Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

You were arguing that Xians are blasting homosexuals as sinful in a way that suggests this was the only sin they were concentrating on.

---

I guess I need to repeat it:Huh? Do you not realize that the topic of the thread is, "Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?" It would seem to be the case that the question of sexual proscriptions would be the subject of the conversation.What part of "make peace with gay people" means we're talking about, oh, stealing? Or murder? Or any of the other possible "sins" out there? Are you trying to say that being gay means one does not keep the Sabbath? Spit it out. What are you trying to say?

quote:

---

Straights are told they are sinning when they have sex. All sex is sin.

---

Since when? "Be fruitful and multiply." Last time I checked, humans hadn't mastered parthenogenesis and the Catholic Church just declared cloning to be a sin. The Bible is filled with people desperately wanting to have a baby, praying to god to make it happen. The sin of Onan is that he didn't have sex (or, at least, didn't complete the act).Where does this idea that "all sex is sin" come from? Paul? We're going to trust Paul over god? Jesus doesn't say not to have sex. Are we going to trust Paul over Jesus?Yes, there are lots of ways straight people can engage in sex and sin, but as I've repeated over and over: That doesn't mean god loves them any less than the gays...just that they need more supervision.

quote:

---

Perhaps its easiest to put it this way, sex for pleasure is a sin

---

Ahem. The Song of Solomon.Where does this idea that sex for pleasure is a sin come from?

quote:

---

If all you have to give is yet another repetition on your original assertion and refuse to address what I've said, I will not reply.

---

Strange, that's my argument to you: You do nothing but repeat the same non-answers to my points. If you have nothing to contribut but repetition of the same non sequiturs, then perhaps you should not reply.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

iano responds to me:

quote:

---

I can't see that it matters much to the issue at hand

---

It's the entire point of the discussion, friend. You have made a judgement. They have made the opposite one.

quote:

---

No objection to Step 1?

---

Incorrect. Big objection to Step 1.

quote:

---

The sentence starts out with "I judge.." so it is me judging that God determines certain things.

---

But you don't have that right. Who are you to tell god what to do?

quote:

---

No objection to Step 2?

---

Incorrect. Big objection to Step 2.

quote:

---

You missed out Step 3 which is the bit where I say that "I believe the Bible to be the word of God". You don't register an objection there either.

---

You can believe whatever you wish. This isn't about your beliefs. It's about your judgements. That you base your beliefs upon your judgements isn't the problem. It's the judgements that you have made that are the problem.Note: I am assuming you "believe" the Bible. Therefore, I assume that you "believe" that you are not supposed to make judgements.But then you immediately turn around and make them.

quote:

---

I think it does, but like I say, I have no interest in debating the linguistic meanings I draw from the Bible with you.

---

But that's the entire point. The Bible doesn't say what you think it says and yet you seem to think you have the right to make declarations about god's opinion.That's judgement.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

The topic is Xianity v gays. That does not explain statements suggesting that homosexuality is the only remaining thing Xians care about sin wise

---

And since no such statements have been made, one wonders why you are attacking a strawman.

quote:

---

The exhortation to "be fruitful and multiply" does not remove the sin of sex by heterosexuals.

---

But where is the sin of sex to begin with? The problem is not the sex: It's the rituals surrounding it. When the great elders of the Bible have hundreds of wives, then there is clearly no sin with regard to sex in and of itself.As I said before: Yes, there are lots of ways straight people can engage in sex and sin, but as I've repeated over and over: That doesn't mean god loves them any less than the gays...just that they need more supervision.

quote:

---

Again, the best that would theoretically remove condemnation of is vaginal sex, which not all heteros enjoy as their main sexual outlet.

---

But there is nothing in the Bible that says any such thing. The Bible is very quiet on the mechanics. Even the sin of Onan, supposedly about masturbation, isn't about that: It's that he was supposed to conceive a child for his dead brother and couldn't bring himself to do it. If sex were sinful, why on earth would he be ritually required to have sex with his sister-in-law?But when the Bible does talk about mechanics, it talks about oral sex and declares it wonderful:Sol 2:3: As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.Sol 4:16: Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.And then there's this passage which is a bit difficult to consider:Sol 5:4: My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.I'm pretty sure they don't mean fisting, but clearly there is some form of masturbatory action going on.

quote:

---

If you want to discuss conflicting statements within the Bible (i.e. the song of solomon), that is another topic altogether.

