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

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well redundant then?
Your missing the point. Insisting that Christians read the OT in the light if the NT doesn't help, again,the position of women and slavery are both described in the NT in a way we would find morally objectionable today. What changed?
Oh and the Leviticus 20.18 thing, TMI, lets leave it at that.

Not at all, Tommy. William Wilberforce and those who campaigned against slavery did so because of principles and teaching that they found in the Bible. The same goes for those of us who are active in campaigns for women to have equal ministry opportunities to men.

For example, there are no Scripture verses that describe being a slave or a woman as something that would stop someone having an inheritance in the Kingdom of God. Nor was anyone's past status as a slave or a woman described as something from which they had been cleansed and forgiven.

Then you have a verse that declares that in Christ there is neither male nor female, slave or free. But there is no similar verse that says "In Christ there is neither a participator in homosexual acts or one who refrains from such acts".

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

Well that isn't true. But even if it were true, would it matter? The words say what they say. And the fact remains that the passage you quote as being crystal clear against all homosexual acts isn't in the Bible. How many Biblical scholars agree with you, if any, doesn't change that.

You were the one who brought biblical scholars into this - when you wanted to use them as authorities to support your stance.

I simply pointed out that only a minority of biblical scholars would support your stance. So you then proceeded to dismiss those biblical scholars who don't agree with you as being dishonest. Now you're saying it doesn't matter what biblical scholars believe.

I guess that's an improvement.

That is a bit ironic considering you are simply ignoring the facts and saying that other people agree with you so I must be wrong.

Now, now, let's keep things truthful please.

I said that a majority of biblical scholars would disagree with you on this issue, and I happen to agree with them.

You know, it's OK for people to disagree with you. You don't have to accuse them of dishonesty or of serving the interests of homophobic churches.

Do you agree that the passage

"a man lying with another man as with a woman is an abomination"

is not in the Bible?

Of course no English text is in the Bible.

But that is a good translation of what the Hebrew says and makes much more sense than any other suggested translation.

Think of it this way. Jewish people (who tend to be quite good at interpreting Hebrew) have interpreted that verse in that way for 3000 years. The vast majority of Old Testament scholars (who also speak Hebrew pretty well) agree with them. Now you, who it appears can't speak Hebrew at all, want to tell them all that they are wrong.

Do you see why that line of argument is less than convincing?

More ad hominem attacks.

You don't appear to understand what an ad hominem attack means.

An ad hominem attack refers to when a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

I, on the other hand, have pointed out that you are using tactics in this thread (false statements, accusing those who disagree with you of dishonesty, dismissing the views of those with expertise in a subject where you know nothing) that make it highly inadvisable for anyone to change their opinion based on what you have posted. That is not an ad hominem attack, it is highly relevant to your argument.

marienbad wrote: »

I think you are missing the point here Nick , and in a monumental way. In my experience non-Christians don't give a flying-fcuk about biblical interpretation per se , any more than they would about Rastafarianism or Baha'ism or any other belief system.

It is only when such belief systems begins to inform secular laws and seek to change secular law that it become an issue.

Prime examples being the grip the RCC has on education and health in this country and the upcoming civil war on gay marriage.

That is manifestly not the case. I had already made clear that, however you interpret the Bible, that should never be an excuse for homophobia or for trying to use the law to force one's morality on others.

Yet you still wanted to ask me questions about Leviticus, didn't you?

So it would rather appear that you are the one missing the point.

I'm simply a Christian, in a Christianity Forum, discussing how we should interpret the Bible because that happens to be quite important to Christians when it comes to framing our moral beliefs and codes of conduct in our churches. Where's the problem in that, and how is that missing any point?

Nick Park wrote: »

Sorry, I couldn't even begin to answer something so impossibly hypothetical.

How would I, as a Christian, have acted in a world where Christianity did not yet exist?

You might as well ask me if I was a frog then would I like eating flies.

I can only answer for what I might do in this life, here and now. My understanding of the teaching of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, means that I am a pacifist. I oppose all killing of people - including warfare, capital punishment or even the killing of the unborn.

I don't think the analogy is quite on the same level but I agree it is hypothetical for sure.

However, it must be fair to say that some or even most of those found guilty of homosexual acts in those times must have been killed? And if those doing the executing were also under the commandment of 'thou shalt not kill' - how does that work?

Is it that God would have approved of the murders, and so they were just?

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

Thank you for the response, but I was after a more yes/no answer. It was posed to you whether or not we should follow everything in the Bible. You responded that you would need specific quotes to give an accurate answer so I supplied a quote in the hope of an answer, but I feel I didn't get one. I mean you say the Bible is inspired by God and that his word is true so am I right in saying that we should follow all of it?

