Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?

Hello ICANT. Before anything else, as I take it you are fundamentalist, I'm wondering what your avatar is (or supposed to mean)? This is where Rrhain will put the whammy on you. While you are correct that Xian Bibles, particularly english language versions have the translation you mention... and so the obvious meaning... the original text in the original language is not so clear cut.There is scholarly debate on what the original text actually says, and whether translations and traditions have kept faith with original intent.As Rrhain has pointed out, the proscriptions (as originally written) appear to focus on male temple prostitution and not male homosexuality in general. This would have made sense among many of God's other rules to separate his people from the worship of other Gods at that time in the surrounding area. Then again, it can also be argued that the ban meant all homosexuality so that there could be no such worship under cover of regular sex ("I wasn't praying, I was just haveing sex... honest!"), as well as create a form of cultural identity for the Jews. Of course it may have used that reference to male prostitutes to indicate the sexual behaviors God doesn't want, period.It's sort of a toss up, but an interesting question and something I'm often surprised to find devout Xians do not know. If they wish to speak of inerrancy, or true moral messages of scripture, it would seem understanding the actual texts in the original languages would be first and foremost on their mind.KJV is a translation, and that done by men.By Xian I did mean Christ-ian (aka Christ-like). At least that is what I am assuming most are striving for.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Easy isn't fun or interesting.Since I've muddied the discussion a bit by trying to deal with both issues at once, let me attempt to clarify.I think an interpretation is personal and a choice. By interpreting you are making a personal judgment based on your experiences, knowledge, and preconceptions. In the case of the Bible re: Homosexuality, you are making a personal interpretation that it says homosexuality is a sin. I believe that you can't know that, only God can. You can only hope to be correct, but can not be absolute in the knowledge of God. Even I, when I interpret that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, am making a personal judgment.I believe the condemnation occurs when you "believe the bible." When you make the leap from "I interpret the bible to say homosexuality is a sin" to "I believe homosexuality is a sin because the bible tells me so and I believe the bible." In that case, you are actively condemning and not just reporting.God hasn't done any condemning. All that has happened is you have interpreted him/her/it doing so. It's your condemnation when you say something is a sin.

I think we are reaching the very point of disagreement between our ways of thinking. I think in a way you are actually repeating my own statement. I agree that even given God, we can choose to deny his tenets. But as you state that would be doing wrong. After all if there really is a God, then there really can be an external set of objective ethical standards we are supposed to follow.While we can say screw the rules, and do what we want, we'd still have logically admit that in this universe X is wrong. And we happen to like being/doing wrong!Lucifer made his choice, and so can we. That would not change the nature of reality, only define our position in it. The Xian church has not renounced all proscriptions, so its more on your shoulders to show why homosexuality is like the others that have been removed, not mined (or Xians) to argue why it deserves special privilege to remain. That should be somewhat obvious. The Bible is their rulebook from their deity. Whatever is mentioned in there is already given a privileged status. It took arguments to remove the ones that have been... and that is no guarantee such a move was correct. Yet this is what I have already asked from you. Why is it that the homosexual rules deserve the special class of a proscription invoked by God, that should be ignored? That it is popular or trendy right now in a certain number of nations?About the only thing I've heard is gays saying that being made to feel guilty is hate speech, and they shouldn't have to feel that way. To which I would say wtf? Have they read the Bible? EVERYONE is supposed to feel guilty! All the time! No one is spared this item. Some acts are given a slightly different weight, but so what?And this is where I circle my argument right back to your own argument. Instead of demanding that all Xians illogically change their metaphysical and ethical beliefs to suit the feelings of a group which does not like them, why not demand that the latter group not pay attention or try to join the former group? Why not do exactly what you suggested you would do if God were real? Say screw the rules and be wrong in their eyes?I do not understand the modern demand that all people be accepted as right by all other groups. Legally tolerated I understand, but liked or thought right? It makes no sense and contradicts the concept of freedom and tolerance this nation was founded on. Which were right and which were wrong? I would also note your biased description of what happened? It is telling and something you should consider when reviewing your own position.A conservative Xian might have written it as:Some Anglicans chose to retain the traditional sexual proscriptions stated in the Bible, while other Anglicans chose to celebrate certain sexual practices.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I've edited homosexuality to homosex for accuracy above. I'm not sure that the nature that results in sin can be said to be a sin. Just the actions that result from such a nature.My interpretation of the Bible indicates that I had no choice in believing the Bible is the word of God. Such a by-faith-alone based view is a common enough one. Note that I believed the Bible was the word of God before I came to interpreting that I had no choice in the matter so I'm not trying to dodge your query.If I had no choice then there is no judgement of mine involved in saying "homosex is a sin". Other than interpretive judgement that tells me that the Bible says homosex is a sin. Which you seem to agree is non-condemning. It doesn't really matter that I chose so long as I am only reporting and not condemning. I return you to my interpreting the law regarding speed on motorways. As mentioned earlier, I don't attach the rider "according to my intepretation" onto every thing I say for reasons of brevity. I assume folk will read things that way without my saying so.