---

Ahem. You're the one who brought it up. No, not the Song of Solomon; the claim that sex for pleasure is a sin.You have yet to show where the Bible ever says sex for pleasure is a sin. Since the Bible contains an erotic poem covering an entire book, you have yet to meet your burden of proof.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

iano responds to me:

quote:

---

The basis on which I say homosex is sinful doesn't refer in anyway to how others judge.

---

Irrelevant. This isn't about them. It's about YOU. YOU are the one that made the judgement. That is not your place. You are in no position to tell god what to do or to tell anybody else what god thinks. You are not god.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Incorrect. Big objection to Step 1.

---

​

And that objection is?

---

You've got to be kidding me. Read the very first two words in your "Step 1": You are in no position to judge anything. Therefore, big objection to Step 1.

quote:

---

No right to judge (in linguistically meaningful fashion) what the Bible says God has decided is sinful?

---

When the Bible doesn't say anything, how do you come up with "linguistically meaningful" anything? You are making up stuff out of whole cloth. Thus, you are putting yourself in god's place.

quote:

---

Could you explain how my judging the linguistic meaning of the Bible is "telling God what to do"?

---

Because the text literally does not say what you think it says. There are no passages in the Bible referring to homosexuality.None.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Incorrect. Big objection to Step 2.

---

​

It would be helpful if you could quote the step and tie your objection to it.

---

Don't play dumb. I have already answered this. Do you need me to repeat it?Your understanding of god does not give you the right to tell anybody else if what they are doing is sinful. And that is what you are doing. Ergo, big objection to Step 2.

quote:

---

I understand the Bible to frown on judgements involving the latter of the two kinds of judgement you describe above (for logical reasons).

---

But there is nothing in the Bible referring to the topic at hand. Therefore, where do you get off making any sort of claim as to what god thinks?

quote:

---

I think the Bible does say what I think it says.

---

Then were is it? There is nothing in the text referring to homosexuality. There are a small handful of passages referring to ritualistic sex. Last time I checked, gay people weren't having sex in a fertility rite in order to have a good harvest. That isn't what being gay is all about.

quote:

---

I do think I have the right to express my opinion on what I think God thinks.

​

Are we done?

---

No.You certainly have a freedom of expression right to say whatever you wish. But if you truly believed the Bible, then you have absolutely no right to ever say anything about what god thinks. That is judgement. You are not god. You have absolutely no idea what god thinks or wants.Not only is it judgement, it's arrogance. That's the sin of pride.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

What does polygamy have to do with proscriptions on sexuality?

---

You're kidding me, right? What do you think Solomon was doing with those wives? Playing triple-deck, chunk-deal, mega-pass Hearts?

quote:

---

That all sex outside of marriage is proscribed, does mean that heterosexuality is not inherently given a free pass.

---

(*sigh*) You don't even remember your own argument, do you?Your argument is that all sex is sinful.If there is a way to have sex without sin (i.e., get married) and if that path is given to heterosexuals, then heterosexuals are given a pass.A way to have sex without sin is a pass.
That way is given to heterosexuals.
Therefore, heterosexuals are given a pass.This is your argument. You're the one who claimed that all sex was sinful. You now seem to be backtracking. So which is it? Is all sex sinful?Yes or no. Simple question, simple answer.Is all sex sinful?

quote:

---

That many Xians maintain that nonvaginal sex is proscribed, means that for them heterosexuality is not given a free pass inside marriage.

---

Huh? Are they still having sex? Are they not sinning? Are they heterosexual? Then the heterosexuals have been given a pass.Is all sex sinful?

quote:

---

Hence it seems odd to suggest that the Bible gives heteros any free ride.

---

Who said anything about the Bible? We're talking about Christians and the last time I checked, Christians were not the Bible.

quote:

---

What was proscribed was sex outside of marriage.

