Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

Ugh... I generally agree with everything you say, especially about the Bible not condemning homosexuality, but referencing a lame kneejerk propaganda commercial is almost obscene when arguing against someone else's lame kneejerk propaganda.Also, I do not believe that most gays and bis are Xtian, though I do think there are many who are so. Not that my opinion is conclusive, and I'd be open to statistical research.Unfortunately I find this style of argument disturbing as it makes it sound like being a Xtian, or at least conforming to this religious norm, is somehow a sign of "goodness" in people who deviate sexually from the norm.And while I totally agree they (I mean people like me since I'm bi) do not on the average worship their lust anymore than anyone else, this does not truly counter headcase's point.He was making a personal assessment of the level of confusion and satanic worship they bring to their sexual lusts. Everyone can disagree, but how can anyone prove him wrong? It seems to me confusion and satanic are both pretty subjective terms that he can define any way he wants.I suppose it might be nice for him to supply some definitions and parameters so we can see if they are internally consistent, but as we are dealing with a guy that finds murder preferable to homosexuality this may be a bit much to expect.Personally I do worship my lusts more than most people, I'd wager more than Dan. And to Headcase I am sure it seems a confusion because he doesn't understand one is capable of finding anything other than the opposite sex attractive, not to mention satanic as it is not worshipping God (who I certainly do not worship). In that case I fit his bill nicely.Okay-doke, so now what? We all have to get along. This is where I think Dan's argument in the other thread was more on the nose... would he rather a guy lick his dick or stab him in the neck with a knife (if it was someone other than Dan, my apologies). My guess if it came down to a choice between laws against one or the other, he'd choose the latter.Certainly all evidence in the Bible supports the idea that God would choose the latter.(PS--- in the other thread you responded to a post of mine saying rape is about power not sex... this is totally correct, I was just trying to get all my points and remain brief... schraf has skewered me a number of times for the lengths of my posts)------------------
holmes

#1) I can't tell what you are talking about. Are you saying that lame anti-tobacco propaganda commercial is funny, or that Rei's swiping it for use against an evangelist makes it funny? I'm being totally honest here, your statement could be read either way.#2) You can't tell me something is funny if I don't find it funny. I realize it is a joke, I am saying that I do not find jokes funny when used to prop up lame propaganda campaigns, and feel it undercut Rei's attack on an evangelist who is essentially using the same lame propaganda techniques (sans joke) for his own cause.But maybe I didn't make myself clear about what I was criticizing... I was only criticizing her use of the line "welcome to crazyworld." The rest of her argument... except where I gave specific critiques... was fine.------------------
holmes

Let me raise a question I asked in another thread, that relates to the actual subject of this thread.While I am now in agreement that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality (or specific sex acts related to homosexuality) directly, I do wonder if it is not considered "bad" in an indirect way.Clearly the Bible promotes sex within marriage as the only appropriate form of sex. And while Rrhain has made an argument that there were some homosexual marriage rites, even his sources on those rites (if they are to be believed) don't suggest that it was used much.Doesn't that mean that homosexuality is a sin in the same way as anyone else who has sex outside of marriage?Please be easy on the responses, I am not a Xtian and I am not trying to argue one way or the other. It just seems that it would kind of end up in that catchall portion of sex outside of marriage proscription.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 09-20-2003]