If you wish for a yes or no answer then it is simple really. If you are a Bible believing Christian you take the whole book to be the word of GOD and would therefore take the teachings and try to understand each on of them in "context".

I believe the whole book. Every chapter, every verse, every line. I take the following to be true, for example.

2Ti 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Just because we find things written in the Bible that are uncomfortable to deal with or hard to understand does not make them any less true.

So if GOD says put them to death, who am I to argue with that. Unfortunately we deal with things differently now, hence the state of the world we live in.

Anyway, my point is not what I think it is what GOD commands that is our final authority. That's why people have a choice, to follow or reject. Simple.

Rejecting the Word is easier because it fits in with our modern set of values and strays from GODS original intentions.

There are more than a few warnings in the Bible for this way of thinking.

Isa 5:20-23
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (21) Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! (22) Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink: (23) Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!

Deleted User wrote: »

Nick, when you get a chance can you try to explain the differences between the interpretations here?

Thanks

Hi Emmet

I think there's a basic misunderstanding here. No sane Christian would base their actions or morality purely on a verse from Leviticus.

Leviticus contains a set of laws for the Jewish people at the time when they were leaving slavery in Egypt under Moses and entering into the Promised Land under Joshua.

Those laws are not binding upon us today as most of us are not Jewish and we don't live in a theocratic State.

Leviticus does have value, however, in helping us recognise certain actions and behaviours that displease God. So, for example, it is still a good thing to honour our parents as far as is possible.

But Christians believe that the ultimate revelation of God is given in Jesus Christ, and that His teachings are contained in the Gospels, and also, through His apostles, in the rest of the New Testament. So the Old Testament should always be read in the light of the New Testament.

Immanuel wrote: »

No, because he is not an Israelite Judge bound to the Old Covenant and bound implement the Civil Law code and civil punishments, for moral transgressions, in the then, nation of Israel. He is a Gentile (non Jew), and today subject to the modern civil and criminal laws of his country, and in addition, as a Christian, the moral laws of Christianity and the New Covenant, but he is not subject to Jewish ceremonial and civil laws, or the civil punishments, of the then Israelite nation. i.e. the moral law for him is not to engage in homosexual acts, but the civil law does not prescribe capital punishment for such acts, and even if it did, he would have no authority to implement it, only the civil authorities would.

So civil authority trumps God's authority? Moral cripples argument.

Immanuel wrote: »

I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but it would be incorrect. In the new covenant, eternal life has been opened to us again, and God does not use the civil authorities of the then Israelite nation to deal with morality today. Civil authorities are primarily interested in preserving law and order, not morality. Christ's kingdom is not of this world, but of eternal life. God's covenants were made with one man, then one family, then one nation, and today, with the new covenant, all nations.

We're actually talking about a very narrow time range here too. Forget 5000 years ago, what about 50,000 years ago? What were the rules then?

Given there is nothing new under the sun, what about homosexual acts 50,000 years ago, or even 100,000 years ago. There was no Bible then - so was it not wrong then?

KJV1611 wrote: »

Yes you are correct GOD never wrote his own words. They were given to his prophets to write down and be given unto us.

Where his prophets not men? If so doesn't your warning

"As Christians, GOD's word should be our final authority, not mans opinions, lies, conjecture or commentaries."

still not apply?

KJV1611 wrote: »

It is simple really, we all have been given a choice to believe in him or reject him, there are rewards for the former and punishment for the latter.

But it is not him we are asked to believe, it is these men. And in relation to the discussion we are having, it is not even these men, it is the men who recorded these men and the men that translated the words of these recordings.

So you are already 3 steps (or more) removed from God's words without even trying. When we read an English Bible we are reading what a man translated the words of what another man recorded another man saying was a commandment from God.

How anyone can take this and say it is "God's words" is beyond me.

Nick Park wrote: »

You were the one who brought biblical scholars into this - when you wanted to use them as authorities to support your stance.

I simply pointed out that only a minority of biblical scholars would support your stance. So you then proceeded to dismiss those biblical scholars who don't agree with you as being dishonest. Now you're saying it doesn't matter what biblical scholars believe.

I didn't claim I'm correct because Biblical scholars agree with me (as you have done). I claimed that there is no clear condemnation in the Bible of homosexuality, a fact recognized by Biblical scholars.

You can ignore Biblical scholars completely and the fact remains that there is no clear condemnation of homosexuality and homosexual acts in the Bible. It simply doesn't exist.