---

Not always.Onan.His sin was not that he had sex. It was not that he masturbated. It was that he refused to complete the sex act with his brother's widow. He was REQUIRED to have sex in order to NOT sin. Because he refused, god smote him where he stood.So if one is required to have sex, how can it be sinful?Is all sex sinful?

quote:

---

And as many believe, within marriage, only potentially procreative acts allowed.

---

Where does the Bible ever say that?Is all sex sinful?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

iano and I write:

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The basis on which I say homosex is sinful doesn't refer in anyway to how others judge.

---

​

Irrelevant. This isn't about them. It's about YOU. YOU are the one that made the judgement.

---

​

What's irrelevant?

---

Don't play dumb.

quote:

---

I can't see what would stop me judging things on a linguistically meaningfully basis

---

But you're not.

quote:

---

I judge that there are.

---

Which you're not supposed to do. Since the text literally does not say what you think it says, for you to judge that it does means you are saying that you know more about what god thinks than god.That is judgement.That is denied to you.

quote:

---

It involves how I come to concluding as I do.

---

But you're telling others, not merely concluding as you do. Your book says you are forbidden from doing just that.You're insistence that you understand god's will is judgement.That is denied to you.

quote:

---

As already mentioned, I'm not getting into the relative merits of this or that linguistic meaning with you.

---

Read: LA-LA-LA! I can't hear you!If you can't respond to the fact that your holy book literally does not say what you think it says and thus your insistence that a certain moral conclusion is required based upon the fantasy you have created in your own head about what you think god wants, then there is very little to say.You think you know god's will.That is judgement.That is denied to you.

quote:

---

I truly believe the Bible and nothing that I see in it prevents me from saying what I believe God thinks.

---

You need to re-read Matthew:Matthew 6:5: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.But as I have been paraphrasing directly to you:Matthew 7:1: Judge not, that ye be not judged. "Judge not, that ye be not judged."
7:2: For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
7:3: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
7:4: Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?And later:Romans 2:1: Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.And again:Romans 14:13: Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.And again:James 4:12: There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?Your book literally does not say what you think it says.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

Polygamy is a descriptor for how many people one can have sex with, not a word for sex itself.

---

Don't play dumb.And don't increase the insult to our intellegence by pretending you don't know what I'm talking about.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Is all sex sinful?

---

​

No.

---

So you're contradicting your earlier claim. When you settle on an argument, let us know.Message 221: ... Oh, but that's just dancing around. Here, let's cut straight to the chase:Message 226: [emphasis added]So which is it? Is all sex sinful or is not all sex sinful? When you settle on an argument, let us know.

quote:

---

I agreed my initial statement was over broad several posts ago.

---

Oh, really? I responded to your "All sex is sin" claim (Message 229): And your response?Message 232: You didn't "agree that your initial statement was over broad." You actively supported it and then avoided discussing it. This is the first time you have even hinted at saying, "Oops. I made a mistake."That's the thing about the internet, Silent H: Your words tend to stick around and we can see what you said in the past.

quote:

---

Whether you believe this or not, heterosexual does not mean a person enjoys vaginal sex.

---

Non sequitur. What does this have to do with anything? Surely you're not saying that nobody enjoys vaginal sex, are you? And the discussion isn't about everybody being expected to enjoy vaginal sex. It has to do with your claim that sex for pleasure is a sin.Where? Where do we find this canard?

quote:

---

So what are we discussing, the Bible or Xians.

---

We are discussing Christianity as described by the Bible and practiced by Christians. This means that certain parts will be about what the Bible says and other parts will be about what practitioners do.One would have to be playing dumb to confuse the two.Don't play dumb.

quote:

---

On a point of information, wasn't it thought that the brother had the same right to the wife, through the marriage ritual?

---

No. Where on earth did you get that?While we're at it, "droit de signeur" never existed, either.

quote:

---

I said as many believe.

---

Indeed. And since their book literally does not say what they believe, where does that leave us?That'd be with them pretending to know what god thinks.And that's judgement.And that is denied them.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

iano responds to me:

quote:

---

For me to judge that it does means I am saying I draw other linguistic meaning than does the rabid literalist.

