Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)

Nodin · 21-12-2008 12:15PM

PDN wrote: »

I think some posters are (probably accidentally but possibly deliberately) misunderstanding Wolfsbane.

As I read his posts I do not see him saying that homosexuality and paedophilia are morally equivalent or comparable. What he has done is to effectively use paedophilia as a example of a practice that we all see as morally unacceptable and then to use it to spear the spurious argument that homosexual acts must be OK because "some people are made that way".

We've already brought up the fact that theres a substantive difference between 'natural' harmful and 'natural' non-harmful tendencies.

jaffa20 · 21-12-2008 01:23PM

PDN wrote: »

If you have no control over your sexual acts then you are either being raped or you are a psychopath.

Either way please seek help.

Thanks, you know what i meant. Gay people can't control their orientation.

Anyway, i see this "forcing your opinion on us" **** that's coming up.

What is the bible? It is written from a subjective perspective with opinions on homosexual acts. Therefore, you are believing in something that was forced upon you and your ancestors that came before you.

I tolerate Christianity but then they tell us they follow the Bible and believe homosexuality is immoral because it's God's word. They just accept that's the way it is and no other.

If they were indifferent or even open to debate about homosexuality and other things in the bible, then i would have no problem.

Of course, the same goes for us, we shoud tolerate Christianity or at least be indifferent but it's hard to do so when comments are made about how we live.

Zombrex · 21-12-2008 01:38PM

PDN wrote: »

spurious argument that homosexual acts must be OK because "some people are made that way".

yes but is that actually the argument?

From the posts I've read the argument is more

God made me this way, so why then is he telling me it is wrong?

And yes you can apply that to a whole host of things not just homosexuality.

The response, mostly from Wolfsbane, is that God didn't make you that way, the Fall made you that way. Which is a very unsatisfactory assertion since the Fall was simply an event, God is the only entity with the ability to actually physically alter things (no one else has put forward anything else)

It is easier for Christians to rationalise their religion's stance on homosexuality if it is simply a behavior. It gets more complicated the more evidence comes out that homosexuality is something that is physically different about someone.

studiorat · 21-12-2008 02:57PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

You will find that many of these so-called churches also no longer believe in the deity of Christ, His substitutionary atonement, physical resurrection, the necessity of faith in Him for salvation, etc. They are governed by unbelievers, so it is no surprise that they embrace sub-Christian morality.

Funny, I found this and thought people might like to read what how some regard your own church since you are always so critical of others...

Of all of The Bible Cults, The Baptist are the most vocal in their Condemnation of other Churches and their teachings.

"Once Saved Always Saved
From the cradle to the grave.

Baptists proclaim this Abomination
From pulpit to pulpit across
this nation.

Perverting everything that Jesus said
They look alive, but are the
Walking Dead."

They twist a verse from The Gospel of John (Jn:10:28) to claim and proclaim, that "we can never be snatched (plucked) from The Father's Hand".

Thou Hypocrite, remove the Log
from your own eye before you
Remove the speck from your
Brother's Eye. (Matt:7:5).

studiorat · 21-12-2008 04:06PM

From Christian Minister Denis Lyle. As he preaches to his parishioners about "the homosexual agenda". Nothing to do with morality, just a christian fear that queers are taking over the world!!!
http://www.denislyle.com/

A line has been drawn in the sand. Sides have been taken, and war has been declared. Hell is officially in session. And the church is under attack. With mounting hostility, the kingdom of Satan is engaging in a full scale war against the church of Jesus Christ.

The foul forces of darkness are escalating their campaign against the people of God with an unholy vengeance. Like two weather fronts colliding, a violent storm is brewing across the horizon has never before.

Think for example of the scene at Hamilton Square Baptist Church in San Francisco. As church members gathered for their evening service on September 19th 1993, they knew it would be an eventful service. They just didn't know how eventful. The guest preacher for the evening was Lou Sheldon, an outspoken opponent of pro-homosexual legislation in California. As chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, Sheldon had played a key role in overturning a 1989 partners ordinance in San Francisco.

As he came to speak, this church turned into a battleground. Two pro-homosexual newspapers had publicised Sheldon’s visit, leading to a barrage of phone calls to the church offices all week. Militant homo-sexual activists promised to show up in force and threatened to disrupt the service. And disrupt they did. The service became a war zone. Like an invading army, approximately 100 rioters stormed the church ground and took
complete control of the exterior property. Angry protestors denied worshippers entrance into the church. Physical contact was used. One church member, a woman, was physically and forcibly carried away from the church's entrance by the activists.

All the while, the police stood by watching. Rioters vandalised church property. The church's Christian flag, was replaced by a homosexual flag. Innocent children were verbally harassed and threatened. Vile obscenities were yelled.

When the service began angry gays pounded on the doors outside the sanctuary, taunting worshippers to come outside and join them in their sexual orgies.

As the believers sang, the demonstrators threw eggs and rocks at the stained-glass windows. The pastor was pelted by debris and needed a police escort as he left in a church van. Sounds a bit like Sodom and Gomorrah. But this is America. Today. The most powerful nation in the Western world.

What’s next ? Will this militant aggression by homosexual activists against the church continue ?

What other " minorities," will join their cause and level their assault upon the
church ? One thing is absolutely clear. The Lord Jesus warned us it would be this way.

I for one would like to know was Denis Lyle actually there.
Well if you are going to have a speaker who incites hatred and preaches that Gay people are out to "silence the church and rule the world", surely you would expect protest. A pity then that the story did get out,? Maybe not. And of course the San Francisco Police are in on the case obviously as they stood by and watched children being harrassed and public orgies.

And what do you know? The same Lou Sheldon has massive support on stormfront.

These perverts are truly a disgrace to all living creatures on earth! They completely go against nature and entirely oppose the ways of the Aryan Gods.
Homosexuals are abominations, and they should be locked away in insane aslyums! Its absolutely nuts how the mainstream media tries to promote this sick lifestyle.

