Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

Particuarly as hetrosexuality far outways homosexuality as the main vector of AIDs transfer across most of the world. (In the USA, homosexual cases still outweigh hetrosexual, but they are catching fast. This is the pattern we would expect given that the disease first emerged in homosexual circles).

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? Close enough. The main point is that any sin is unacceptable to God and that is why salvation through Jesus Christ is the only way available to men since only He was sinless and is able to stand before God (the Father) in our place. That is one of the main pillars of God's plan for our redemption from sin.If so, then I get what you are saying. Good.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 translation. I wouldn't say that we "can't get anywhere" but you're right if the time is spent quibbling over a minor point in translations.

​

Much more fruitful is to look at the bigger picture. Note that God condemns everything that is unnatural and/or excessive and/or specifically prohibited by Him. Eating is acceptable (and necessary) but gluttonous behaviour is condemned. Sex is acceptable within marriage but outside of that it is not (back to this point later). Stealing is out - period!

​

Homosexual activity is 99.999999% sex outside of marriage so right there I know that God doesn't accept it.

​

But then there are those gay couples that are actually 'tying the knot' - is it now acceptable to God? I don't think so because it doesn't satisfy the criterion of "naturalness". In Romans 1 God tells us of women and men "doing what is NOT natural" and God is clearly not pleased with this. I know you have your objections based on translations/semantics but these objections, from a vantage point a few steps back, vanish.It 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. From my studies/understanding of the Bible, if the Bible is not a unified whole from cover-to-cover then it is invalid.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. How about one concrete example?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. That there remain "unanswered questions" is a fact - you are correct in this. But, so what? There are unanswered questions in everything!

​

I do not demand of God answers for every question - besides, I wouldn't be able to comprehend many of the answers even if He gave them to me. I simply ask that He provide enough answers so as to sufficiently support my faith. He does!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. Good for you! BTW, this is yet further evidence of God's disapproval of homosexuality. Specifically, what happened at Eden was that mankind was separated from God (because of sin). Christ came so that all may be saved from spiritual death and this salvation entails being reunited with God. This requires atonement from sin which Christ does. But when God, as you say, "walks away from the homosexual - leaving them to their vile acts", He is in essence saying, 'Depart from Me, I want nothing to do with you... I do not wish to be reunited with you.' [I don't want to speak for God, of course, but that does seem to be the gist of it] 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? Absolutely! And if the repentance is genuine from the heart then God is faithful and it shall be forgiven. Homosexual behavior is not the unpardonable sin. What isn't kosher is to attempt to justify it as "acceptable" to God so as to continue practicing it. Is this not the same as everyone else worshipping God (since everyone has sin and cannot escape that)? You're asking a very good question - and tough! The bottom line is that God, and only God, knows what is truly in the heart of a person. A person may ask to be forgiven, but has no desire/intention of giving up his/her old ways. God cannot be fooled with outward expressions of "repentance".

​

King David committed terrible sins - murder and adultery among them. Yet God called David, "A man after mine own heart". How can that be? It's all in the heart.

​

Joralex

"Particuarly as hetrosexuality far outways homosexuality as the main vector of AIDs transfer across most of the world. (In the USA, homosexual cases still outweigh hetrosexual, but they are catching fast. This is the pattern we would expect given that the disease first emerged in homosexual circles)." We can play games all day long but then we'd just be playing games, wouldn't we?

​

What you say above is true today, now that AIDS has gained a foothold and is coupled with multiple/bi-sexual partners. There's also the drug paraphernalia vector... etc. But you're just clouding the issue for whatever purpose you may have.

​

Anyone old enough to remember when AIDS first hit the scene knows that AIDS was directly associated with homosexual male-to-male practice. This was later compounded/transmitted into the heterosexual community with bi-sexual activity, needle-sharing, blood transfusions, accidental fluid contact, etc...

​

You shouldn't try to alter/cover up history so as to justify what is unacceptable to God.

​

Joralex

quote:

---

You shouldn't try to alter/cover up history so as to justify what is unacceptable to God.

---

He didn't alter anything. He quite clearly stated that AIDS first emerged in homosexual circles. But is the current prevelance of AIDS in the heterosexual community evidence that heterosexuality is now unacceptable to God? Is the lower risk of AIDS among lesbians (which has been the case all along) evidence that lesbians are God's favorite sexual group?If not, then why would AIDS have any relevance at all to God's stance on male homosexuality?

This is a nice littly mainstay of bigotry. "Deep down, you know you feel the same way."Last time I heard a statement like this, it was from a racist who said to me, "you know damn well you'd cross the street right now if you saw a black guy coming." Whatever gets you through the day, Joralex. Way to go, Dan - if you can't beat 'em, villify them!

​

So now I'm compared to a "racist" - a "bigot". I'll respond accordingly as before : if believing this gives you a better night's sleep then go for it, Dan.

​

Wrong is wrong and this has nothing to do with liking it or not. A black person, OTOH, is not "wrong" - you're comparing apples with battleships.I would think he would feel more uncomfortable around homosexual men who had AIDS if he was homosexual, and having sex with them. Then he'd be in a far more likely position to receive AIDS from them. You don't catch it from a toilet seat, you know.Regardless, do homosexual women not count? They have a far lower risk of AIDS than heterosexuals of either gender. Read my reply to Mr. Jack - it applies to you also and I don't want to repeat myself even further.Would this be the same disease that nailed basketball star Magic Johnson because of his heterosexual lifestyle? DITTO! How do you think AIDS spread into the heterosexual community, keemosabee?Anyone who thinks eliminating homosexuality would get rid of AIDS is deluding themselves. Ah, you speak truth here. That's right, AIDS is now deeply rooted within our planet and for that reason I can't get a decent razor-shave by my barber. Geesh!

​

Joralex

Well I dont know about anyone else, but I would rather leave my kid with a group of homosexual men than a bunch of fundamentalist Christians, no two ways about that.Not all homosexual men are child molesters, however all fundamentalist Christians will molest a child's mind, I really think that this is a form of abuse.Kids get born into fundamentalist families, and they are psychologically abused from the minute they are born. The parents force the kid to believe the PARENTS faith, it is not a free choice at an early age. Also, by the time they can start to think for themselves, mummy and daddy have already polluted their thinking so much that it is very difficult for them to let go of the mythology that they have been indoctrinated with.Brian.

quote:

---

Way to go, Dan - if you can't beat 'em, villify them!

​

So now I'm compared to a "racist" - a "bigot". I'll respond accordingly as before : if believing this gives you a better night's sleep then go for it, Dan.

---

Yes, you are compared to him, since your statements were strikingly similar. If you don't like the comparison, that's tough.To answer the question, however, I wouldn't leave a small child with anyone I didn't know. What difference would it make whether they were homosexual or not? If I know and trust them, great, if not, forget it.What does homosexuality have to do with it, apart from your own prejudices?If there's no reason apart from those prejudices that homosexuality would be a consideration, then how exactly am I villifying you?

quote:

---

Wrong is wrong and this has nothing to do with liking it or not. A black person, OTOH, is not "wrong" - you're comparing apples with battleships.

---

I agree with you that a black person is not "wrong." This person did not.You feel that homosexuality is "wrong," much in the same way this fellow felt about black people.Do the math, Joralex. I'm sorry if you don't like the comparison, but it's perfectly valid.If there's a crucial point I'm missing that makes the two wildly different, please, feel free to point it out.

quote:

---

Read my reply to Mr. Jack - it applies to you also and I don't want to repeat myself even further.

---

I've read it. You've said nothing about lesbianism, or about why a heterosexual should be more nervous around AIDS-infected homosexuals than a homosexual would. Would you care to answer the questions?

quote:

---

DITTO! How do you think AIDS spread into the heterosexual community, keemosabee?

---

So it started in one place and spread from there. Most things in the world do. What's your point?[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 09-25-2003]

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

What, Joralex? Not going to respond to my earlier post in which I took apart your post line by line? Well, here's another thing you'll need to answer should you ever take the time to respond to the issues that you're dodging:In America, AIDS is more prevalent (not by numbers, but by percentages) in the gay male community (not in all countries - in most parts of Africa, for example, HIV is almost exclusively spread by heterosexuals). *However*, nowhere in the world is AIDS prevalent in the lesbian community. In fact, lesbians have (both worldwide and in the USA) the lowest rates of HIV infection. This is due to the fact that transmission of HIV between lesbians is very difficult.So, if AIDS is God's punishment for sin, he must love lesbians more than heterosexuals. Right, Joralex?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 09-25-2003]

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

quote:

---

a "clan" (clan???)

---

I just assumed he was referring to the notorious ninja homosexuals of feudal Japan.

quote:

---

I don't know if you have a son (or any children for that matter) but since you don't seem to mind homosexuals then why don't you try the following : if/when you have a son, leave him unsupervised in the company of a clan of homosexual men for a few weeks and tell me if you are able to sleep completely at ease during that time.

---

You know, I just realized something. You've never known a gay person, have you? And I don't mean "screamed at one during a protest rally".Another thing for the list of points you need to answer to: Have you ever known someone for a while, and then found out that they're gay?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

"So, if AIDS is God's punishment for sin, he must love lesbians more than heterosexuals." Congratulations, Rei!! You now occupy 1st position on my list of "Most Warped Logic Inference of All Times".

​

First Prize is a free 5-minute tour of the 'Logic-R-Us' website and a complimentary copy of the book 'Logic for Dummies II'.

​

Stay tuned, Rei - the grand prize winner will be announced on April 1, 2004.

​

Joralex

So are you saying prevelance of AIDS has nothing to do with God's love (or lack thereof?)This isn't a rhetorical question, by the way.

Nice Job, Joralex. You not only ignored all of the questions that I previously posed but you didn't want to answer, but you also failed to address this one. Try again!Explain how you can conclude that AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality when a) it didn't start in the homosexual community - that's only representative of America (and as much as most American fundies would like it to be so, America != The World), b) in most parts of the world, it is prevalent in heterosexuals, and especially c) lesbians have a much lower transmission rate than heterosexuals.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."