---

This isn't a question of literalism. This is a question of the passage you think is there specifically not existing.If you look in the works of William Shakespeare, you won't find any mention of Don Quixote. Therefore, to say that the works of Shakespeare have something to say about Don Quixote is to claim that you understand the mind of Bill since there is nothing in the text regarding it. It has nothing to do with an interpretive style of "literalism." It's that there is nothing in there to interpret, literally or otherwise.

quote:

---

The judgement involved in the statement "I believe that God thinks homosex is sinful" isn't the kind of judgement Matthew is talking about.

---

Yes, it is. Let us not be naive and pretend that you're being neutral, a la Fox. The reason why you aren't supposed to do that is because you cannot be neutral, you will act on your usurpation of god's will, and you will judge those around you.You need to stop worrying about others and start paying attention to yourself. How can you remove the mote in your brother's eye when there is this great plank in your own? If you think god doesn't want you to have sex with someone of your own sex, then simply don't have it. Why are you incapable of letting it go at that? Why are you obsessing over it?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

I was being totally honest with my statement on polygamy.

---

I asked nicely: Don't play dumb.

quote:

---

I have no idea what that has to do with the topic of heterosexuality, or the sinfulness of the sexual act.

---

You're the one who said, and I quote, "All sex is sin." I'm the one asking you to explain yourself, where you find any justification within the holy book of Christianity that sex is sinful, in general, and sex for pleasure is sinful, in specific.When you figure out what your argument is, let us know.

quote:

---

I did originally state that all sex is sin.

---

A statement you defended up until the point you realized you couldn't back it up. Now that you have made this realization, you are trying to sidestep the consequences. If not all sex is sinful, and if heterosexuals are allowed to have sex and not sin, then heterosexuals are given a pass. That's what "given a pass" means, after all.So if the Bible doesn't say anything about homosexuality (and it doesn't), then why are we picking on gay people? If it's the sex that's sinful, why do straights get a pass? It certainly isn't the mechanics of it or the pleasure of it because there's an erotic poem in the Bible that mentions both oral and manual sex. There isn't anything that gays do that straights don't so why is it they get a pass when they do it?

quote:

---

No, that would be several groups having different interpretations.

---

Let's suppose the Bible didn't have the book of Genesis. For whatever reason, it's simply gone, no copies of it anywhere to be found.How could one possibly "interpret" the creation myth when there is literally no creation myth to be found?The text of the Bible doesn't have anything to say about homosexuality because the concept of homosexuality simply did not exist at the time. How does one "interpret" something that doesn't exist?Now, one might decide to live one's life with only encounters that the Bible specifically mentions. After all, with no discussion in the Bible regarding things like computers, flight, nuclear energy, etc., we have absolutely no idea if god considers them to be good or bad and as the Bible shows, god is pretty arbitrary regarding such things. There is no reliable pattern.And yet, we don't seem to think the airplane is sinful, even though the Bible doesn't say anything about it.So why do so many people seem to think they know the mind of god regarding other things the Bible says nothing about?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

iano responds to me:

quote:

---

Are you now saying that the text does not say what I think it says in any of the ways a text can convey a message?

---

No, I'm saying that the words you seem to think exist in the text precisely and specifically are not there.As I pointed out in my example: If you were to search the works of Shakespeare, you will not find any references to Don Quixote. Thus, to look to Shakespeare for assistance on how to interpret Don Quixote is a fool's errand as the character "literally" does not appear. It has nothing to do with taking a "literal" approach or a reference to "literalism." It has to do with the fact that the words do not exist.Please do not play dumb.

quote:

---

Who's pretending to be neutral?

---

You are. I've asked you nicely not to play dumb. You are pretending that this information you are seeing is simply there for one's edification. But instead, you are acting upon that knowledge with regard to what you think god wants you to do. OK, so long as you restrict yourself to yourself, that's fine. It's when you try to complain about the mote in your brother's eye that you run into trouble. How can you remove the mote from your brother's eye when there is this great plank in your own?If you think that's what god means, then fine...don't do it. But your attempt to tell others that they shouldn't do it, either, is judgement.And that is forbidden to you.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

iano responds to me:

quote:

---

I'm not talking about individual words.