You know? How can anyone take fags that seriously? They're not a threat. Just an amusing specticle every so often. I mean it's not like they can reproduce or anything. If anything the opposite is true. I'm all for giving them their own communities. The demographics is against them ultimatly

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=3594035#post3594035

In 2005, James Dobson, director of Focus on the Family, a Christian non-profit organization based, described the homosexual agenda as follows:

Those goals include universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, discrediting of scriptures that condemn homosexuality, muzzling of the clergy and Christian media, granting of special privileges and rights in the law, overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia, indoctrinating children and future generations through public education, and securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies

So what we are actually dealing with here is scaremongering and incitement to hate by certain Christian groups in America and here in Ireland. The outright war on gays from these christian groups and the mis-information they spread amounts to nothing less than hate crimes.

These christian groups see homosexuality as a very real threat, not to their communities, but to the substance of their religion. Because if consenting homosexuality can be seen to be above reproach it calls into question their moral guidance and essentially their power.

AtomicHorror · 21-12-2008 04:28PM

PDN wrote: »

If you have no control over your sexual acts then you are either being raped or you are a psychopath.

Either way please seek help.

I'd say he meant he has no control over his desire, and none over the act if he wishes to be happy.

PDN, I have to ask you the same question I asked of Wolfsbane. If you've answered this one before I apologise. Aside from the Word of God (and I don't wish to belittle that), do you see any reason why homosexuality or homosexual acts should be considered immoral? I would like you to assume for the purposes of this question that the acts are entirely monogamous and long term. The immorality of promiscuity may be taken as a given.

AtomicHorror · 21-12-2008 04:37PM

jaffa20 wrote: »

Thanks, you know what i meant. Gay people can't control their orientation.

Anyway, i see this "forcing your opinion on us" **** that's coming up.

What is the bible? It is written from a subjective perspective with opinions on homosexual acts. Therefore, you are believing in something that was forced upon you and your ancestors that came before you.

I tolerate Christianity but then they tell us they follow the Bible and believe homosexuality is immoral because it's God's word. They just accept that's the way it is and no other.

If they were indifferent or even open to debate about homosexuality and other things in the bible, then i would have no problem.

Of course, the same goes for us, we shoud tolerate Christianity or at least be indifferent but it's hard to do so when comments are made about how we live.

The word is spreading that it's okay to be like you. That it's okay to talk about it and be vocal about it. This is in spite of the continued efforts of certain groups to condemn or even destroy your way of life. To me it seems very likely that the word will continue to spread- the whole world is connected in communication and people are finding their own reason to be at odds with scripture. The fear will give way and in time, these groups will change or they will fade away.

I don't believe in any kind of God, but if the God of the Bible is real, then it seems to me to be most likely that the anti-homosexual themes in the Bible are a corruption, the expression of prevalent bigotry in times centuries ago. They are simply not consistent with the rest of the New Testament, which by and large features moral codes that are quite reasonable.

Of course this turns the Bible into a questionable source, makes an already difficult interpretation harder still. I think the desire for simplicity is a part of the infallibility issue. But I also think that there are those who are only too happy to accept certain parts of the Bible on unquestionable authority.

wolfsbane · 21-12-2008 07:15PM

studiorat said:

From Christian Minister Denis Lyle. As he preaches to his parishioners about "the homosexual agenda". Nothing to do with morality, just a christian fear that queers are taking over the world!!!

I'm one of his 'parishioners', and I know it is about both morality and the threat to liberty thar is posed by militant homosexuals.

http://www.denislyle.com/
Quote:
A line has been drawn in the sand. Sides have been taken, and war has been declared. Hell is officially in session. And the church is under attack. With mounting hostility, the kingdom of Satan is engaging in a full scale war against the church of Jesus Christ.

The foul forces of darkness are escalating their campaign against the people of God with an unholy vengeance. Like two weather fronts colliding, a violent storm is brewing across the horizon has never before.

Think for example of the scene at Hamilton Square Baptist Church in San Francisco. As church members gathered for their evening service on September 19th 1993, they knew it would be an eventful service. They just didn't know how eventful. The guest preacher for the evening was Lou Sheldon, an outspoken opponent of pro-homosexual legislation in California. As chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, Sheldon had played a key role in overturning a 1989 partners ordinance in San Francisco.

As he came to speak, this church turned into a battleground. Two pro-homosexual newspapers had publicised Sheldon’s visit, leading to a barrage of phone calls to the church offices all week. Militant homo-sexual activists promised to show up in force and threatened to disrupt the service. And disrupt they did. The service became a war zone. Like an invading army, approximately 100 rioters stormed the church ground and took
complete control of the exterior property. Angry protestors denied worshippers entrance into the church. Physical contact was used. One church member, a woman, was physically and forcibly carried away from the church's entrance by the activists.

All the while, the police stood by watching. Rioters vandalised church property. The church's Christian flag, was replaced by a homosexual flag. Innocent children were verbally harassed and threatened. Vile obscenities were yelled.

When the service began angry gays pounded on the doors outside the sanctuary, taunting worshippers to come outside and join them in their sexual orgies.

As the believers sang, the demonstrators threw eggs and rocks at the stained-glass windows. The pastor was pelted by debris and needed a police escort as he left in a church van. Sounds a bit like Sodom and Gomorrah. But this is America. Today. The most powerful nation in the Western world.

What’s next ? Will this militant aggression by homosexual activists against the church continue ?

What other " minorities," will join their cause and level their assault upon the
church ? One thing is absolutely clear. The Lord Jesus warned us it would be this way.
I for one would like to know was Denis Lyle actually there.
Well if you are going to have a speaker who incites hatred and preaches that Gay people are out to "silence the church and rule the world", surely you would expect protest. A pity then that the story did get out,? Maybe not. And of course the San Francisco Police are in on the case obviously as they stood by and watched children being harrassed and public orgies.

The police are not noted for their prompt action against militant homosexuals, in the USA or in the UK. It could be career suicide for them to be seen acting against this interest group. Public nakedness in a gay parade? - look the other way. But object to their agenda and you get a visit from the hate-crime section of the local constabulary.

And what do you know? The same Lou Sheldon has massive support on stormfront.

So? Would that make Ian Paisley a Romanist because the Pope agrees with him on the Trinity? The Aryans are Nazis; Robert Mugabe shares their views on gays, but he is a Marxist.