But you were using it because of the commercial right? I don't see how it could have been a reference to anything else (especially a band). If I'm wrong then I apologize, as it would be my misread. No. These are mindless commercials with no alternative propaganda value. "Welcome to Crazytown" links your current argument with a line from a specific piece of propaganda, which suggests you agree with that style of argument (which is horribly flawed). I realize it doesn't actually weaken your argument (other than by association) but it does leave your argument unpalatable (to me anyway).But let's get off of this subject as it is much less important than actual debate... Heheheh, how soon I get to spank someone using the same spanking I just received in another thread. Your statement was that most gays were Xtian. Did you forget about the rest of the world? Most certainly your reference did.Perhaps multiplying figures based on the percentage of Xtians in the world would begin to make the result more accurate... nahhhh. It was a biased study if one wants to talk about what Gays and Bisexuals are. All it suggests is that in the US, or perhaps just NY, there is a sizable number of gays and bis that are Xtian.I totally agree that anyone who says they are Xtian, do not worship satan. My guess is in China there are a lot more buddhist gays, and in India hindu gays, and in Japan etc etc than there are self-professed Xtians. You must have me confused with someone else... or maybe I wrote something wrong? I totally agree with you on this. In fact you were the one that supplied me with the word Qadesh in another thread (and I thank you every much for that).My only question about whether homosexuality is wrong was based on prescriptions of sex outside of marriage. So kind of against fornication and masturbation, that kind of thing. I am with you and Rrhain that there are no direct condemnations of homosexuality in the early versions of the Bible.------------------
holmes

We're just in a complete miscommunication here.The article was fine... funny even.I was talking about her "Welcome to Crazytown" line. That is the punchline for a horrible anti-tobacco ad campaign which has been all over Fox for a month (at least in my area). Given that up till yesterday Fox was the only station I could get in, that insipid ad and its attempt to inject a catchphrase into popular lingo was tattoed on my brain. Damn, it was like on at least twice a hour, every day.I LOATHE propaganda and to see someone aiding the introduction of that "new catchphrase we can all use to shorthand badmouth something we don't like", caused a pretty strong reaction in me.Something original and witty, or unrelated to propaganda wouldn't have bothered me at all. But propaganda, specifically "catchy" propaganda has to be nipped in the bud, before people accept it as a shortcut to thinking.At least that's how I feel about it and that's why I plunked down my two cents.------------------
holmes

This is the kind of thing I was trying to get at. And I'm really just asking a question. Doesn't homosexuality get labelled as a negative action according to these broader rules Xtianity espouses?------------------
holmes

Wrong! Although I am not on board with the campaign to wipe tobacco from the face of the earth, this has nothing to do with my problem and I said this quite clearly.I am anti-propaganda and I admittedly overreact anytime I see it. Here's a way to think about it. If I had quoted some punchy remark made famous in an anti-semitic propaganda film circulating in 1930's germany, or a "witty" anti-abortion or anti-homosexual propaganda film today, you would probably find it offensive. You would probably be offended even if you knew that wasn't what I was espousing, because it would be legitimating that line of thinking.Maybe I am wrong. Maybe you wouldn't care.If not, let me put it another way. I hate propaganda because it dumbs people down. It replaces logical argument with purely emotional appeals, and excuses the use of fallacies in the future. When important subjects are being discussed, I think it is of the utmost importance not to let quick quips and humorous put downs become popularized.Whether someone gets sprint is not important. Whether we should legislate tobacco products and how we should do so, is very very very important. Those "truth" ads should be condemned by anyone that believes in real discourse and personal freedom.Still overreacting? Probably. uh oh, that was bad of me. Naughty holmes certainly does deserve a spanking.Then again... Uh oh, maybe you should take more time before posting. Look again and you will see it was in reference to to a choice of LAWS AGAINST homosexuality or murder. I thought God would be in favor of a law against the latter.Naughty rei. Now we both deserve a good spanking. Shall we arrange for a nice spanking session?------------------
holmes

