Where does the Bible COMMEND homosexuality?
James Jackson
Where does God in the Bible commend homosexuality? I've read where God
ordains sexual relationships between a man and a woman and commends
heterosexual love between a man and a woman.
In Genesis 2:2:24-25 God states that, "Therefore shall a man leave his
FATHER AND MOTHER, and shall cleave unto HIS WIFE: and they shall be one
flesh."
In Genesis 1:28 God commanded humans to have children which up until
present time was only possible between a man and a woman having sexual
intercourse.
Proverbs 18:22 - "Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and OBTAINETH
FAVOUR OF THE LORD."
The Song of Solomon speaks beautifully of a MAN and a WOMAN's love for
each other.
1 Timothy 3:12 - "Let the deacons be the HUSBANDS of one WIFE ..."
Jesus said in Matthew 5:22, "That whosoever shall put away HIS WIFE ..."
1 Corinthians 7:10 - "...Let not the WIFE depart from her HUSBAND."
1 Corinthians 7:11 - "...Let not the HUSBAND put away his WIFE."
All of the above are biblical references to heterosexual love and marriage
between a man and a woman.
Where are the biblical references to to homosexual love and marriage?
The only references I've found in the Bible to homosexuality show it in a
negative light.
Are there any SPECIFIC, POSITIVE references to homosexuality in the Bible?
James Jackson
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu
There are no passages in the Bible that specifically COMMEND
homosexual relations. That by itself does not show that they
are wrong, however, since many lawful and profitable activities
are not mentioned specifically at all in the Bible.
The best argument for the lawfulness of homosexual sexual relationships
is that, just as heterosexual relationships can, homosexual relationships
can bring great joy to those involved, because of the love, sharing, and
respect that a romantic relationship at its best involves.
Since people who are exclusively homosexual in their orientation cannot
be a fruitful and fulfilling romantic relationship with somebody of the
opposite sex, the two options open for homosexuals are (1) celibacy and
(2) romantic relationships with people of the same sex. Celibacy IS
a real option, but many people want the joys (and struggles!) that
come only from a life-long commitment to one's partner in a romantic
relationship.
That's why it's important for gay people to come out of the closet, so
that people can see them as they really are. There are many gay couples
out there, and knowing them helps to explode the dangerous myth that
the sex lives of gats are only about "gratifying your desires" or
"shameful lusts" or the like. The sex lives of gays are _sometimes_
just about that (as with straights), but often involve so much more,
(again, just as with straights).
Tim O'Keefe
tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
James Jackson
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
> There are no passages in the Bible that specifically COMMEND
> homosexual relations. That by itself does not show that they
> are wrong, however, since many lawful and profitable activities
> are not mentioned specifically at all in the Bible.
But the Bible is not completely silent on the issue of homosexuality. When
it does speak of homosexuality it does so in a negative light, in one
instance calling it an abomination to God.
> The best argument for the lawfulness of homosexual sexual relationships
> is that, just as heterosexual relationships can, homosexual relationships
> can bring great joy to those involved, because of the love, sharing, and
> respect that a romantic relationship at its best involves.
Human feelings are not the standards that the Bible uses to declare
something right or wrong. What God declares right or wrong is the standard
the Bible uses for human behavior. Some people get great joy from an
adulterous relationship yet the Bible clearly condemns adultery.
> Since people who are exclusively homosexual in their orientation cannot
> be a fruitful and fulfilling romantic relationship with somebody of the
> opposite sex, the two options open for homosexuals are (1) celibacy and
> (2) romantic relationships with people of the same sex. Celibacy IS
> a real option, but many people want the joys (and struggles!) that
> come only from a life-long commitment to one's partner in a romantic
> relationship.
> That's why it's important for gay people to come out of the closet, so
> that people can see them as they really are. There are many gay couples
> out there, and knowing them helps to explode the dangerous myth that
> the sex lives of gats are only about "gratifying your desires" or
> "shameful lusts" or the like. The sex lives of gays are _sometimes_
> just about that (as with straights), but often involve so much more,
> (again, just as with straights).
I believe that when a man and a wife are united in marriage by Jesus
Christ that something spiritual happens (i.e. the two become one). I
believe this because, as I showed in my original posts, there are many
scriptures where God commends marriage between a man and a woman. But
since the only biblical references to homosexuality are negative I don't
see how God could bless something that He called an abomination.
James Jackson
> Tim O'Keefe
> tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
bh...@thomtech.com
Tim,
You keyed,
> The best argument for the lawfulness of homosexual sexual relationships
> is that, just as heterosexual relationships can, homosexual relationships
> can bring great joy to those involved, because of the love, sharing, and
> respect that a romantic relationship at its best involves.
I agree that love and sharing and respect are integral to a healthy
friendship/romantic relationship -- but how do these qualities make
a practice or a way of life "lawful" by God's terms? This would be
true if God had made human, earthly joy and happiness and all the other
fruits of loving someone our highest goals -- but are they? (I'm asking
a kinda rhetorical question; I don't believe that they are, at minimum
based on OT/NT laws and precepts).
Benjamin Haag
Hans-Michael
James Jackson (jaja...@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:
: I don't see how God could bless something that He called an abomination.
Prepare to see...
Deut 14:3-21 Do not eat anything that is *toevah*... you may not eat the
camel, the rabbit or the rock-badger... The pig is also unclean... The
creatures living in the water that do not have fins and scales you may not
eat. For you it is unclean...
Mark 7:18-19 "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside
can make him unclean? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his
stomach, and then out of his body." In saying this, Jesus declared all
foods clean.
Ever ask God to bless a Christmas ham? It used to be an abomination!
Peace, ha...@teleport.com
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu
James Jackson writes:
>Tim O'Keefe writes:
>>([paraphrase: the Bible does not explicitly commend homosexuality, but
>>that does not mean it's wrong.)
>[paraphrase] Yes, but all of the Bible's references to homosexuality are
>negative.