In 2005, James Dobson, director of Focus on the Family, a Christian non-profit organization based, described the homosexual agenda as follows:
Quote:
Those goals include universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, discrediting of scriptures that condemn homosexuality, muzzling of the clergy and Christian media, granting of special privileges and rights in the law, overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia, indoctrinating children and future generations through public education, and securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies
So what we are actually dealing with here is scaremongering and incitement to hate by certain Christian groups in America and here in Ireland. The outright war on gays from these christian groups and the mis-information they spread amounts to nothing less than hate crimes.

Which of Dobson's accusations do you deny?
1. goals include universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle
2. discrediting of scriptures that condemn homosexuality
3. muzzling of the clergy and Christian media
4. granting of special privileges and rights in the law
5. overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia
6. indoctrinating children and future generations through public education
7. securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies.

These christian groups see homosexuality as a very real threat, not to their communities, but to the substance of their religion.

We see it as both. It used to be a private affair, and I'm all in favour of consenting adults being free to do as they like, but the militant gays have made it a war to impose their ideology. To have our children indoctrinated that homosexuality is just as valid as heterosexuality; to have our pastors imprisoned for preaching that homosexuality is immoral - that is a real threat to my community.

Because if consenting homosexuality can be seen to be above reproach it calls into question their moral guidance and essentially their power.

It certainly would totally discredit Christianity. But so would Islam being seen to be above reproach, or Mormonism, or incest, or fornication. Anything in fact that contradicts the Bible.

wolfsbane · 21-12-2008 07:30PM

studiorat said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You will find that many of these so-called churches also no longer believe in the deity of Christ, His substitutionary atonement, physical resurrection, the necessity of faith in Him for salvation, etc. They are governed by unbelievers, so it is no surprise that they embrace sub-Christian morality.
Funny, I found this and thought people might like to read what how some regard your own church since you are always so critical of others...

Quote:
Of all of The Bible Cults, The Baptist are the most vocal in their Condemnation of other Churches and their teachings.

Quote:
"Once Saved Always Saved
From the cradle to the grave.

Baptists proclaim this Abomination
From pulpit to pulpit across
this nation.

Perverting everything that Jesus said
They look alive, but are the
Walking Dead."

Quote:
They twist a verse from The Gospel of John (Jn:10:28) to claim and proclaim, that "we can never be snatched (plucked) from The Father's Hand".

Of course many hate what real Christianity teaches - especially when it reddens their faces.

We are glad to be reviled by such:
Matthew 5:11 “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

But let me set you straight about the Baptists. That term covers a broad spectrum, from true believers to norminal religionists. Just like Presbyterians or Anglicans do.

Even the accusation raised here about Once Saved Always Saved is shared by both true and false believer alike. True believers rightly object to the misuse of the Biblical doctrine of the eternal security of the believer, pointing to the godless lives of many who claim to have been saved. Calvinists like myself respond by pointing out that the truly saved are kept by God and subject to His discipline if they misbehave. They are not permitted to go through life practising sin and then end up in heaven. Those who do so show that they were never saved.

Nodin · 21-12-2008 07:35PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm one of his 'parishioners', and I know it is about both morality and the threat to liberty thar is posed by militant homosexuals..

Hmmmm. Please detail this threat to "liberty".

And do remember that red font is an offense to both man and his many gods.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Public nakedness in a gay parade? - look the other way. ..

That would depend on who was doing the nekkidness. I prefer women meself, but still....the eyes won't fall out of yer head.

Theres far worse things than the human form in this world, you know.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Which of Dobson's accusations do you deny?
1. goals include universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle
2. discrediting of scriptures that condemn homosexuality
3. muzzling of the clergy and Christian media
4. granting of special privileges and rights in the law
5. overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia
6. indoctrinating children and future generations through public education
7. securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies...

I'd say 3 is spin, 4 & 5 are bull, and 6 is spin again.

studiorat · 21-12-2008 08:05PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

studiorat said:

Which of Dobson's accusations do you deny?
1. goals include universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle
2. discrediting of scriptures that condemn homosexuality
3. muzzling of the clergy and Christian media
4. granting of special privileges and rights in the law
5. overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia
6. indoctrinating children and future generations through public education
7. securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies.

1.
Dobsons accusations like Lyles sermons are designed to put the "fear of God" into normal everyday people. Now, I have no idea what the Universal Acceptance of Gay Lifestyle is. But I do support the United Nations declaration on Gay Rights.

2.
The scriptures are being abused by Sheldon et al. already. Instead of learning from the Bible through proper exegesis and interpretation, Baptists such as Sheldon develop their beliefs and then find scripture to support those beliefs.

4.
Homosexuals are only looking for the same privilages and rights as are afforded to everybody else.

...
The reference to pedophillia is just more plainly false, show me otherwise. I'd go on but this is tiring. Dobsons accusations are nothing more than scaremongering and a major distracion from the real issues And you Wolfsbane should have more sense and see it for what it is.

wolfsbane wrote: »

We see it as both. It used to be a private affair, and I'm all in favour of consenting adults being free to do as they like, but the militant gays have made it a war to impose their ideology. To have our children indoctrinated that homosexuality is just as valid as heterosexuality; to have our pastors imprisoned for preaching that homosexuality is immoral - that is a real threat to my community.

Imposing Gay Ideology to the Masses. LOL!!!

That's the problem Wolfsbane, you have been told that there are militant gays out there wanting to impose an ideology on you and your poor family. This quite simply isn't true. This idea has been foisted on you by people such as your pastor in an effort to round the wagons and create relavant issues for his ministry. Nothing like a threat to round up the troops as it were. Have a think and see if you can remember the last time the Gays took over the streets in your home town and tried to convert your children...

A homosexual relationship is as valid as a hetrosexual one and in a civilized society should be treated as such. If you and your pastor want to live in some community closed off from the rest and await judgment off you go. But this is a free country and the time where the priests and the other eunuchs make the rules for the rest of us to live by are long gone.

So go live by your own misinformed ideology. But if you are prepared to pass judgment on others be very prepared to have your own lifestyle put under the microscope.

Now I'm off to study the good pastors take on the other christian denominations. He likes the pope doesn't he!!

wolfsbane · 21-12-2008 09:04PM

studiorat said:

I see that PDN and Wolfsbane would rather be-little those congregations than enter discussion. "Oh! they aren't real god fearing christians, like what we are blah blah blah!"