---

Neither am I. There is literally nothing there concerning the topic.

quote:

---

Then there is my belief that the gospel of God is to be proclaimed and that doing so involves naming sin as sin at times.

---

And according to your own book, doing so will damn you for doing so is only to do it for the glory of men. You are to pray in private, do your good deeds in secret, let not your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Your only goal is to be a shining light before others, not to browbeat them into submission.

quote:

---

There would be something unseemly about one lawbreaker (me) telling another lawbreaker that they shouldn't break the law.

---

It's more than that. It is you ignoring your own sins in order to obsess about the sins of others which are tiny compared to yours. You are not god. You are in no position to say what someone else should be concerned about. You have your own problems to deal with. You only know your own problems. For you to worry about other people's problems is for you to judge them and you have no business doing that.

quote:

---

God forbid, they might actually attempt not to sin in the hope that that would save them!!

---

What makes you think they're sinning? That's judgement. That's forbidden to you.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

iano responds to me:

quote:

---

That my linguistic judgement arrives at a different conclusion than your linguistic judgement doesn't alter the fact that linguistic judgement is the category of judgement operating in both cases

---

Irrelevant. You cannot arrive at a linguistic determination over words that do not exist.Don Quixote appears nowhere in Shakespeare. Therefore, one cannot come to any linguistic determination regarding Don Quixote by examining the works of Shakespeare.That you want to read into the Bible statements that literally are not there indicates that you wish to engage in judgement.And that is forbidden you.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

iano responds to me:

quote:

---

Perhaps you could explain this then...

---

Non sequitur. Please rephrase.Are you trying to say that oral and manual sex only happen between heterosexuals?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

iano responds to teen4christ:

quote:

---

quote:

---

As a suggestion, iano, since you're the one that is claiming the positive in this situation, could you perhaps offer a specific example from the bible to break this cycle that you guys are stuck in?

---

​

You must be kidding! The fun is trying to prevent Rrhain from misdirecting away from the dodgy basis of his objection.

---

Read: I can't actually defend my point, so I will continue to shift the burden of proof and hope nobody notices.We don't buy it, iano. You're the one making the claim, therefore it is your burden of proof. I have quoted the text. It is now your job to show where I have made any errors."Because I say so," is not sufficient.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

iano responds to me:

quote:

---

You say one cannot arrive at linguistic determinations over words that do not exist in a text and gave an example.

---

I asked you very politely not to play dumb. That is nowhere close to what I have said.Remember, I am not referring to literalism, yet you seem so stuck in it that you're taking it to the extreme as if I am saying that the only way to talk about a blue object is to use the specific word "blue." Yes, I see what you're trying to get at, but it would help if you would stop playing games and simply come out and say it:You're trying to whine about metaphor. I don't have to say the word "blue" in order to describe an object as blue. There are languages out there that do not have a color term for "blue" (Ancient Greek, for example) and yet have no trouble referring to the color of blue objects. English doesn't have a color term for the comparative shade of light blue the way we have one for the shade of light red that we call "pink." And yet, we talk about light blue objects all the time. We simply use terms that point to what we're talking about. We refer to objects of the appropriate shade ("turquoise" and "aquamarine" and "sky") or even phrases that have simply become associated with that shade ("baby blue" and "navy blue").But this isn't about metaphor; it isn't about finding other words to describe something. It's about there not being any words; about non-existence of even the very basic concept. When you don't see the world that way, it is trivial to understand why you don't come up with words for it but you need to understand that you don't even talk about it in other words: It simply doesn't occur to you to try.The closest the Bible ever comes to discussing anything remotely like what we understand as "homosexuality" is the story of David and Jonathan...and it isn't exactly a condemnation. But clearly David isn't "gay" the way we think of it. It isn't that the Bible has nothing to say about sexual activity between people of the same sex. It's that the people who wrote the Bible didn't think of human sexuality the way we do. It doesn't talk about gay people but rather about ritualistic practices.Therefore, for you to impose your opinions upon text that doesn't even understand what you're talking about is the very judgement you are told not to engage in.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.