That's a different topic than the one you raised, and one that's been
chewed over on this group many times. I can't get into all of the verses
now (I actually have work to do outside of the net!), but I'll state
for the record that I don't find the Bible nearly as clear on the
subject as some think--not even close to as clear as it is on, say,
divorce and remarriage, which I don't see people getting nearly as
worked up about.
>>[paraphrase]: the main reason to think that homosexual sex is not
>>always wrong is that it can bring to the partners the same joys as
>>can heterosexual romantic relationships--the joys of love, building
>>trust, sharing with one another, etc.
>Human feelings are not the standards that the Bible uses to declare
>something right or wrong. What God declares right or wrong is the standard
>the Bible uses for human behavior. Some people get great joy from an
>adulterous relationship yet the Bible clearly condemns adultery.
I didn't mean to imply that anything that feels good is OK. But I would
think that, if God commands something, there must be a good reason for
him to command it, since He would be arbitrary. The example to adultery
that you bring up actually illustrates the point well. Now, some people
can (at least temporarily) feel great joy from an adulterous relationship.
But that doesn't make it right. First of all, it brings suffering to the
betrayed partner and to any children as well. Secondly, it involves breaking
one's promise to ones spouse to be faithful, and most likelly involves
deception as well. Third, in the long run those who engage in adultery
(and are the sort of people who are willing to do so) probably suffer
from their infidelity as well.
But none of these factors is necessarily present in homosexual sexual
relationships. All of the things that can make a life-long, monogamous,
loving romantic relationship between a man and a woman a wonderful,
life-affirming, and positive thing can ALSO be present in similar
relationships between a woman and a woman or a man and a man.
Except, it will be objected, for having children. A few points:
(1) We normally don't object to an infertile couple having sex.
(2) Most Christians don't object strenously to couples who decide
not to have children (although some do, I'll admit).
(3) Lesbian couples _can_ have children, and both lesbian and gay
couples can adopt children (and the children seem to do just fine,
thank you very much).
So I don't see that difference as decisive.
Tim O'Keefe
tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
James Jackson
Hans-Michael (ha...@teleport.com) wrote:
: Prepare to see...
: Peace, ha...@teleport.com
"I saw and believed" (John 20:8).
I was wrong about God not being able to bless something that He once
declared to be an abomination. You gave me some specific verses where God
declared foods that were an abomination to no longer be an abomination.
Can you now give me specific verses where God declares homosexuality to no
longer be an abomination? (The reason I accepted the authority of your first
statement is because you used the authority of God's Word to back it up.
That's why I'm asking you to show me in God's Word where He declared
homosexuality to be acceptable to Him.)
James Jackson
James Jackson
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
: But none of these factors is necessarily present in homosexual sexual
: relationships. All of the things that can make a life-long, monogamous,
: loving romantic relationship between a man and a woman a wonderful,
: life-affirming, and positive thing can ALSO be present in similar
: relationships between a woman and a woman or a man and a man.
I believe that the most fulfilling relationship that any human can have is
with God who created them. Only in Him can we achieve true peace and joy
in our spirits. The Bible says that we were created in God's image.
Jesus said in John 4:24 that God is (a) spirit and that we must worship
Him in spirit and truth. I believe that what separates mankind from the
rest of creation is that we have spirits (separate from our souls) and
therefore we alone can relate to God on a spiritual level. As God in
Isaiah 59:1-2 states, our sins separate us from God. If homosexuality is a
sin then how can a homosexual couple have a spiritually fulfilling
relationship with God since He states that sin separates us from Him?
If a person is willfully living a life of sin how can they lead a
spiritually fulfilling life with God? As 1 John 1:4-9 says,
"And these things write we unto you, that YOUR JOY MAY BE FULL. This then is
the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is
light, and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say we have FELLOWSHIP with
Him, and WALK IN DARKNESS, we lie, and do not the truth: But IF we walk in
the light, we have FELLOWSHIP ONE WITH ANOTHER, and the blood of Jesus
Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we
deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins He
is faithful and just to FORGIVE OUR SINS and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness."
mark ashley
>Deut 14:3-21 Do not eat anything that is *toevah*...
>Ever ask God to bless a Christmas ham? It used to be an abomination!
That's right. It USED TO BE. WHO changed the rules ?
Jesus CHRIST. What do you call this religion ? CHRISTian.
Who makes the rules ? CHRIST. Who can change the rules ?
CHRIST or any one of those to whom He gave authority to
bind & loose.
So where does Jesus say that marriage between two men
or two women is in line with God's will ? Where does
it say that children should obey their two fathers,
or their two mothers ? Why is this thread dragging on
when all it takes is ONE verse ?
mark ashley
TO>tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu writes:
TO>The example to adultery...
TO>But that doesn't make it right. First of all, it brings suffering ...
TO>Secondly, it involves breaking one's promise to ones spouse to be
TO>faithful ... Third, in the long run those who engage in adultery
TO>...probably suffer from their infidelity as well.
TO>But none of these factors is necessarily present in homosexual sexual
TO>relationships. All of the things that can make a life-long, monogamous,
TO>loving romantic relationship between a man and a woman a wonderful,
TO>life-affirming, and positive thing can ALSO be present in similar
TO>relationships between a woman and a woman or a man and a man.
Mr Tim demonstrates why incest is perfectly fine in gay theology.
It also explains the existence of NAMBLA. For those who don't
know, the M stands for Man, the B stands for Boy, the L stands
for Lovers. If Mr Tim howls in protest, then the hypocrisy
becomes obvious. Why ? Because the he'd be protesting against
something which fits perfectly fine with the rules he set
up to legitimize his own favorite activity. (BTW, depending
on the country, a male below 18 can be considered a man
which will meet Mr Tim's use of the phrase "between a man
and a man".)
TO>Except, it will be objected, for having children. A few points:
TO>(1) We normally don't object to an infertile couple having sex.
TO>(2) Most Christians don't object strenously to couples who decide
TO>not to have children (although some do, I'll admit).
Because Christ didn't. He only objected to fornication.