Well lads, they don't seem to have a problem with it. Why do you. You are being very judgmental of them I hope you realise. And as much bible reading as you may do I don't believe either of you are in a position to make informed judgements on the validity of differing christian sects. You are being blinded by your own self importance, a very peculiar Christian fault IMO.

If it were a matter of our opinions or preferences you would be right. But we are informed by God in His word as to what is of Him or of the Devil. And He expects us to put it into practise, eg:
Revelation 2:15 Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. 16 Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.

Personally, I've always had a great respect for John Wesley's teachings.

You will note this from his notes on 1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
9. Idolatry is here placed between fornication and adultery, because they generally accompanied it. Nor the effeminate - Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship. But how is this? These good-natured, harmless people are ranked with idolaters and sodomites! We may learn hence, that we are never secure from the greatest sins, till we guard against those which are thought the least; nor, indeed, till we think no sin is little, since every one is a step toward hell.
http://www.godrules.net/library/wesley/wesley1cor6.htm

The Methodists Celebrated their 300th anniversary recently, not bad for a wishy-washy bunch. We'll see if "second chance sunday" or any of the other maky-uppy Evangelical sects does so well.

Wesley's Methodists were not wishy-washy. Today's Methodists are far removed from them, with a few exceptions.

BTW, Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Anglicans long predate the Methodists - but that is of no consequence if any group share the saving doctrines common to all Christians.

I am really suprised at PDN's reactions here. His posts are usually well balanced and moderate. But this time I'm forced to disagree completely. In fact the Victorian Dad thing is coming over really strongly...

It's what is known as believing the Bible.

So let me illustrate what's going here and why despite both your wisdom you are absolutely out of the ball park wrong about this..

PDN and Wolfsbane I think you are misinformed at a very basic level about what it actually means to be Gay. You need to realize that a person can be gay without engaging in sexual behavior with a person of the same gender - and that a person who does engage in such behavior isn't necessarily gay. You seem to pay lip service to it but I don’t think you really understand that basic point.

On the contrary, I never doubted it. I even know some heterosexuals who have never engaged in sexual behaviour with a person of any gender! And I know a few who would have sex with man, woman and beast.

In fact, most homosexuals I know have produced children with their wives.

Evangelical Christians (that's you guys)

Correct!

don't treat homosexuality as an orientation, you treat it, wrongly, I might add, as a behavior.

It is both, if by orientation you mean attraction. Alcoholics have an orientation to booze - they are deeply attracted to it as a means of fulfilling their desire for mental relief/pleasure/oblivion.

In essence, you are speaking a different language when talking about gays.
For you, being gay is like being addicted to cocaine: you can stop if you really want to and try hard enough.

Yes. Like any addiction, homosexuality can be purged. One must want that to happen, be willing to reject it as an invalid desire.

You won't admit to it being an orentation purely for the reason that if homosexuality were defined as an orientation, it would be very difficult to maintain the idea that it is a sin. And once again the idea christian morality would be seen for the sham that it is.

As above, I do accept homosexuality is an orientation, an attraction. Such attraction is evidence of sinful temptation, and/or a sinful response to earlier temptations. Failure of father/mother relationships, or corruption by same-sex adults is a big factor in producing homosexuals. All comes down to sinful responses to other's sins.

I am attracted to beautiful women, that is, I find them sexually attractive. That is a proper function of man's nature. What I'm not permitted to do is allow that thought to become a fixed desire. I must refuse to think about the woman in sexual terms, unless she is my wife.

Homosexual attraction is never a proper function. The homosexual is one who has allowed these sinful thoughts a place in his life.

They need to begin to think aright - about their bad experiences as children and their mistaken responses to them.

You are in fact promoting discrimination on a huge scale.

I'm not concerned in what adults do in privacy, but I am in them forcing me to agree that their lifestyle is as morally valid as mine.

This means that to Evangelical Christians, laws against discrimination of gays aren't a matter of being told "you can't refuse to hire a person simply because he finds other men sexually attractive." That would be no more objectionable than being told "you can't refuse to hire a person simply because he finds women other that his wife sexually attractive.

Evangelical and conservative Christians can be counted upon to exhibit outrage and dismay over just about any attempts to treat gays like equal citizens: whether or not gays should be protected from discrimination when it comes to things like hiring, firing, housing, and financial transactions.

I have no problem in homosexuals being housed or employed. I do object to them taking over the term marriage, but I will lose no sleep over it. As long as I'm free to say what marriage really means.

It should be clear that the opposition of evangelicals and fundamentalists to anti-discrimination laws that address sexual orientation is based largely upon their misunderstandings of homosexuality - the same misunderstandings that form the basis of so much of their reaction to homosexuality in general.

It seems to follow that if these misunderstandings could be cleared up, quite a lot of the rancor which currently exists might also be cleared up.

I'm not speaking for all who say homosexuality is sinful, but my objection is to my children being taught and me being forced to agree that homosexuality is not sinful.

To conclude I'll add that sexuality was around long before religion existed and will be around long after it's gone.

Sexuality was created in Creation Week, so it co-incided with the beginning of man's worship. It will however end when eternity begins for us - but true religion will go on forever.

Zombrex · 21-12-2008 09:11PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

As above, I do accept homosexuality is an orientation, an attraction. Such attraction is evidence of sinful temptation, and/or a sinful response to earlier temptations. Failure of father/mother relationships, or corruption by same-sex adults is a big factor in producing homosexuals. All comes down to sinful responses to other's sins.

My time machine worked, I've made it back to the 1950s ... :pac:

You do know that none of that is actually true, don't you? Do you actually care?

What ever about your theological beliefs about God's "proper function", you really go down hill when you start trying to make your particular religious conviction some how tie in with biological and social reality.

Fanny Cradock · 21-12-2008 09:15PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

A man could cure AIDS for no financial gain, save 15 million lives and yet be damned to hell (or merely oblivion) for being an unrepentant practising homosexual. Those are the rules, and reason does not appear to matter.

Leaving the homosexual aspect of your post aside for the moment, I believe that there is a fundamental inaccuracy in your above quote. This error, or what I believe to be an error, revolves around the concept of 'reason' in specific relation to God and sin - any sin. Rather than viewing the punishment of sinners as an act based on, or in the absence of, reason, I believe that it is a result of the fundamental characteristics of both God and sin. Neither of which, I may add, do Christians claim to understand.