Hi H, I can say anything I want to but that does not make it what God said.
I can say God said anything I want to but that does not mean that is what God said.Funny thing about that is the chapter I refer to was given before there was a temple.This chapter and these rules were given to the children of Israel while they were in the desert.God gave some 613 laws to the children of Israel to be able to preserve a people that His Son would enter the world through their lineage to purchase mankind out of the bondage that the first man had sold mankind into by willfully disobeying God and eating the forbidden fruit.You do realize it is impossible to argue the Bible with someone who does not believe the Bible don't you.The inset in my avatar is a cluster of 12 galaxies that is over 10 billion light years away from earth and would have been only 3.7 billion years old from the Big Bang. Yet they were all fully developed then.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

We ARE reaching the point of disagreement because I think we are arguing different things.I don't think ive been debating whether or not homosexuality is moral or immoral. I've certainly alluded to my opinion that it is not by referring to christian condemnation of it as "bigoted," but that hasn't been the crux of my argument.My point (and maybe it hasn't been communicated well), has always been about the idea that humans are making choices, not whether the choices are right or wrong. I thought it was obvious that the "under this ridiculous set of assumptions" comment was my opinion. The meat of that point is "I have the ABILITY to be wrong"...the ABILITY to choose. Indeed, why not? Right or wrong, I don't really care. What I care about is the accountability. That it is a choice. It is a choice we all have. It's not God, even if he exists, it's me. I choose to be like this, you can judge me right or wrong or not at all. All I'm concerned with is that you recognize it is MY choice to do/believe what I do and not deflect my choices/beliefs/actions as some unknowable entity's reality, but as MY reality. That way the blame lies with me. My bias was noted, intentional, and irrelavent. Let me highlight something Who chose? God didn't choose. The Anglicans did. That's my only point. I don't care who chose wisely or poorly. I can have an opinion on it, but it doesn't change the fact that they chose, and God is nowhere in that sentence. To me, it's not acceptance or liking. It's that you create an environment where religious justifications are used to deny groups their equal legal protection. You create an environment where a whole class of citizens can be denied inheritance and taxation rights/privileges that are awarded under the law to other classes. I'm sure the same justifications were used regarding slavery. Who was responsible for slavery? God? or the people who chose to interpret god's message as pro-slavery?For me a "success" in this debate would be to get someone to admit that when they interpret the bible to say that homosexuality is sinful and they believe/follow the bible, they are PERSONALLY condemning homosexuality. I don't care if that condemnation is right or wrong, because as you said...there really is no objective right or wrong.

Hi PMOC, Why do I have to interpet the following passage to get the idea God thinks sex between man and man is wrong?I don't see anything even left to the imagination. You could probably get a better picture by reading the entire chapter. God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I think this concisely highlights our disagreement. I think "I don't have a choice." is a copout. I think we all have a choice to believe what we want. To me, your first statement reads something like: "My choice to interpret the bible as the word of god means i have no choice but to interpret the bible as the word of god." They are the same statement, it doesnt matter which order you think they are in, it absolutely is a dodge and a copout.I don't have any problem with your second statement, except obviously that I believe you DO have a choice.