I caught that clue years ago. Once again, I thought I made it clear what I was upset with. If it makes things any clearer (mirroring the atheist-agnostic thread) I am a vocal opponent of Propaganda subset Cultural/Intellectual/Political issues, and not Propaganda subset Sales/Personal Choice issues.The first has to do with REAL issues that lead to laws which affect OTHER PEOPLE'S personal freedoms, not to mention the proper development of reason within our culture when faced with such issues.The second subset has to do with FRIVOLOUS or PERSONAL choice.I think it is slightly disengenuous to pretend there is no difference between the two. Personally, if I lived in 1930's Germany I could tell the qualitative difference between a commercial for the finest German Bratwurst, and a "commercial" telling me that Jews are Rats (suggesting they should be exterminated like them), or that Poland is a threat to national security using catchy hyperbolic rhetoric.My problem with the latter two are not just their message, but the technique used. If we accept this technique on such important issues, it will be used more and more and dumb down the content of public discourse. That is the point of course! The leaders want us to remain stupid and kneejerk (according to their refexes).I worry that the people who make our sales commercials are now making our "public policy" commercials, and I try to convince everyone to reject popular catch phrases and lines of argument they are trying to manufacture.You can reject my call to reject this. You can even use Lenny Bruce's argument that adopting and overusing a phrase will steal the power from it. Maybe so. But I still think the very attempt to manufacture public opinion is an insult to human intelligence and out to be publicly reviled so that it is an unpopular practice.This is surely my opinion and your disagreement with my opinion is duly noted. I will not bring up my opinion on such subjects with you again.2) thanks for accepting my apology3) apology takenNow let's go pick on the real bad guys.------------------
holmes

I think this is a good idea since it keeps popping up everywhere, though I could see admins discounting it for being too focused.Perhaps a better forum would be Intolerance. Then all sorts of topics which also keep popping up, like abortion, same sex marriage, gun control, anti-smoking and other topics related to moral/ethical judgement could be addressed.------------------
holmes

I want to start by saying that I read your posts that were pointed out in the "post of the month" forum and found them well assembled, even if I did not agree, and so I hope to see you approach this topic in the same way. Clarity is really needed here.I get what you mean by God's allowance being the prime determiner of what is wrong... no matter how strange people may find his commands.However what is in question here, and you did not address it in specific, is where God states that homosexuality is wrong.Rei is not alone in believing (well I would say "knowing") that other than English and Latin translations, the earlier Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek versions do NOT include statements directly condemning homosexuality. The earlier language refers only to male prostitution.If this is inaccurate, what passages do you feel condemn homosexuality, or why does it appear that the earlier texts refer to male prostitution if they meant homosexuality?My own assessment is that it might still fall under the catchall of "fornication", but that is clearly not as "bad" as murder to God. Or at least I would think not having a direct commandment against it might make it a "lesser" sin.Thanks in advance.------------------
holmes

I want to compliment you for having very well composed responses, even if I mention a couple of exceptions below.From your reply I do believe a large part of the problem is in the translation. The terms "sodomy" and "sodomite" as used in the English/Latin translations are not a direct translation from earlier versions (Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic). The words in those earlier versions are "male prostitute".All other instances of direct reference to male male sex acts that do not use "sodom" are also mistranslations from Hebrew/Greek words related to male prostitution.This indicates a mistake in translation (intentional or not) which pushes an incorrect inference of God's actual meaning.I realize you are using a specific translation, but doesn't the fact that there are mistranslations which readily cause incorrect inferences make you interested in digging further on this subject? Perhaps we should start another thread on translation issues as I would love to hear what you have to say on that subject. Although Romans clearly shows that God considers homosexuality to be a detrimental practice, or as he put it "not convenient", "unseemly", and "against nature", it seems somewhat disingenuous to quote this passage as if it were God condemning homosexuality as a sin.In fact, the passage relates God punishing a group of people that have turned away from God, by MAKING them homosexuals... and rampant ones at that.He certainly outlines that the "natural use" of women is sex with men for children, and so same sex acts are against nature and will end up producing natural harms for them. These would be those recompenses he mentioned that occur from that error.In that era, it would certainly be a greivous error for an entire people to stop procreating entirely. It would weaken and perhaps cause a people to fall before their enemies.That is all that passage reads as... when the first part is included to put in its proper context. Homosexuality is a curse he put upon a people for turning away, so as to weaken them, and not that he says he curses those who are homosexual.Other than "unclean", and "dishonorable" practices of sex for pleasure, God does not use the word "sin" at all, and says nothing about them needing further punishment because the practices he has pushed them into.I totally get how you can infer from this that according to God being homosexual is as if having been cursed, or at least having fallen ill and are acting in an unhealthy manner. But this is a far cry from it being a practice worthy of wholesale condemnation and punishment like the many direct statements God makes about other practices. I do not think I left it ill-defined for anyone, but let me try to my statement clearer.There are 10 direct commandments. These are unquestionable lines which one cannot cross. These are the "most important" or IMO he would not have wasted everyone's time by delineating them as THE 10 commendments people must follow.Then there are methods of conduct which lead to ill health and uncleanliness (spiritual or physical). These are "sinful" and perhaps you can end up in hell for them, but they are not as weighty of sins as those proscriptions handed to Moses.I hate to use the word disengenuous twice in the same post, but I feel this line of argument was less than fully honest. Clearly the Catholic church views sins as having various degrees of "sinfulness" attached to them. Unless you view Catholics as having no understanding of the nature of God, they would seem to support my own viewpoint.As it is I was raised (though it did not take) in a Protestant environment, lived in an evangelically oppressed town, and went to a Xtian affiliated college. While I do not believe in the Xtian God at all, I feel I have some understanding of what different Xtian denominations believe about sin, and the result of sin.Other than certain evangelical denominations, I have most have been pretty flexible and use a "graded" approach to the nature of sin. Heck, even Dante outlined a layered hell for degree of sin in life! Let's not forget the idea of purgatory either.I don't mind pursuing this discussion with an assumption that all sins are equal, but would like to do so with an understanding yours is not the only interpretation, and that I am accepting yours for the sake of argument.------------------
holmes