By way of example, you wouldn't say that it is unreasonable for the 'north' particles of one magnet to repel the 'south' particles of another. 'Reason' has nothing to do with the fundamental properties of magnets and their fields. Similarly, neither oil or water is unreasonable for refusing to mix. As I understand it, this 'refusal' is simply due to intermolecular forces between the two liquids. If God, as defined by Christianity, is perfect, then like some sort of metaphysical intermolecular force, the imperfection of sin can't mix with his fundamental characteristic of perfection.

So if somebody cures AIDS, helps old grannies across the street and always remembers to say 'thank you' after dinner, these things really have no bearing on perfection because of all the other crap (sin, whatever sin) that goes on in each of our lives.

Yes, you are correct when you say that reason doesn't matter in relation to salvation and damnation. However, this is because reason plays absolutely no function in what is and what is not perfect. Again, from the Christian perspective, perfection and imperfection are mutually exclusive states of existing where no halfway house is to be found between.

As an aside, Christians may be of the mind to argue what is really unreasonable is that God has given us the opportunity for salvation.

Zombrex · 21-12-2008 09:40PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Rather than viewing the punishment of sinners as an act based on, or in the absence of, reason, I believe that it is a result of the fundamental characteristics of both God and sin. Neither of which, I may add, do Christians claim to understand.

Yes but sin is not a force of nature. Sin is disobedience of God, and what is or is not disobedience is defined by God

And each person coming to Christianity has at some point has to question the likelihood of a god who would proclaim such a thing. This is the problem of the argument that Christians have nothing against homosexuality (some such as Wolfsbane clearly do, but others here claim they don't) beyond God proclaiming that it is a sin. You have all decided that this is something God would do. Which is why each of the regular posters has been asked at various points about their own personal feelings to homosexuality, irrespective of the Christian doctrine.

With any discussion like this on this forum I am reminded of a thread a while back when moderate believers were being contrasted with extremist fanatics.

The charge made against Christians was made in the form of a question as to whether they would kill someone, such as a child, if God told them to.

The answer back was no, of course not. And the logic was that if God told them to do something immoral like that they would know it isn't God, and they wouldn't follow the order. God would not ask them to do that, so there was no risk that they would follow that order if it came from a source proclaiming to be God.

I am reminded of that assertion throughout this thread.

"God" is telling you homosexuality is an abomination, a sin, an act at one point in time warranted death.

My question to all of you is why are none of you saying "That isn't God"?

Fanny Cradock · 21-12-2008 10:12PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but sin is not a force of nature. Sin is disobedience of God, and what is or is not disobedience is defined by God

The charge made against Christians was made in the form of a question as to whether they would kill someone, such as a child, if God told them to.

The answer back was no, of course not. And the logic was that if God told them to do something immoral like that they would know it isn't God, and they wouldn't follow the order. God would not ask them to do that, so there was no risk that they would follow that order if it came from a source proclaiming to be God.

I am reminded of that assertion throughout this thread.

"God" is telling you homosexuality is an abomination, a sin, an act at one point in time warranted death.

My question to all of you is why are none of you saying "That isn't God"?

I never claimed that sin was a force of nature. I merely mentioned two forces of nature as by way of analogy of things that have certain immutable characteristics. In concept, I don't see why God should be any different.

I'm sure you are not deliberately trying to pull at the heart strings when you attempt to draw parallels between the answers given in response to child murder and those in response to homosexual acts. Given that nobody is calling for the death penalty, there is little in the way of comparison between the two. A much closer comparison would have been between adultery and homosexual acts.

robindch · 21-12-2008 11:27PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

If it were a matter of our opinions or preferences you would be right. But we are informed by God in His word as to what is of Him or of the Devil.

studiorat is, of course, quite right.

It is your opinions and preferences which tell you that you are "informed by god". Consequently, you are informed not by god, but by your opinions.

<game over>

Zombrex · 21-12-2008 11:30PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm sure you are not deliberately trying to pull at the heart strings when you attempt to draw parallels between the answers given in response to child murder and those in response to homosexual acts. Given that nobody is calling for the death penalty, there is little in the way of comparison between the two. A much closer comparison would have been between adultery and homosexual acts.

The comparison is the following of God without reason.

Again, when something terrible happens such as an Islamic fundamentalist blows up a bus, or a Christian shoots an abortion doctor, the question is asked what is the difference between them and you guys, their belief/faith and yours.

The answer given more often than not is that you guys don't blindly follow God, you rationalise what is being asked of you, and are perfectly prepared not to follow something you consider yourself to be wrong.

We don't have to worry about you guys (the moderates) because you aren't going to just go off and do something crazy and immoral because you believe God wants you to. You can detach yourselves from blind unquestioning devotion and rationalise each thing you are doing or believing.

If "God" is asking you to do or believe something that is clearly wrong, then that obviously isn't God, so you don't do or believe it. You can reject that concept of God. You are prepared to do that even if it means a fundamental re-evaluation of your faith and what you believed to be true before.

My question is (again) why are you guys not doing that in this case?

Do you think sexual relations between two members of the same sex who love each other and are in a committed relationship is, by itself, wrong?

If you don't, then why are you following a concept of a god that says it is. It is not a question of why you choose to follow but why do you even think that concept is actually God?

This comes back to the fundamental issue with religion, that when push comes to shove you guys don't actually follow what you know is right at the expense of your belief in a concept of your god. You choose the belief in God over what you believe to be right.

And that is the damn scary bit. You aren't (thankfully) blowing up buses or shooting people, but the effects of this belief are felt none the less. They are felt in how you vote, what you consider acceptable, what you allow and don't allow (see Prop 8 in California, already mentioned)

For all the talk about how reason triumphs, more often than not it doesn't. Devotion triumphs. Faith triumphs. Religion triumphs.

I hope you don't simply dismiss this as another one of Wicknights anti-religion anti-Christian rants. This is the core issue with religion in the world today. Homosexuality is simply an issue that highlights the problem in such as clear fashion because no one can come up with a reason why a homosexual couple is immoral without invoking religion. It all comes back to devotion.

The moderates say "You don't have to worry about us, we aren't like them. We will reject our belief rather than follow something that is wrong" and the rest of us say "We don't believe you"

PDN · 21-12-2008 11:52PM

Wicknight wrote: »

The comparison is the following of God without reason.