Nick Park wrote: »

I said that a majority of biblical scholars would disagree with you on this issue, and I happen to agree with them.

You know, it's OK for people to disagree with you. You don't have to accuse them of dishonesty or of serving the interests of homophobic churches.

I'm accusing you of dishonesty because you stopped arguing the facts and just started repeating that the translators of the Bible agree with you and that I have not the sufficient level of religious education to disagree.

Argument from authority.

Nick Park wrote: »

Of course no English text is in the Bible.

But that is a good translation of what the Hebrew says and makes much more sense than any other suggested translation.

Again the English sentence you say is crystal clear has no direct translation in the the Old Testament Bible. The Hebrew of that English sentence is not in the Bible and not Hebrew in the Bible translates to that English sentence.

That translation can only be arrived at by the translator inserting into the phrase words that are not there. So you have essentially a crystal clear condemnation of homosexual acts that has to be fiddled with in order to be clear. Which, and this point should be obvious, means that the original Hebrew is anything but crystal clear.

Crystal clear statements do not have to be meddled with to make them even crystaler.

Nick Park wrote: »

Think of it this way. Jewish people (who tend to be quite good at interpreting Hebrew) have interpreted that verse in that way for 3000 years. The vast majority of Old Testament scholars (who also speak Hebrew pretty well) agree with them. Now you, who it appears can't speak Hebrew at all, want to tell them all that they are wrong.

Again, appeal to authority.

You yourself should know the problem with this, considering you have already discussed slavery. For thousands of years the interpretation of the Bible was that the Bible condoned the act of slavery. Up until the 17th and 18th centuries the idea that slavery was morally wrong and against God was the vastly minority position in the Christian world. Entire Christian nations set sail to enslave countries with the moral justification that the Bible supported them.

Great Christian philosophers such as Aquinas and Augustine, who must have studied the Bible in far greater depth than either of us, thought that slavery was the natural way for the world to be run and not in any way condemned by the Bible

In modern times the vast vast majority of Christians reject this interpretation and believe that slavery goes against God's wishes for the way the world should be run, that it should be outlawed and is an affront to human dignity.

How far do you think anyone would get in the modern age with Christians by appealing to the older interpretations of the Bible and saying that Aquinas and Augustine disagree with them?

Nick Park wrote: »

Do you see why that line of argument is less than convincing?

Convincing of what?

There is a fact. That fact is that there is no Hebrew in the Bible that translates to the English phrase you used, and that the Hebrew passage itself is not clear as to what is being referred to.

That is a fact.

For thousands of years people have made a judgement call that asserts what the authors must have meant was that homosexual acts in general are not allowed.

But the very fact that they had to do this supports the point. You speak as if there is no ambiguity here, when of course there is.

You assert that because most agree that these passages must mean homosexual acts in general then it is clear. Leaving aside that this isn't true, even if it was true it doesn't remove the ambiguity that exists in the text. Because you pick an interpretation does not mean that interpretation is crystal clear.

Nick Park wrote: »

You don't appear to understand what an ad hominem attack means.

An ad hominem attack refers to when a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

How does my inability to speak Greek or my lack of a theology degree mean I am wrong about the existence of the ambiguity in the Bible? If I was wrong about the existence of the ambiguity you would simply correct me on the facts, not say others disagree and then attack my expertise, as if I'm the one who first pointed out this ambiguity. Hence the charge of ad hominem.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok, so can you explain to me how the passages about homosexuality in Leviticus are relevant to this discussion, though the issue of a man having intercourse with his wife during menstruation would no longer be deemed to something which displeases.

It strikes me as "unfair" treatment. I can't get my head around it.

They're relevant to this discussion because a poster had said he thought homosexuality was mentioned only twice in the Bible. I responded by saying that I can think off the top of my head of at least seven times where homosexuality is referred to. Then another poster made the (erroneous) claim that homosexuality was never mentioned in the Bible. Which led us to Leviticus.

If someone had posted that menstruation is never mentioned in the Bible then I would have mentioned Leviticus as well.

At no point have I ever suggested that anyone should base their views on homosexuality solely on Leviticus - in fact I have said very clearly that Christians' views on this subject should be primarily formed on the basis of the New Testament.

This is a Christianity Forum - and Christians tend to talk about the Bible.

What is 'unfair' about that?

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

I didn't claim I'm correct because Biblical scholars agree with me (as you have done). I claimed that there is no clear condemnation in the Bible of homosexuality, a fact recognized by Biblical scholars.

No, actually you didn't. You made a much more sweeping claim, that the Bible does not mention homosexuality at all.