And fornication's definition has nothing to do with children.
That's all in the Bible. You have yet to show the exact verse
that says the homosexual sex act is advocated by God.
Christ used the concept of marriage in a lot of His parables.
Surely you should be able to find a parable that talks
about two grooms being married ! Or two brides being married !
>(3) Lesbian couples _can_ have children, and both lesbian and gay
>couples can adopt children (and the children seem to do just fine,
>thank you very much).
How do you define "just fine" ? Is that the same as the children
of incestuous relationships being "just fine" ? Incestuous
couples can adopt too !!! So why not allow them ?
TO>So I don't see that difference as decisive.
That's right. There's hardly a difference between
incestuous sex acts and homosexual sex acts. Their
condemnation is not to persecute anyone. That's
just the way Christ taught it. Besides, only the
activity is condemned (some people are confused and
mistake it as a personal persecution).
Nobody's forcing you to obey Christian rules. Anybody
can do whatever they please and commit whatever sin they like.
There are no Christian cops who arrest and jail sinners.
So it's quite puzzling and amazing to see you make all
sorts of rationalizations and excuses to make it seem
like homosexual sex acts are ok. If that makes you feel
good, then more power to you. But don't think that
going around telling people you KNOW Christian teaching
will make them believe that you have the credibility
and the authority. Don't think that Christ's words will
change based on your opinion. Christian teaching remains the same
no matter what you say. As people like Jim Bakker and
Oral Roberts have demonstrated, anyone can twist Christian
teaching to make themselves come out looking great,
but their actions tell the truth. (The Church's stand
remains: condemn the sin; hate the sinner. She puts
out teachings against fornication of every kind;
she condemns violence and hatred of any kind;
and she has AIDS shelters for anyone regardless of how
they got AIDS.) The validity of your opinion is affected
very much by your willingness to faithfully follow
ALL of Christ's teachings. That includes prayer,
confession, mortification, charity, humility, etc.
Ask yourself: how much of these other activities
do you do ? Because other people can see you.
Cheryl Abdullah
: Are there any SPECIFIC, POSITIVE references to homosexuality in the Bible?
: James Jackson
I am not a Biblical scholar, but I did read an AP article on the eunuchs
of Koovagam, India. Their lifestyle may be a "human fossilization" of
eastern, ancient treatment of homosexuals. If so, then look in any
Biblical concordance for positive mention of eunuchs, *possibly* a.k.a.
today as gays, specifically Isaiah 56 and Matthew 19:12.
NOTE: Many Christians who abhor homosexuality could find this too much
"crow" to eat if a historical connection could be found. I think
examination of the connection is needed, and please don't stop with the
word "castrates" (from the Greek "eunochos"). Eunuchs were historically
employed to guard harems. What type of man would be trustworthy for that
job? Think about it. Anyway, if a eunuch-homosexual connection could be
found, then Jesus himself told us that this would be difficult for some to
accept and understand. "Let him who can understand understand."
Peace and love to all, Cheryl cabd...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
--
Cheryl cabd...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
Scott West
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
>There are no passages in the Bible that specifically COMMEND
>homosexual relations. That by itself does not show that they
>are wrong, however, since many lawful and profitable activities
>are not mentioned specifically at all in the Bible.
>The best argument for the lawfulness of homosexual sexual relationships
>is that, just as heterosexual relationships can, homosexual relationships
>can bring great joy to those involved, because of the love, sharing, and
>respect that a romantic relationship at its best involves.
>Since people who are exclusively homosexual in their orientation cannot
>be a fruitful and fulfilling romantic relationship with somebody of the
>opposite sex, the two options open for homosexuals are (1) celibacy and
>(2) romantic relationships with people of the same sex. Celibacy IS
>a real option, but many people want the joys (and struggles!) that
>come only from a life-long commitment to one's partner in a romantic
>relationship.
>That's why it's important for gay people to come out of the closet, so
>that people can see them as they really are. There are many gay couples
>out there, and knowing them helps to explode the dangerous myth that
>the sex lives of gats are only about "gratifying your desires" or
>"shameful lusts" or the like. The sex lives of gays are _sometimes_
>just about that (as with straights), but often involve so much more,
>(again, just as with straights).
>Tim O'Keefe
>tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
Tim, there is one large hole in that argument. To say that christians
should accept a homosexual relationship as normal and benificial
because it is not speciffically commended but could be infered as such
completely ignores the fact that it is speciffically CONDEMMED by the
Bible, in both the OT and NT. I'm sure you are familiar with
Genesis19, the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah, and Romans 1:24-32.
, just to name a couple.
I'm not trying to sound hateful and I know it is politically incorrect
, but part of being a christian is seeking guidance from the Word of
God in the living of daily life, and just as adultry is specifically
called a sin, so is the gay lifestyle. Yes, we are all sinners and
fall short, and if we trust in Christ we are saved, but remember when
Christ forgave sins, he told people to go forth and sin no more. This
was referring to the willful disobediance of choosing to go aginest
the scriptures and His word. Paul address this in Romans 6.
Just because we are forgivin is not a licence to sin, but a call to
fight sin. And to call a sinful lifestyle which is speciffically
addressed as sin anything but sin is to throw away the scripture. I
have heard the argument used for adultry, sex outside marriage, and
many other sinful choices, that as long as there is love and
commitment, etc, then what is the harm? I can't go into every possible
aspect, but it all comes down to the same thing, the original sin
committed by Adam, disobediance to God.
I don't claim to be perfect, and never will be, but I have found for
myself that the more I seek him, the more painfully aware of my own
sins I become, and the harder I strive to not willfully sin, out of
gratitude for His forgiveness.
Scott
Hans-Michael
James Jackson (jaja...@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:
: I was wrong about God not being able to bless something that He once
: declared to be an abomination. You gave me some specific verses where God
: declared foods that were an abomination to no longer be an abomination.
: Can you now give me specific verses where God declares homosexuality to no
: longer be an abomination?
James, i appreciate the candor in your response, and i will give you a
directed answer to your followup question. No, i cannot give you a
specific verse where God, Jesus or Paul is said to abolish this law as
they did others. But neither can i supply a verse outside of the
Levitical law which condemns homosexuality. Lesbian behavior isn't even
addressed in the Law.
Peace, ha...@teleport.com
Scott West
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
>Tim O'Keefe
>tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
There is only one problem with this argument Tim, saying that the fact
that homosexuallity is not speciffically commended but could be
infered to be ok ignores the fact that it is speciffically CONDEMMED,
in Genesis 19 (the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah) Leviticus 18
(Moses giving the Law) and even in the New Testiment in romans
1:24-32, just to name a few.
I know it is politically incorrect and I am not trying to sound
hateful, but if you believe the Bible as the Word of God, then you
can't pick and choose what parts to believe and ignore the parts that
don't agree with your case. Every time homosexuallity is mentioned in
the Bible it is clearly called sin. To infer that it is ok because it
is not speciffically condoned but other things that are good are also
not spciffically condoned is twisting scripture.
Scott
Tracy M Mills
Excerpts from netnews.soc.religion.christian: 24-Jun-96 Re: Where does
the Bible CO.. by mark ash...@netcom.com
He objected to adultery and divorce between (presumably heterosexual)
married couples. (Aside: Wm. Barclay, in his commentary on the Gospel
of Matthew, has some interesting things to say about the possible
reasons for these objections.) As for any other form of sexual
activity, I can't recall any verses in the four Gospels wherein Jesus is
quoted as speaking either for or against it.
All blessings -
Tracy Mills - mizm...@andrew.cmu.edu
"We, the unwilling, led by the unknowing, are attempting to do the
impossible for the ungrateful. So long have we done so much with so
little, that we are now qualified to do anything with nothing." -Anon.-
James Jackson
Hans-Michael (ha...@teleport.com) wrote:
: James, i appreciate the candor in your response, and i will give you a
: directed answer to your followup question. No, i cannot give you a
: specific verse where God, Jesus or Paul is said to abolish this law as
: they did others. But neither can i supply a verse outside of the
: Levitical law which condemns homosexuality. Lesbian behavior isn't even
: addressed in the Law.
: Peace, ha...@teleport.com
I believe there were parts of the Law that were for the Jews only
(sabbatical, dietary, feast days etc.) so that they would be sanctified as
God's chosen people. I also believe there were parts of the Law that were
for all mankind, Jew and Gentile (murder, theft, sexual immorality etc.).
The Holy Spirit in the early church (Acts 15) told the Gentile Christians
that there were only certain parts of the Old Testament Law that they had to
keep. In that chapter the Holy Spirit doesn't mention the Law's prohibition
against murder yet we know that God doesn't want Christians murdering people.
Paul understood that homosexuality was not blessed by God. in Romans 1
Paul says that because people were worshipping idols God gave them up to vile
affections: women doing unnatural things LIKEWISE men being with men. The
human sex acts spoken of in in this chapter in various translations are called
vile, evil, shameful. Homosexuality in this instance was God's punishment
on people.
My involvement in the homosexual discussions in this newsgroup is not to
lay guilt or condemnation on homosexuals. Jesus came not into the world
to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved -
John 3:17. But just as I had to deal with what the Bible says is sin in my
life so does everyone else have to deal with the sin in their life. They
can thrive on their sins, rationalize their sins, justify their sins, or
ignore their sins. I've done each of these things in dealing with my sins.
Does that make them okay? Obviously not.
But Jesus also said another thing. I came into the world to bear witness
of the truth - John 18:37. We as Christians cannot choose to ignore the
truth of Jesus Christ and His Word. Remember WE ARE ALL BORN with a
predisposition to sin. We need God's power to help us overcome the sin in
our lives.
James Jackson
Hedgehog
In article <4ql9en$o...@heidelberg.rutgers.edu> mark ashley,
ash...@netcom.com writes:
>So where does Jesus say that marriage between two men
>or two women is in line with God's will ?
I can't recall anywhere in the Bible where same sex marriages are
denounced. As I recall, what the Old Testament law says is:
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is]
abomination.
So it is the sexual relationship which seems to be regulated here and not
the contractual aspects of marriage.
>Where does
>it say that children should obey their two fathers,
>or their two mothers ?
According to the Biology classes I have taken, two males can't produce
children without a female and two females can't produce children without
a male. Is the basis of your question a belief that children don't have
to obey their step parents? How do you derive this idea from the Bible?
>Why is this thread dragging on
>when all it takes is ONE verse ?
Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto
the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head
of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives
[be] to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and
gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the
word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having
spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and
without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth
his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and
cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be
joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Paul goes at great length to say that the relationship of husband and
wife is like that of Jesus and the Church. Some members of the Church
are male, right? So Jesus has a sexual relationship to male members of
the Church? Or is the most significant aspect of marriage not the
physical sex acts, but the unity in love?
I tend to feel that what the Bible condemns as an abomination is not what
we in the twentieth century know as homosexuality, but rather homosexual
rape. Examples:
Ge 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men
which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may
know them.
Jud 19:22 [Now] as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men
of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, [and]
beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man,
saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know
him.
(So why is the request of these folks to "know" the strangers a violation
of Leviticus 18:22? Because the word "know" is sometimes used as a
euphemism for sexual intercourse.
Ge 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and
said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Ge 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he
builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his
son, Enoch.
Ge 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his
name Seth: For God, [said she], hath appointed me another seed instead of
Abel, whom Cain slew.)
But we are getting a bit far afield here. The original request was for
one verse that shows that Jesus did not consider homosexuality to be the
worst of all abominations. Here it is:
Matthew 11:24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the
land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.
As terrible as the behavior of the Sodomites was, there is one sin that
is worse. What is that sin? Let us back up for some context.
16 ! But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto
children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows,
17 And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have
mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.
18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a
devil.
19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man
gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But
wisdom is justified of her children.
20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works
were done, because they repented not
And the verses commenting on Sodom favorably comes shortly after this.
I find the context fascinating. Jesus' critics tell him that he spends
too much time with sinners and he responds by saying that their lack of
faith will be a greater detriment to them on the day of judgement than
homosexual gang rape.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Bjorn B. Larsen
In article <4ql9jb$l...@heidelberg.rutgers.edu> cabd...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Cheryl Abdullah) writes:
>I am not a Biblical scholar, but I did read an AP article on the eunuchs
>of Koovagam, India. Their lifestyle may be a "human fossilization" of
>eastern, ancient treatment of homosexuals. If so, then look in any
>Biblical concordance for positive mention of eunuchs, *possibly* a.k.a.
>today as gays, specifically Isaiah 56 and Matthew 19:12.
How do back-up such a claim? Like you I am not a bible scholar, but still I
have never managed to hear anybody claim that eunuch and homosexual is the
same.
I have read those passages you cite, but I am not able to find any indication
that an eunuch and a homosexual is the same. I know that Matt. 19;12 has been
used (or maybe misused ?) as backup for the claim that people may become
homosexual because of influence from other people. Maybe that is wrong? Maybe
the ones who are made unsuited for marriage by humans are (were?) the eunuchs??
> NOTE: Many Christians who abhor homosexuality could find this too much
>"crow" to eat if a historical connection could be found. I think
>examination of the connection is needed, and please don't stop with the
>word "castrates" (from the Greek "eunochos").
I am not sure what you try to express here, but it is impossible to base any
research on what people MIGHT think if the result proved to by this or that.
Just as it is impossible to base any research on a given set of truth, which
is supposed to be the amazing result of the research.
Why should one not stop by "castrates?"
> Eunuchs were historically
>employed to guard harems. What type of man would be trustworthy for that
>job? Think about it.
Maybe an eunuch?? ;^)
If I had a harem, and I could choose between a eunuch and a homosexual as
guard for my harem, I would choose the eunuch. Not because the other was
homosexual, but because the homosexual was able to do things to my harem that
I would not appreciate.
(Note, this is NOT a case like:
Per has a gun, the murderer used a gun, ergo: A is a murderer.
It is more like:
Per has a gun, may murderers uses a gun, Per may become a murderer.)
> Anyway, if a eunuch-homosexual connection could be
>found, then Jesus himself told us that this would be difficult for some to
>accept and understand. "Let him who can understand understand."
Did He? If He told us that it would be difficult to understand that there is
a eunuch-homosexual connection, I can see some reasons why:
- Maybe He did not tell us explicitly that such a connection exists.
- Maybe He knew that only a few people would accept this connection.
- Maybe the connection really do not exist.
- Maybe the connection exist, but He didn't want us to know.
These are the reasons that popped up in my head as I wrote this post.
In Him,
Bj rn BL.
______________________________________________________________________
s-mail: e-mail:
| | | Bjorn B. Larsen, Ph. D. bjo...@iet.hist.no
|__ |__ | Sor-Trondelag College
| \| \| Gunnerus gate 1
|__/|__/|_ N-7005 TRONDHEIM tel: +47 - 7389 6288
NORWAY fax: +47 - 7389 6286
______________________________________________________________________
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu
James Jackson writes:
>The Holy Spirit in the early church (Acts 15) told the Gentile Christians
>that there were only certain parts of the Old Testament Law that they had to
>keep. In that chapter the Holy Spirit doesn't mention the Law's prohibition
>against murder yet we know that God doesn't want Christians murdering people.
[snip--Romans...Homosexual sex is part of OT law that still holds...]
Hans will probably whip out a post on Romans 1 to start discussion of
that going, and I need to do dome work, so I'll forbear on that for
now.
The prohibition on murder still stands. Why?
Matthew 22. Murder clearly violates love of ones neighbors.
Tim O'Keefe
tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu
Mark Ashley writes:
>Tim O'Keefe writes:
>> and same-sex sex. Adultery causes harm to others and to those who engage
>> in it. Also, adultery involves deception, promise-breaking and lack of
>> respect. Same-sex sex does not, per se, involve any of these.]
>Mr Tim demonstrates why incest is perfectly fine in gay theology.
>It also explains the existence of NAMBLA.
>[snip: NAMBLA advocates lowering the age of consent to something like
>13 years old, and is composed mainly of men who like to have sex with
>young boys. Mark Ashley claims that, if I "howl in protest," it just
>shows my "hypocrisy," since both incest and "man-boy" sex should be
>just fine by my criteria. I want to "exempt my favorite pervesrion."]
Sigh. Mark, your ad hominems get really old sometimes. I'll leave the
hard work of the response up to you: now think, what factors are true
of incest, (especially parent-child, but also of sibling-sibling), that
make incest a bad thing, that aren't present in same-sex sex? I can think
of at least two off of the top of my head. Next question: what's true of
a thirty-year-old man having sex with a 13-year-old, that might make it
a bad thing, that isn't true of two 30-year-old men having sex together?
(Hint: it's the same thing that would make sex between a 30-year-old man
and a 13-year-old girl a bad thing, that isn't true of a 30-year-old man
and a 30-year-old women having sex.)
Tim O'Keefe
tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
P.S.: I liked the Freudian slip, where you described the Church's policy
of, "Condemn the sin; hate the sinner."
Stacy Stroud
b...@iet.hist.no (Bjorn B. Larsen) wrote:
>> Eunuchs were historically
>>employed to guard harems. What type of man would be trustworthy for that
>>job? Think about it.
>
>Maybe an eunuch?? ;^)
>
>If I had a harem, and I could choose between a eunuch and a homosexual as
>guard for my harem, I would choose the eunuch. Not because the other was
>homosexual, but because the homosexual was able to do things to my harem that
>I would not appreciate.
Hmm.
Do you care if the harem guards have sex with your wives, or will you only be
bothered if a wife gets pregnant?
The gay guard can have sex with the wives, and can get them pregnant, but
presumably won't *want* to. (This assumes that the guy is 100% confirmed
gay, and you know that.)
The eunuch can also have sex with the wives, and might even want to (though
his libido will presumably be dulled), but will be unable to impregnate them.
If you just want to avoid pregnancy, go with the eunuch.
If you want a guy who won't have sex with your wives even if the opportunity
arises (but *could* get them pregnant if by chance he *did* sleep with them),
go with the gay guy.
The above comparison has precious little to do with Christianity, and I can't
quite believe I even typed it, but there you go.
Stacy Stroud
sms...@pop.uky.edu
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu
Scott West writes:
>Tim, there is a large hole in your argument [...]
>it is specifically CONDEMNED in the Bible, in both the OT and NT.
> [snip, Sodom and Gomorrah, Romans...]
>[snip, adultery and extra-marital sex also a sin...]
Hi Scott. I was responding to a post asking for Biblical reasons for why
homosexual sex would be OK. There have been a ton of threads hashing over
the various OT and NT scriptures that are supposed to have condemned
homosexuality. I won't go into them in detail right now, but just
for the record, I'll state that I think the Bible isn't nearly as
clear as many think about homosexuality--for isn't not nearly as
clear as it is about divorce and remarriage.
As far as adultery and extra-marital sex: in another post, I describe the
relevant differences between same-sex sex and adultery. As far as extra-
marital sex: what about two gay people who are willing to enter into a
life-long monogamous relationship with one another, i.e., who are willing
to get married? The reason why homosexual sex is wrong can't be because
of marriage alone--I've seen the following piece of circular reasoning
used before:
Q: Why is homosexual sex wrong?
A: Because extra-marital sex is wrong, and people of the same sex cannot
be married.
Q: Why can't two people of the same sex get married?
A: Marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman.
Q: Why is marriage supposed to be between a man and a woman?
A: Because homosexual sex is wrong/
Etc.
Tim O'Keefe
tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu
Ben Haag wrote:
>Tim O'Keefe wrote:
>> The best argument for the lawfulness of homosexual sexual relationships
>> is that, just as heterosexual relationships can, homosexual relationships
>> can bring great joy to those involved, because of the love, sharing, and
>> respect that a romantic relationship at its best involves.
>I agree that love and sharing and respect are integral to a healthy
>friendship/romantic relationship -- but how do these qualities make
>a practice or a way of life "lawful" by God's terms? This would be
>true if God had made human, earthly joy and happiness and all the other
>fruits of loving someone our highest goals -- but are they? (I'm asking
>a kinda rhetorical question; [...]
To love God with all of your heart, adn to love your neighbor as yourself--
on these hang all of the laws and the prophets. For something to be wrong,
there has to be a reason for it to be wrong. J. Jackson asked why homosexual
relations would be _commended_. I answer that they can bring joy to those
involved, in the same way as can heterosexual romantic relationships. This
is a good-making quality. And, against the counter-examples of adultery
and so on, homosexual romantic relationships need not harm others, or
involve a breaking of trust, or a disrespect for the other. What I am
saying does not imply that earthly joy and happiness are our highest
goals. But I do believe that right and wrong are connected to the sorts
of activities that bring joy and suffering here. Destructive, hateful,
malicious, prideful, and greedy activities cause suffering and show
a lack of love and respect for the other. That is why they are wrong.
Homosexual romantic love can be the opposite of all of those things.
Why, then, would it be wrong?
Tim O'Keefe
tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
Hans-Michael
: Hans-Michael (ha...@teleport.com) wrote:
: : neither can i supply a verse outside of the Levitical law which
: I believe there were parts of the Law that were for the Jews only
: (sabbatical, dietary, feast days etc.) so that they would be sanctified as
: God's chosen people.
Read Matthew 5:18 and consider if this portrayal of Jesus would divide the
Law as you have.
: I also believe there were parts of the Law that were
: for all mankind, Jew and Gentile (murder, theft, sexual immorality etc.).
What defines theft? Is it the keeping of wages overnight? the Law
forbids this. Is it the collection of interest? Our whole capitalist
system relies on this. What defines sexual immorality?
: The Holy Spirit in the early church (Acts 15) told the Gentile Christians
: that there were only certain parts of the Old Testament Law that they
: had to keep. In that chapter the Holy Spirit doesn't mention the Law's
: prohibition against murder yet we know that God doesn't want Christians
: murdering people.
I think it might be better to argue that God doesn't want ANYONE murdering
people. Indeed, there are a host of laws common to the Jew and Gentile
which Paul didn't list in acts. But what did he include? Three
provisions regarding food. This is odd since Jesus declared ALL foods
clean. Lastly, Paul mentioned *porneia*. Though some popular translations
of this term render it "sexual immorality" it means more precisely
adultery especially in the form of prostitution. If you believe it to
include all of the sexual laws in the OT then you must adhere to such laws
which prohibit sex with menstruating women as well as impregnate the wife
of your brother should he have an untimely death.
: Paul understood that homosexuality was not blessed by God.
This is debatable.
: in Romans 1 Paul says that because people were worshipping idols God
: gave them up to vile affections: women doing unnatural things LIKEWISE
: men being with men. The human sex acts spoken of in in this chapter in
: various translations are called vile, evil, shameful.
It is evil for heterosexuals to engage in homosexual acts.
: Homosexuality in this instance was God's punishment on people.
Aha. Not a sin in and of itself but rather a punishment used against
idolatrous heterosexuals.
: My involvement in the homosexual discussions in this newsgroup is not to
: lay guilt or condemnation on homosexuals. [snip]
: But [.....]
Peace, ha...@teleport.com
James Jackson
Distribution:
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
: The prohibition on murder still stands. Why?
: Matthew 22. Murder clearly violates love of ones neighbors.
: Tim O'Keefe
: tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
But Acts 15 is specifically referring to the Law of Moses, not the
earthly sayings of Jesus.
Acts 15:5 - "But there rose up certain of the sect of Pharisees
which believed, saying, That it was needful to
circumcise them, to command them to KEEP THE LAW OF
MOSES."
The Jerusalem Church then goes on to debate the matter of the Gentile
Christians obeying the Law of Moses. Vss. 28-29 of Acts 15 then goes on to
state the four parts of the Law that the Gentile Christians were to obey.
This had nothing to do with what Jesus prohibited or didn't prohibit
(aside from the fact that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one).
What about Leviticus 18:23? This verse prohibits a man or woman from having
sexual relations with an animal. I haven't found anything in the New
Testament that specifically mentions bestiality. Do you believe the
prohibition against bestiality was for the Jews only? And that since Jesus
or the Holy Spirit didn't mention it specifically in the New Testament that
it's okay for Christians to have sex with animals?
Again I believe that there were parts of the Law of Moses that were for
the Jews only and parts of the Law that were for Jews and Gentiles.
James Jackson
James Jackson
: To love God with all of your heart, adn to love your neighbor as yourself--
: on these hang all of the laws and the prophets. For something to be wrong,
: there has to be a reason for it to be wrong. J. Jackson asked why homosexual
: relations would be _commended_.
No, I asked WHERE the Bible commended homosexuality. So far no one has
given any specific biblical verses that commend homosexuality. If a person
wants to say that homosexuality is okay by politically correct standards
then I won't dispute that. If a person wants to say that homosexuality is
okay by some human's standards then I won't dispute that. But if you say
that homosexuality is okay by Biblical standards then that I will dispute.
James Jackson
: Tim O'Keefe
: tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
---
[When many people say that something is OK by Biblical standards, they
mean that it seems worthwhile, and isn't prohibited by the Bible,
either explicitly or by implication. Certainly being specifically
commended in the Bible makes the situation clearer, but it's hard to
see why it would be required. This is why treatment of the places
where homosexual sex seems to be condemned is important. --clh]
mark ashley
TO> [snip: basically, a summary of the relevant differences between adultery
TO> and same-sex sex. Adultery causes harm to others and to those who engage
TO> in it. Also, adultery involves deception, promise-breaking and lack of
TO> respect. Same-sex sex does not, per se, involve any of these.]
MA>Mr Tim demonstrates why incest is perfectly fine in gay theology.
TO>Sigh. Mark, your ad hominems get really old sometimes. I'll leave the
TO>hard work of the response up to you
That's for you to respond to. You're on the hot seat.
Incest passes for the same reasons you cite. So why condemn
incestuous sex acts ? By whose authority do you condemn ?
TO>what factors are true
TO>of incest, (especially parent-child, but also of sibling-sibling), that
TO>make incest a bad thing, that aren't present in same-sex sex?
It passes all the exact same reasons you use to make yourself
feel good about the homosexual sex act. All you can say is "sigh".
That's not exactly a scholarly response. In your example of
two 30-year old men, these can be siblings. And the scenario
passes all the alibis you use -- yet you condemn incest. Tsk tsk . 8-)
MA>It also explains the existence of NAMBLA.
TO>[snip: NAMBLA advocates lowering the age of consent to something like
TO>13 years old, and is composed mainly of men who like to have sex with
TO>young boys. Mark Ashley claims that, if I "howl in protest," it just
TO>shows my "hypocrisy," since both incest and "man-boy" sex should be
TO>just fine by my criteria. I want to "exempt my favorite pervesrion."]
TO>what's true of
TO>a thirty-year-old man having sex with a 13-year-old, that might make it
TO>a bad thing, that isn't true of two 30-year-old men having sex together?
Ask NAMBLA -- a pretty popular gay organization. Though admittedly
more acceptable to the Europeans than Americans. Their excuse
is essentially the same as your excuse. So why do you condemn
them and excuse yourself ? Both of you have no authority
in the Christian world; you both use the same excuse.
So why do you think you are more Christian than they are ?
TO>(Hint: it's the same thing that would make sex between a 30-year-old man
TO>and a 13-year-old girl a bad thing, that isn't true of a 30-year-old man
TO>and a 30-year-old women having sex.)
If a 13-year old is considered an adult (and in some countries
13 year olds can marry and have children), then what's the difference ?
Your reasons are the same as their reason -- so why condemn them
and glorify yourself ?
TO>P.S.: I liked the Freudian slip, where you described the Church's policy
TO>of, "Condemn the sin; hate the sinner."
I'm sure you do. What's funny is you realize that it was a slip.
That only proves that you are aware of the Church's stand.
In contrast, there is no equivalent from the gay activists
side caring for people whose activities may be "sinful" according
to gay theology. That's also why there is no such person
as selfless as Mother Teresa at the same time an advocate
of fornication. What else are we suppose to think when
gay activists show their religiosity by holding parades
in rubber panties ? Are we suppose to think that is a
sign of holiness and piety ?
mark ashley
TO>I won't go into them in detail right now, but just
TO>for the record, I'll state that I think the Bible isn't nearly as
TO>clear as many think about homosexuality--for isn't not nearly as
TO>clear as it is about divorce and remarriage.
There is a problem when citing your own expertise.
You forget that you do not have the proper credentials.
This is about as funny as Madonna claiming she's a "good" Catholic. 8-)
TO>The reason why homosexual sex is wrong can't be because
TO>of marriage alone--I've seen the following piece of circular reasoning
TO>used before:
TO>Q: Why is homosexual sex wrong?
TO>A: Because extra-marital sex is wrong, and people of the same sex cannot
TO>be married.
TO>Q: Why can't two people of the same sex get married?
TO>A: Marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman.
TO>Q: Why is marriage supposed to be between a man and a woman?
TO>A: Because homosexual sex is wrong/
Because marriage is defined as such in the Bible.
Mark 10 is a good one. Jesus' parables on marriage
do not identify two grooms or two brides. Children
are not instructed to follow their two fathers
or two mothers. THe Bible is also whole -- everything
remains except for those that Christ chose to change.
And evidently He did not speak out against the Old
Testament condemnation of the homosexual sex acts
either.