Again, when something terrible happens such as an Islamic fundamentalist blows up a bus, or a Christian shoots an abortion doctor, the question is asked what is the difference between them and you guys, their belief/faith and yours.

The answer given more often than not is that you guys don't blindly follow God, you rationalise what is being asked of you, and are perfectly prepared not to follow something you consider yourself to be wrong.

We don't have to worry about you guys (the moderates) because you aren't going to just go off and do something crazy and immoral because you believe God wants you to. You can detach yourselves from blind unquestioning devotion and rationalise each thing you are doing or believing.

If "God" is asking you to do or believe something that is clearly wrong, then that obviously isn't God, so you don't do or believe it. You can reject that concept of God. You are prepared to do that even if it means a fundamental re-evaluation of your faith and what you believed to be true before.

My question is (again) why are you guys not doing that in this case?

Do you think sexual relations between two members of the same sex who love each other and are in a committed relationship is, by itself, wrong?

If you don't, then why are you following a concept of a god that says it is. It is not a question of why you choose to follow but why do you even think that concept is actually God?

This comes back to the fundamental issue with religion, that when push comes to shove you guys don't actually follow what you know is right at the expense of your belief in a concept of your god. You choose the belief in God over what you believe to be right.

And that is the damn scary bit. You aren't (thankfully) blowing up buses or shooting people, but the effects of this belief are felt none the less. They are felt in how you vote, what you consider acceptable, what you allow and don't allow (see Prop 8 in California, already mentioned)

For all the talk about how reason triumphs, more often than not it doesn't. Devotion triumphs. Faith triumphs. Religion triumphs.

I hope you don't simply dismiss this as another one of Wicknights anti-religion anti-Christian rants. This is the core issue with religion in the world today. Homosexuality is simply an issue that highlights the problem in such as clear fashion because no one can come up with a reason why a homosexual couple is immoral without invoking religion. It all comes back to devotion.

The moderates say "You don't have to worry about us, we aren't like them. We will reject our belief rather than follow something that is wrong" and the rest of us say "We don't believe you"

And all that is a waste of text for the following reason. You are mixing up two very different scenarios.

a) The killing of children is something where we have a definite opinion that something is wrong.

b) Homosexual acts are an example of something where, outside of the Bible, many of us would see no reason to assess it as wrong or right.

The two are obviously not equivalent.

Thinking for yourself, and evaluating Scripture and religious beliefs, does not eradicate trust.

Let me give you an example. Imagine I am a doctor and my daughter trusts me as her father and respects my opinion. Now consider the following two scenarios:

a) My daughter hears about an incident where I instructed a paramedic to stab someone in the throat with a ballpoint pen. She does not have enough medical knowledge to understand that I was performing a life saving procedure, so she finds my actions extremely puzzling and even upsetting. However, she trusts me enough to believe that I must have had a valid reason for my actions and that I will explain it all to her next time we meet. Certainly she would not dream of seeing my actions as somehow permitting her to go around stabbing other people in the throat with ballpoint pens.

b) I write my daughter a letter telling her not to invest any money in Anglo-Irish Bank. This is obviously different from scenario (a) as nothing in my letter is upsetting, or even puzzling to her. She knows nothing significant about that particular financial institution, good or bad, but is happy to take her father's advice. And she would be a very wise girl to do so.

It is quite clear that (a) and (b) are totally different scenarios and only a fool, or a malicious person, would advance the argument following argument to her:
"Since you have no valid reason, other than your father's instruction, for shunning Anglo-Irish bank, then you are a hypocrite for not stabbing as many people as possible in the throat with a ballpoint pen as per your father's instructions."

jaffa20 · 21-12-2008 11:58PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

'Reason' has nothing to do with the fundamental properties of magnets and their fields. Similarly, neither oil or water is unreasonable for refusing to mix. As I understand it, this 'refusal' is simply due to intermolecular forces between the two liquids. If God, as defined by Christianity, is perfect, then like some sort of metaphysical intermolecular force, the imperfection of sin can't mix with his fundamental characteristic of perfection.

Reading too much of Thoughts by Pascal are we? You argue very similarly to him. His or your arguments are not anymore convincing with scientific analogies. It's quite contradictory to say the least.

Zombrex · 22-12-2008 12:38AM

PDN wrote: »

Homosexual acts are an example of something where, outside of the Bible, many of us would see no reason to assess it as wrong or right.

What does that mean? You have no "reason" to assess it right or wrong?

Do you need a reason? Homosexual rights are a major issue in the western world at the moment, is your position seriously going to be that you just haven't thought about it that much?

I would have thought this thread would be a reason to give it a bit of a thought.

PDN wrote: »

Thinking for yourself, and evaluating Scripture and religious beliefs, does not eradicate trust.

Yes, that is exactly my point. That is the problem.

When push comes to shove you will trust your concept of God over rejecting it, even if you have determined that what you believe has no apparent morality. You will trust that you are in fact wrong even if you don't know why.

So what is the actual difference between that an Islamist? Seriously, what is the difference?

You say that everyone knows that blowing up buses is wrong. But doesn't everyone know that there is nothing wrong with homosexual couples? No one here has been able to give a reason why it is immoral outside of the Bible? You appear to not have an opinion either way (I find that very difficult to believe, and suspect it is more a tactic to avoid simply answering the question). Wolfsbane is the only one who appears to have reasons to find homosexuality wrong, and most of these appear to be based on some very outdated way of thinking about homosexuality.

You trust that we, all of us, are wrong. And God is right.

Is it surprising then that people do the exact same when it comes to blowing up a bus, or shooting an abortion doctor. I know you object to comparing these two but I'm asking you what is the difference.

Why are you not prepared to reject your concept of God over something like this? And what would you be prepared to reject your concept of God over?

Your example of the girl is telling, because children do trust their parents even when the parents are instructing them to do something wrong or immoral. It is very difficult to reject the authority of ones parents when one is young. Rationality has nothing to do with it. We trust them not because we have rationally decided they are trust worthy, we trust them because they are a source of comfort and because we have an instinct to trust them. Even when they turn out to be wrong or immoral To reject one's parents can be traumatic even when presented with clear evidence that one's parents are monsters.