Because 'lie' might mean the telling of untruths - unless you interpret lie to mean have sex?

To believe that black is white? It would seem that there are some things that aren't a matter of choice. If God made himself known to you in a way that was intended to result in you believing he exists then you wouldn't have a choice to believe what you like. You would believe what he intended you believe. I don't interpret the Bible as being the word of God. I believe the Bible is the word of God without my choosing to believe so. Thereafter I chose the system of interpretation I do and certain things roll off the conveyor belt - one of them being that homosex is a sin.

Hi iano, The same Hebrew word used in Levi. 20:13 is used in: Sure sounds like sex to me. No interpretation needed.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

While I admittedly do not believe in the truth of the Bible, I have read it (and was raised in that faith). What's more important however is that I am discussing issues related to translations by people that DO believe in the Bible.I assume you would acknowledge that the original text of the Bible is not english? What has happened is that people who are knowledgeable in the original text languages are discussing what it actually says, and debating its meanings and reasonings.It may be that Rrhain is right and that the proscriptions began as targeting male temple prostitution alone, which makes following translations and practices deviations from original intent. However, it is possible that he is wrong and that homosexuality was proscribed altogether to create an identity for the Jews, in addition to nixing temple prostitution.About my use of the word temple, I am not discussing the Jewish temple. In the lands around the Jews, were cultures where prostitution (including male prostitution) was part of regular worship. The Abrahamic God clearly did not want people to worship other Gods at all, and not to take part in practices dedicated to other Gods (even if there was a belief that it might help them with things like harvests). In Lev and Deu you can find many laws which are simply proscriptions of activities related to worship by others in the area.I think it is without scholarly controversy that the actual words used in Lev and Deu translate not to "homosexual" but to "male temple prostitute". This is something you might be interested in looking up for yourself, and as I said it is not relegated simply to apologists for homosexuality. I had a feeling it had some evc significance. Is there a reason that galaxies could not have been formed within 3.7 billion years? We do not have to debate this, it is simply side info, since I have not heard of this controversy using scientific evidence before.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Hi H, The original text was in Chaldee Hebrew.The text's I quote in the 20th chapter of Levi. was given to the descendants of Abraham and had nothing to do with any culture around them as they were in the desert.The passages I mentioned to iano in my last message Message 191 are from the Greek Septuagint traced to the original words in Hebrew.Man with man and lie have nothing to do with a word used here Homo which is our construct.God said if a man lie with a man both were to be put to death. There is no room for any other interpretation.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Oh, maybe we have more points of disagreement than I thought. By the way, I should note that while I am clearly challenging your position, I hope you do not take my words as angry or demeaning. I like your writing style and appreciate this debate. You are helping me examine my own thoughts on this issue.Let's start by getting where we agree out of the line of fire. It seems we both agree that there are no objective, external ethical rules and people largely choose what they believe.I think where we start to deviate is that I do provide a caveat for people that choose to believe in a metaphysic, which comes packaged with some ethical standards. In that case I cannot agree that one having to believe in the standards is the same as choosing them.A more clear analogy might be made to believing in pure materialism (the universe is purely material-mechanical activity). That brings with it a sort of blank slate ethical rule set. It is a logical outcome.If someone were to believe in the Abrahamic God's existence, the rules against homosexuality really do come along with it. To choose not to observe the rules is a choice to act irrationally and arbitrarily delete realities found inconvenient. It would almost be like a materialistic atheist going to seances to talk to dead relatives... they can choose to do that, but it is irrational.So to try and sum up this part, I agree that people have a right to choose, but some choices made based on one set of criteria entail acceptance of the REALITY of something else (not covered in the original criteria)... whether one likes it or not. Actually God was in the sentence, it was just that I used Bible, instead of God's rulebook. You are right that Anglicans made choices. Some stuck with the rather clear word of God, and others did not.If one really believes (metaphysically) in the existence of that God, then the ethics come along whether you like it or not. I think it is unfair to create an argument that a person must be choosing the ethics, rather than the metaphysics.Again, if it were proven that metaphysically their God did exist, Id have to logically admit his rules are THE rules. How could it be any other way? Only I do get the choice to follow his rules or not. Do I stand up to God or not? I think that's a pretty personal decision. I have to dispute this entirely, as it is another issue altogether. You are in fact using a slippery slope fallacy. The real problem you are discussing is allowing religion or religious practices into our legal system. I am all behind eradicating that... as our constitution just as clearly proscribes incorporating religion into law as the bible proscribes homosexuality. That is something Xians need to come to terms with as Americans.If we hold a tight reign on gov't practice, then religious justifications would go by the wayside as a matter of course.Your position seems to be to alter individual religious beliefs so that it creates the gov't you want, which to me is the total reverse of what we should be seeking.Earlier in this thread I argued that abolition of state marriages altogether would end all of the inequalities you suggest. Would that not be easier, than arguing Xians should all change their personal beliefs about God? I'm sorry but I have to go back to my own case. There was a time before I was a solid agnostic/atheist. While Xianity never made sense to me... it always felt alien... I was being raised in it and it was a concept of God which was possible. I could very well consider it a possibility and if so, it was clear where homosexuality lay according to that God's worldview. If I ended up choosing to believe in Gods, and that God in particular it would not have been for sake of that one rule, but most certainly I would then have had to accept that rule.In the end I would NOT have been personally condemning homosexuality, but rather have felt a great sympathy and pain for their plight. Indeed since I would have fallen into that category to a large degree, as I fall into so many other categories of "sin", it would be odd to claim that I personally condemned it.It would simply be an acknowledgment of logical fact.To this I have to repeat a question you have not answered adequately. Iano admits to being a sinner, and there are still many rules which Xians have against many other things. Why are they thought to be personally condemning homosexuality yet not all those other things?And finally, homosexuality has been vilified by many different cultures and people, including atheists. It does not take a Xian to point out that marriage in fact really has been defined as between opposite sexes, for no bigoted reason, and maybe that would be an emotionally important concept to preserve (for some). I don't think ridding Xianity of that tenet will reduce efforts to constrain sexual activity of minorities. Witness gays against polygamy and other sexual orientations.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I've been through at least two well written debates (not just by me) on this at EvC already, and I don't feel like reinventing the wheel. They came out of a land with a culture, and were heading to new lands with other cultures. They were surrounded by them, would be effected by them in the future, and had been effected by some already. That they were presently in a desert is meaningless and is forcing your own definition on my use of the word area. In fact I am a bit insulted given the statements made at the beginning of Lev... and after its proscriptions against homosexuality... You can insult me for not believing in it, but kindly retract any statement insinuating I don't understand it. These passages are very clear. This I would agree with, though there is a real caveat. It states that it is abomination (in english) and so they would be killed.In the original hebrew the word we have translated as "abomination" in fact denotes ritual uncleanliness, not merely something which is repulsive (which is our usual take on that word). Put in context with other condemnations of rituals for other Gods (where practitioners should be put to death as well) and the use of that word in that section relating to practices found in other lands, arguably indicates the proscription is on homosexuality in religious ritual not all by itself.As I have stated there is debate on whether the proscription was broad so as to ensure no backsliding to ritual under cover of pure sex, but it is possible the original intent was ritual homosexuality.In 1 Kings 14, (at least in the NIV) you will find direct reference to male prostitution as being the source of ire for God in other lands. The KJV calls them "sodomites" but that is likely not accurate at all.Again, I find it amazing how many devout Xians have to be dragged to actually understand their own text. I would assume such work would be a joy if not a duty, rather than jumping on isolated quotes as if that provides accurate meaning. God was verbose, presumably for a reason.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard