount of the different options they would have to give as to the interpretations of passages. Churches and Bible groups on the other hand push the agenda that these passages are clear, and clearly support the traditional interpretation

The more you pretend these passages are clear cut the more you either are not quite the Biblical scholar you claim to be, or you are pushing an agenda

Now you're a Hebrew scholar too? Even though biblical scholars who are proficient in Hebrew are overwhelmingly agreed about the meaning of Leviticus 18:22, you know better?

Unfortunately you are contradicting yourself once more.

You entered this thread to boldly assert, without any shade of doubt, that the Bible doesn't mention homosexuality at all.

Now, when pressed by someone who knows a bit more about the subject than you, you suddenly claim that nobody really knows what the Bible says.

Which leads us to the blindingly obvious question:

If nobody really knows what the Bible says, then how on earth can you claim so confidently that it definitely doesn't mention homosexuality?

Btw, I don't claim to be a biblical scholar. I did, of course, have to study principles of exegesis and hermeneutics, and Greek and Hebrew, as would any postgraduate student in any branch of theology. And I have had a rather basic Commentary published on a New Testament book. But I am happy to leave the title of 'biblical scholar' to those who are much more skilled than me. But I do respect their abilities enough to listen to what they say and treat them as intelligent and honest scholars, even when I might disagree with them.

Penny 4 Thoughts

Nick Park wrote: »

If nobody really knows what the Bible says, then how on earth can you claim so confidently that it definitely doesn't mention homosexuality?

I never said it doesn't mention homosexuality. I said the word is never found in any of the chapters. The Bible never uses the word homosexual. It never uses terms used at the time for homosexual acts. When it does speak of homosexual acts it does so in confusing and altogether unclear language, either sentences that do not make gramatical sense, or making up entirely new words.

Despite this many Christians seem certain that the Bible condemns homosexual acts. I wonder why that is?

You seem to have skipped over the fact that the passage you claim is in the Bible, the passage you claim is a crystal clear condemnation of general homosexual acts, isn't actually in the Bible.

Instead of ranting at me, maybe you should ponder that for a second and have another think about how certain you are that the Bible condemns all homosexual acts.

Nick Park

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

I never said it doesn't mention homosexuality.

From post 4032 - posted by you 2 days ago:

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote:

Actually homosexuality is never mentioned in the Bible. There is no word for homosexuality in Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew.

But, hey, I guess it's easier to accuse someone who takes a different viewpoint of ranting.

Penny 4 Thoughts

Nick Park wrote: »

From post 4032 - posted by you 2 days ago:



But, hey, I guess it's easier to accuse someone who takes a different viewpoint of ranting.

The word. The word homosexuality is never mentioned in the Bible. It talks about homosexual acts (the acts, not the word), but since no one knows exactly what is being referred to no one knows exactly what is being condemned.

You know every well we were talking about the word back then. To take a leaf out of your own book, it seems easier to talk about semantics than deal with the issue.

You asserted that it is crystal clear that the Bible was talking about all homosexuality (general homosexuality, ie homosexual acts in all contexts), not just in the context of lustful homosexual acts outside of a relationship.

Do you agree now that the Bible is not in fact crystal clear on that topic at all, and that even the passages that Christians claim are clear cut in fact, when you get down to examining what was actually said, are far from such. Such as the passage in Leviticus that has to be fudged in order for it to make gramatical sense.

You claim that you would be more than happy if the Bible did not condemn gay couples in loving relationships. So I'm guessing you are over joyed with this news.

Nick Park

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

The word. The word homosexuality is never mentioned in the Bible. It talks about homosexual acts (the acts, not the word), but since no one knows exactly what is being referred to no one knows exactly what is being condemned.

You know every well we were talking about the word back then. To take a leaf out of your own book, it seems easier to talk about semantics than deal with the issue.

No, that is totally untrue.

Gaynorvader had posted that he thought homosexuality was referenced only twice in the Bible. I responded that I could think of at least seven occasions where it is mentioned.

We were not discussing semantics. Then you blundered in which ill-thought assertions. Since then you've contradicted yourself several times and have denied making a statement that you clearly made.

You asserted that it is crystal clear that the Bible was talking about all homosexuality (general homosexuality, ie homosexual acts in all contexts), not just in the context of lustful homosexual acts outside of a relationship.

Do you agree now that the Bible is not in fact crystal clear on that topic at all, and that even the passages that Christians claim are clear cut in fact, when you get down to examining what was actually said, are far from such. Such as the passage in Leviticus that has to be fudged in order for it to make gramatical sense.

The vast majority of biblical scholars, and modern Bible translations (including those sponsored by gay-affirming churches), disagree with you.

But hey, why let that bother you when you can always dismiss them as being dishonest any time they disagree with you?

You claim that you would be more than happy if the Bible did not condemn gay couples in loving relationships. So I'm guessing you are over joyed with this news.

Unfortunately I would have to be convinced by sound scholarship - not unsupported assertions by someone with little or no knowledge of biblical languages, no ability in biblical interpretation, and a quite remarkable capacity for self-contradiction and making untrue statements.

I've no axe to grind here. Simply weighing up the evidence, listening to the scholars in the relevant fields, and then reaching a conclusion on that basis. And that conclusion is that the Scripture refers to homosexuality in a number of instances, all of them negative, and does not make one single statement that could reasonably be interpreted as supporting homosexual acts.

Again, that in no way justifies homophobia, or any efforts to enforce biblical morality on the general population. But it is of interest to those of us who see the Bible as being in any way authoritative for our own personal codes of behaviour.