Fanny Cradock · 22-12-2008 12:55AM

Wicknight wrote: »

My question is (again) why are you guys not doing that in this case?

Have you not answered you own question above? We are moderates, our version of Christianity - based on our understanding of the teachings of Jesus - is not compatible with killing abortion doctors (given the tiny % of Christians who have done such a thing it's a sensationalist comparison in itself), blowing up buses or whatever. This is not to dissimilar from most Tottenham supporters not feeling the need to kick the head off an Arsenal supporter after a match. We are simply being true to our beliefs.

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you think sexual relations between two members of the same sex who love each other and are in a committed relationship is, by itself, wrong?

It's a complicated, emotive question and one that I am not really willing to discuss at length. I would imagine that, irrespective of religious beliefs, the reaction from many heterosexuals towards the physical, eh, mechanics (I'm such a romantic :pac:) of a homosexual relationship would vary from revulsion, to ambivalence, to something approaching indifference (and I realise that for many men this probably wouldn't apply to the idea of lesbians). Yet despite this, most would have no problem with them living their lives as they see fit. So even outside the context of Christianity, it's not a simple question of 'right' or 'wrong'.

However, zooming out from homosexuality for a moment and looking at sexuality in general, I really don't have much to say if a non-Christian chooses not to live their life in accordance with Christian doctrine. So, for example, if non-Christian friend of mine, gay or straight, happens to cohabit with their partner (and this just so happens to be the case) or goes out on the pull, I would never, ever start hammering on their their door telling them that, IMO, they are wrong. It would be foolishness to do such a thing and plain wrong. In similar manner, many Christians will also adopt a non-partisan perspective in matters such as these. In this regard, I have no opposition to civil marriage for one and all.

If the this same scenario was mirrored with a Christian friend, again, be they gay or straight, I don't see how my interaction would be much different to the previous example. Granted, I could see how the occasion might well arise (or be engineered) whereby we would have a talk (not a lecture) as friends and also as Christians. Ultimately, though, it remains their choice. Just like it remains my choice (one, that must be said, is at odds with the tenets of Christianity) if I decide to head out to Coppers, find a nurse and suggest a physical exam back at her place.

So your question really has two answers as outlined above. Firstly, from a secular perspective. Secondly, from a Christian perspective.

Wicknight wrote: »

And that is the damn scary bit. You aren't (thankfully) blowing up buses or shooting people, but the effects of this belief are felt none the less. They are felt in how you vote, what you consider acceptable, what you allow and don't allow (see Prop 8 in California, already mentioned)

Just like there is noting inherently wrong with concern over the environment would lead me to take a give stance on certain issues, there is nothing inherently wrong with my Christian beliefs influencing how I decide to vote. To a man (and woman) our beliefs influence and even dictate what we consider acceptable. The difference is that my beliefs are written down, yours aren't. This, of course, gives atheists the platform to pronounce that we Christians are merely gullible sheep unable to critically analyse life.

Wicknight wrote: »

I hope you don't simply dismiss this as another one of

Would we ever?

Fanny Cradock · 22-12-2008 01:07AM

jaffa20 wrote: »

Reading too much of Thoughts by Pascal are we? You argue very similarly to him. His or your arguments are not anymore convincing with scientific analogies. It's quite contradictory to say the least.

never read him. 'Great minds' and all that!

PDN · 22-12-2008 01:28AM

Wicknight wrote: »

What does that mean? You have no "reason" to assess it right or wrong?

It means that I am not so arrogant as to set myself up as an infallible judge of what is right or wrong.

There is the world of difference between strongly believing action A to be wrong and believing that you are not qualified to judge unaided whether action B is wrong or not. Why do you find that so hard to understand?

Do you need a reason?

Yes. I need a reason to reach a firm belief. However, the fact you would ask that question explains a lot.

Yes, that is exactly my point. That is the problem.

When push comes to shove you will trust your concept of God over rejecting it, even if you have determined that what you believe has no apparent morality. You will trust that you are in fact wrong even if you don't know why.

No, it has been clearly explained to you that we are talking about a situation where, apart from the Bible, we wouldn't actually know if something were right or wrong or not.

You trust that we, all of us, are wrong. And God is right.

And, having read both the Bible and your posts, that is a very reasonable position for me to take.

So what is the actual difference between that an Islamist? Seriously, what is the difference?

It's probably quite a big difference for the people on the bus.

You say that everyone knows that blowing up buses is wrong. But doesn't everyone know that there is nothing wrong with homosexual couples?

Look up 'everyone' in a dictionary. Funny how Proposition 8 went if everyone knows there's nothing wrong with homosexual couples, isn't it?

Your example of the girl is telling, because children do trust their parents even when the parents are instructing them to do something wrong or immoral. It is very difficult to reject the authority of ones parents when one is young. Rationality has nothing to do with it. We trust them not because we have rationally decided they are trust worthy, we trust them because they are a source of comfort and because we have an instinct to trust them. Even when they turn out to be wrong or immoral To reject one's parents can be traumatic even when presented with clear evidence that one's parents are monsters.

So, some people betray trust or are unworthy of trust - therefore trust no-one? Hardly a philosophy of hope, is it?

UU · 22-12-2008 01:49AM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Being happy with yourself is no indication you are right.

I'm giving the Christian view, and it comes down to who has the correct assessment of his condition - the homosexual or God?

If it is the homosexual, then he need not worry about God, for a god who is mistaken about a sexual condition is not a real God at all.

But if it is God who has correctly assessed the condition, then the homosexual needs to re-evaluate all he has assumed and reject all that is contrary to God's word. He needs to confess and forsake his immoral desires and practices and let God replace them with those that God intended.

Well at least you're being honest with your opinion. Well if you choose to believe it's a sin well that's really your view. But in giving my own homosexual, atheist view that really boils down to being honest with myself and recognising sexual freedom. The fact is I wouldn't infringe a judgment on somebody's sexuality (orientation, acts, etc.) unless I felt it actually was harming somebody such as rape, incest, paedophilia so for me to pass judgement on the happening on two consenting adults in private would be horrible thing to do. Although I'm not saying that you'd do that either don't worry. As I don't believe in God, there is no lawmaker to hand down morals from the heavens in a book. But I see you're not really anti-gay as in the types who'd be homophobic and really abusive which is probably seen as not very Christian anyway I'm not sure. I do understand your belief even though I don't necessarily agree with it. Well thanks for responding anyway! Have a nice Christmas or for me, Midwinter

Fanny Cradock · 22-12-2008 01:57AM

Fair play, UU.

Happy Christmas to you, too.

UU · 22-12-2008 02:35AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Fair play, UU.

Happy Christmas to you, too.

No problem! Same to you!

AtomicHorror · 22-12-2008 02:51AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Leaving the homosexual aspect of your post aside for the moment, I believe that there is a fundamental inaccuracy in your above quote. This error, or what I believe to be an error, revolves around the concept of 'reason' in specific relation to God and sin - any sin. Rather than viewing the punishment of sinners as an act based on, or in the absence of, reason, I believe that it is a result of the fundamental characteristics of both God and sin.

That could only be true if God could not control his own acceptance or mixing with things. If there were something over which God did not have control. If God were not omnipotent and/or was irrational.

Is this what you are suggesting?

By my understanding, sin is sin by God's decree. By His choice, not because of something fundamental to Him beyond His control.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

By way of example, you wouldn't say that it is unreasonable for the 'north' particles of one magnet to repel the 'south' particles of another. 'Reason' has nothing to do with the fundamental properties of magnets and their fields. Similarly, neither oil or water is unreasonable for refusing to mix. As I understand it, this 'refusal' is simply due to intermolecular forces between the two liquids.

Now this is just silly Fanny. You might claim that these things are so because God has decreed them as such and that is fair enough. All is in nature. But the bible says that homosexuality is wrong, and so you accept the moral (or non-moral) parts of nature until it comes to homosexuality. And suddenly it's a sin, irrespective of the morals.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If God, as defined by Christianity, is perfect, then like some sort of metaphysical intermolecular force, the imperfection of sin can't mix with his fundamental characteristic of perfection.

Then why is it that so many morally wrong things happen to be sins, except for this one thing that is not morally wrong but is a sin anyway? This one thing that, coincidentally, happens to be something that a whole load of men have historically had a big old irrational fear of?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So if somebody cures AIDS, helps old grannies across the street and always remembers to say 'thank you' after dinner, these things really have no bearing on perfection because of all the other crap (sin, whatever sin) that goes on in each of our lives.

And if those things are morally wrong, harmful things, then I can see why a benevolent God would take issue. But it seems strange to me that one of those things happens to be something that is simply not immoral by any reasonable measure. God must have choice in this.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, you are correct when you say that reason doesn't matter in relation to salvation and damnation. However, this is because reason plays absolutely no function in what is and what is not perfect.

A strange thing that God gave us reason then. We are created to question all, and yet expected to question nothing or be damned.

AtomicHorror · 22-12-2008 03:09AM

AtomicHorror wrote:

PDN, I have to ask you the same question I asked of Wolfsbane. If you've answered this one before I apologise. Aside from the Word of God (and I don't wish to belittle that), do you see any reason why homosexuality or homosexual acts should be considered immoral? I would like you to assume for the purposes of this question that the acts are entirely monogamous and long term. The immorality of promiscuity may be taken as a given.

Anyone care to comment on my question? Wolfsbane has already given his take on the matter. Authority of the bible is unquestionable. Presumably, Wolfie would commit murder if the bible demanded it.

--amadeus-- · 22-12-2008 10:56AM

PDN wrote: »

1. The word is used at least 50 times in contexts where there is no sexual connotation - including non-sexual relationships and also in the sense of clinging to something or pursuing something.
2. The same word is also used to apply to Ruth holding on to Naomi's clothing - not to their relationship.

And yes, Naomi and Ruth did have a relationship. They were mother-in-law and daughter-in-law.

However, let's explore this a little bit further. The Genesis 2:24 quote clearly describes 'cleaving' as an exclusive relationship. A man did not 'cleave' to his parents house and to his wife. He had to 'leave' the one in order to 'cleave' to the other.

Now, are you seriously arguing that Ruth and Naomi had 'cleaved' into such an exclusive relationship? (Before you answer - remember that a couple of chapters later Ruth is going to marry Boaz)

And a commitment that prevents people from parting has to be sexual?

Of course they made an impact. Naomi had been gone for years and now she returned bringing a Moabitess daughter-in-law with her (a bit like a Southern belle bringing a black daughter-in-law to Alabama 200 years ago).

The gender doesn't change the meaning of the speech. The words Ruth spoke to Naomi would be similar to those we would expect to see spoken by a woman swearing loyalty to a king or a man swearing loyalty to his queen - no sexual connotation whatsoever.

However, since you want to argue that the meaning of speech shouldn't alter when we change the gender .....

Now, by your own reasoning, why should the meaning change when we change the gender? Why would the Hebrews publicly read Leviticus 20:12 in their Temple one day and yet the next day read out a text that celebrates a mother-in-law getting down and dirty with her daughter-in-law? Such an interpretation clearly fails your own reasonable person criteria.

The conversation has moved on since I was last online and I'm not going to be on again now till after Xmas so just a quick final word on this...

Seems to me that things are now going to start going around in circles. We have already been over the meaning of the Genesis quote and the relationship context that it is set in. We have already discussed the context of the relationship in the Book of Ruth (and yes I know she ends up getting married). And we have also discussed and refuted the multiple homonyms.

And I really can't see the relevance of Leviticus - after all that's the cartoon bogeyman of the bible that bans you from eating shellfish! However I see no internal contradiction with your quote that prohibits adultery being read out before teh reading of a non-adulterous relationship?

So we're going round in circles - you make the same arguments, I make the same refutations. An ambiguous text will lead to multiple meanings an I am surprised that moderates don't accept that. And modern literary criticism suggests that no written work holds an absolute meaning as every reader brings thier own life experiences, attitudes and (yes) morals and prejudices to teh text so there can be as many meanings as there are readers.

To deny a homosexual reading of Ruth as even a possibility seems to me to be wilfully discriminatory - why does one possible alternative reading of one book in the Old Testament matter so much? Why is it so important to deny it is a possibly valid interpretation? One thing is for sure it is a reading that is gaining traction - Google "book of ruth lesbian" and you'll get 90,700 hits.

Anyway, hope you all have a great holiday and I'll see you in the new year!

Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)

Comments