You mentioned biblical scholars when you made that claim, but then, when confronted with the fact that most biblical scholars would not agree with that claim, you accused those that disagree with you of being dishonest.

Then you tried to claim that you never said that the Bible doesn't mention homosexuality at all, but that we were simply discussing the semantics of the word 'homosexuality'.

Then you changed your mind again and decided that it doesn't matter what biblical scholars believe anyway, even though you were the one who first mentioned them.

Now you're changing your mind again and saying that there is no clear condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible - a significant shift from your earlier claim that the Bible doesn't mention homosexuality.

I'm accusing you of dishonesty because you stopped arguing the facts and just started repeating that the translators of the Bible agree with you and that I have not the sufficient level of religious education to disagree.

Argument from authority

Right, so now, rather than accuse biblical scholars of dishonesty, you are accusing me of dishonesty?

Please reference any dishonest statement I have made. I'm not asking you to refer to a point where we might opt for different interpretations (that happens in discussions all the time) or have different points of view. I am asking you to point out a single untruth, lie or dishonest statement that I have made in this thread.

I am therefore asking you to either point out a single dishonest statement I have made, or to withdraw that allegation of dishonesty. Otherwise our discussion is at an end and the mods can deal with this.

Nick Park wrote: »

No, actually you didn't. You made a much more sweeping claim, that the Bible does not mention homosexuality at all.

You mentioned biblical scholars when you made that claim, but then, when confronted with the fact that most biblical scholars would not agree with that claim, you accused those that disagree with you of being dishonest.

Then you tried to claim that you never said that the Bible doesn't mention homosexuality at all, but that we were simply discussing the semantics of the word 'homosexuality'.

Then you changed your mind again and decided that it doesn't matter what biblical scholars believe anyway, even though you were the one who first mentioned them.

Now you're changing your mind again and saying that there is no clear condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible - a significant shift from your earlier claim that the Bible doesn't mention homosexuality.



Right, so now, rather than accuse biblical scholars of dishonesty, you are accusing me of dishonesty?

Please reference any dishonest statement I have made. I'm not asking you to refer to a point where we might opt for different interpretations (that happens in discussions all the time) or have different points of view. I am asking you to point out a single untruth, lie or dishonest statement that I have made in this thread.

I am therefore asking you to either point out a single dishonest statement I have made, or to withdraw that allegation of dishonesty. Otherwise our discussion is at an end and the mods can deal with this.

We have been over all of this already. You know exactly what I meant by that statement, and you know exactly what I meant when I said you were being dishonest.

This is just a deflecting tactic to avoid the fact that the crystal clear passage you quote isn't found in the Bible, nor is any Hebrew text that translates to it found in the Bible.

Can you address that issue?

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

We have been over all of this already. You know exactly what I meant by that statement, and you know exactly what I meant when I said you were being dishonest.

This is just a deflecting tactic to avoid the fact that the crystal clear passage you quote isn't found in the Bible, nor is any Hebrew text that translates to it found in the Bible.

Can you address that issue?

I'll leave the handling of the unsubstantiated name-calling to the mods.

The passage I quoted is in the Bible. Leviticus 20:13

וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת־זָכָר מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תֹּועֵבָה עָשׂוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מֹות יוּמָתוּ דְּמֵיהֶם בָּֽם׃

Reading from right to left (as Hebrew does) we find the following transliterated Hebrew words with their English translation in brackets:

'iysh (a man) aser (who/if) yishkab (lies) et (with) zakar (mankind) mishkab (as lies) 'ishshah (with a woman) tow'ebah (an abomination) 'asu (have committed) shneihem (both) mot (surely) yumatu (put to death) d'meihem (their blood) bam (on them)

Anyone who knows anything whatsoever about Hebrew reads this as a 'Ronseal text' (does what it says on the tin). It is a prohibition against homosexual acts, and that is how Jews have read and understood it for 3000 years.

If you go to biblegateway.com you will find a search tool that enables you to look up a verse in multiple translations. There are 46 English translations listed. 3 of these are just translations of the New Testament. The remaining 43 translations, without exception, translate this verse in the same way.

I also looked up the available Spanish and French versions (they being the only other modern languages I know). They also translate it the same way.

You might not be aware of this, but many modern translations contain copious footnotes that alert the reader to any possible variant translations. None of them mention any doubt or difficulty with the translation of this verse.

The Greek translation of Leviticus 20:13 reads as follows:

καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι θανατούσθωσαν ἔνοχοί εἰσιν

If you are not familiar with the Greek alphabet, the 6th and 7th words of that verse read: arsenos koite