I have to defend joralex on this one. Unless Rrhain or Rei have some additional info, the biblical scholars I've read on the subject do NOT say that this passage refers to anything other than men lusting and having sex with men (and women too).The reason it does not come out against homosexuality in any direct reference is, as Rrhain has correctly pointed out in another thread, there was no concept of homosexuality back then.The best they could talk about was individual acts of men being with men (or women/women), or as seems to be more the case with condemnation, doing so in the context of prayer to deities.There was a popular notion back then that men being used for sex by other men were assuming a weaker role. The Romans passage may very well be written with that in mind, where God has made these ungodly people weak by making all their men and women switching roles.------------------
holmes

Ahhhhhh... I see that I had made a mistake.Perhaps you did not realize where all of this was starting from. Somebody in another thread had said that murder was actually preferable to homosexuality to the Xtian faith.This seemed ridiculous no matter what interpretation was used. When you came in to say that they were equal, I mistook that to mean that they were equal acts of atrocity.I think I get you now. What you mean is that while they may be graded in how bad they are, once sin enters the picture that is enough to land one in the spiritual pokey.Kind of like you can forge a check to steal money, or shoot everyone in the bank dead. While the former is less horrific it will get you arrested just the same as the latter.Do I have it at this point?If so, then I get what you are saying.Here is where I see us then:1) The main problem is differences on translation2) We are not going to get anywhere on this specific topic without simply dealing with issues of translationIt is clear you are taking a very holistic view of the Bible which I find quite interesting. I might even note that up until a couple months ago I was only aware of the English versions and had the same holistic view of the Bible's treatment of homosexuality.I guess I still didn't believe Sodom's destruction had anything to do with sex persuasion, but all the other passages were negative as you have stated.It is just that I started digging and It became apparent that passages had been changed from the Hebrew/Greek to create this incorrect holistic view.In fact that is the problem, any single mistranslation can be passed off since there are other passages which say etc etc etc... But what if all of them have been? That is what i have been finding.Now I am not trying to say "you are wrong". What I am saying is maybe you want to check into it. I found it quite stunning and I ended up having to go back to friends and say "I guess I was wrong". I just could no longer hold the English translation on that subject as holding any water.As far as the use of "male prostitute" is concerned the scholars I read were pretty unanimous that it was because there were a couple of rival religions at the time which used them. Thus it was worshipping another God to do so.Some scholars had said that the specific proscription was generalized to male-male sex in order to create a cultural identity for Jews as well as eliminating excuses that one didn't know one was worshipping ("hey I just went there for sex").I accepted this latter position (which meant Xtianity did proscribe homosexual acts in general) but it too became untenable under the weight of further evidence.I still don't think the Xtian God is gay-positive, but reading the Bible holistically I do not think it is something other than a weakness and minor foible.Given your structure for what sins require saving, I don't see how anyone can argue with you on this point. You have set the bar very very very low.As a final note, I take back my saying that God MADE those who walked away from him homosexual. Your wording was much more appropriate. More like he walked away from them as they walked away from him. I still believe though that that is less than condemnation and truly shows his view of homosexuality, which is not as hard as many Xtian denominations currently espouse.In fact, doesn't a gay person who wants to worship God, and asks Jesus for forgiveness of his sins, not in the position of walking toward God? Is this not the same as everyone else worshipping God (since everyone has sin and cannot escape that)? That would seem to put them diametrically opposed to those Unclean people in Romans who had simply abandoned everything.------------------
holmes

I totally do not believe in your interpretation of the Bible, regardless of mistranslations, but I do UNDERSTAND your interpretation. And I do agree that regardless of mistranslations the biblical God finds such acts unnatural and so not Kosher. This means I pretty much accept your interpretation as valid, even if I do not believe it to be the best one.HOWEVER, the mistranslations are for real. Rei has given you one, and I believe Rrhain may have as well. You have not properly addressed them. If you want more then I will track down some links for you, or I encourage you to look for yourself. It is not hard to find such resources through Yahoo or Google. You may find some sites which are pro-gay (and so biased) but there are enough that aren't.The key is some sites show the Hebrew wording (something I can't do without importing an image file), its literal definition, and its meaning.But Rei's example of Qadesha, Qadesh is enough. Sodomite was never used.------------------
holmes

Say it ain't so Joralex. You seemed so well composed, but then this gay bashing via clans of child molesters and AIDs spreaders garbage. Perhaps God doesn't want people getting shaves and that's why he made AIDs? After all that's just as good as any other argument for its purpose.Centuries ago there was a terrible plague called the Black Death. People used the same reasoning you just used here. In fact some blamed the Jews as the cause as the disease seemed to spread with ships and Jews were a major part of trade.It was absurd and eventually discredited. Illness happens. It can be bacterial or viral. They are ultimately transmitted via contact to infected matter (usually fluids).AIDs is no different than the Black Death in this regard. Contrary to your statement it did not start as a disease among homosexuals. I am sure that is how you remember it as that is how it started being reported. Unfortunately for you theory that is simply which victims of this new disease began popping up in the US.It began and spread as a heterosexual disease in Africa. It spread via heterosexual sex and among drug users. A bisexual, or homosexual drug user was most likely the first contact from the African population into the American/European population.And unfortunately patient 0 for America was a swinging (I think Canadian) airline steward who traveled all over, spreading the virus specifically to other swinging gays. That was like the disease hitting a goldmine for spreading.Which was like the Plague hitting its goldmine when it hit rats that were parasite infested and globe hopping on ships.From there the spread was stepped up incredibly. But it neither began as nor remained a plague on any specific group of people.In Africa and Asia AIDs began as and remains a heterosexual disease (and no not just drug users). It entered the heterosexual population of America and Europe more slowly but that is because it didn't hit one of our prime transmission vectors first.It could very well have started with an IV user giving an infected blood transfusion. Just by statistics, heterosexuals would likely have been the hardest hit then (and the first noticed by the papers). Would it then have been targeted at heterosexuals?On your fearmongering of leaving children with homosexuals, I really think you need to start practicing what you preach. Where is your tolerance and understanding?Personally I'm with Dan. You don't leave your kids with anyone you don't know. And if forced into such a situation, then I am with Brian, I'd rather a "clan" (clan???) of homosexuals than a coven of Xtians. They are less likely to screw with my kid's mind, or beat or kill them to save them from the devil.Or is stereotyping a group of people based on bad media coverage, not a fair thing to do?I can accept your interpretation of the Bible, that God finds it sinful (as much as everything else), but your interpretation of reality and disease seems a bit... unexamined.------------------
holmes