The Subject header still has not been satisfied.
Why prolong this futile effort if you cannot prove anything ?
mark ashley
TO>To love God with all of your heart
How can you claim to love God with all your heart
if you willingly disobey the rules on fornication ?
TO>adn to love your neighbor as yourself--
TO>on these hang all of the laws and the prophets. For something to be wrong,
TO>there has to be a reason for it to be wrong.
It's in the Bible. Your words are not part of the Bible
yet you consider yourself superior to the Bible. Why is that ?
Nobody's stopping you from having the type of sex you like.
So why are you so obsessed at trying to prove (unsuccessfully)
that it's allowed in the Bible ?
TO>I answer that they can bring joy to those
TO>involved, in the same way as can heterosexual romantic relationships.
Heterosexual sex acts are not good by default.
Only those within a marriage are allowed. Your analogy is flawed.
If the ability to bring joy is good reason enough, then
all sorts of fornication can be allowed as well. Including
pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality among other things.
Your analogy is full of holes.
TO>But I do believe that right and wrong are connected to the sorts
TO>of activities that bring joy and suffering here.
Who's having this "joy" ? You or God ?
Who's suffering ? You or God ?
Who is more important ? You or God ?
Who's Bible is it ? Your's or God's ?
TO>Destructive, hateful, malicious, prideful, and greedy activities
> ^^^^^
TO>cause suffering and show a lack of love and respect for the other.
TO>That is why they are wrong.
Are you referring to gay *pride" parades ?
Are these meant to show love and moral values ?
TO>Homosexual romantic love can be the opposite of all of those things.
TO>Why, then, would it be wrong?
It's wrong under Christianity and people will hold you up to it
if you claim to be a Christian. BUt if you claim to belong
to some other religion X where such activities are ok, then
there's no problem. It's similar to eating beef -- a particular
religion condemns it. Why do you claim to be Christian if you
refuse to abide by Christ's teachings ? Sounds like duplicity.
Hedgehog
My Bible has this statement in it by Jesus:
Lu 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two [men] in one bed;
the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Would you mind commenting on how thisn verse fits into your scheme on
homosexuality?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
ash...@netcom.com writes:
>How can you claim to love God with all your heart
>if you willingly disobey the rules on fornication ?
[snip]
>Heterosexual sex acts are not good by default.
>Only those within a marriage are allowed. Your analogy is flawed.
The Bible teaches:
1Cor 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man
hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after
that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if
they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry
than to burn.
And also:
1Tim 4:1 ! Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times
some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and
doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot
iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God
hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and
know the truth.
4 For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it
be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
So now if it is better for people to marry than to burn and if some
people are forbidden from marrying because of the seared consciences of
church "leaders" then who isn't following the Bible?
Clearly the most Christian thing to do is not to forbid same sex unions,
but to require them of those with homosexual tendencies.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
jaja...@freenet.columbus.oh.us writes:
>No, I asked WHERE the Bible commended homosexuality. So far no one has
>given any specific biblical verses that commend homosexuality. If a
person
>wants to say that homosexuality is okay by politically correct standards
>then I won't dispute that. If a person wants to say that homosexuality is
>okay by some human's standards then I won't dispute that. But if you say
>that homosexuality is okay by Biblical standards then that I will
dispute.
I tried responding to this before, but I am not sure that my post went
through.
Explain these verses to me if sodomy is homosexuality and if
homosexuality is also an unforgiveable sin...
Mt 11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be
brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in
thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
Mt 11:24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land
of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.
Mr 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart
thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them.
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha
in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Lu 10:12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day
for Sodom, than for that city.
These verses seem to be saying that it is better to engage in homosexual
gang rape of a guest than to not have faith in Jesus. This is sort of
shocking to say the least, wouldn't you say?
Peace,
Hedgehog
James Jackson
Distribution:
Hans-Michael (ha...@teleport.com) wrote:
: Read Matthew 5:18 and consider if this portrayal of Jesus would divide the
: Law as you have.
The Law was given for the Jews to obey completely. My point was that when
the decision came as to the Gentile Christians relationship to the Law of
Moses it was determined that there were parts of the Law of Moses that the
Gentiles were to keep. Therefore there are parts of the Law of Moses that
pertain to the Gentiles.
: I think it might be better to argue that God doesn't want ANYONE murdering
: people. Indeed, there are a host of laws common to the Jew and Gentile
: which Paul didn't list in acts. But what did he include? Three
: provisions regarding food. This is odd since Jesus declared ALL foods
: clean. Lastly, Paul mentioned *porneia*. Though some popular translations
: of this term render it "sexual immorality" it means more precisely
: adultery especially in the form of prostitution. If you believe it to
: include all of the sexual laws in the OT then you must adhere to such laws
: which prohibit sex with menstruating women as well as impregnate the wife
: of your brother should he have an untimely death.
I wasn't implying that the prohibition against fornication was in Acts 15
was referring to homosexuality. I was saying that there were parts of the
Law of Moses that were not specified by the Holy Spirit in Acts 15 but
that the Gentiles were still to keep them: murder being one of the laws.
: It is evil for heterosexuals to engage in homosexual acts.
: Aha. Not a sin in and of itself but rather a punishment used against
: idolatrous heterosexuals.
But as has been stated, that nowhere does the Bible commend homosexuality
but talks about it in a negative light as is clear by Romans 1.
I want to see if we have any common ground on this issue. You maintain
that the prohibition against homosexuality pertains to the Jews only
because of the Levitical laws given to them. Therefore are we agreed that
according to what God said in His Word that it is a sin for two Jewish
males to have homosexual relations with each other? Will you state that
homosexuality is a sin if two Jewish males have sexual relations with each
other?
James Jackson
: Peace, ha...@teleport.com
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu
>What about Leviticus 18:23? This verse prohibits a man or woman from having
>sexual relations with an animal. I haven't found anything in the New
>Testament that specifically mentions bestiality. Do you believe the
>prohibition against bestiality was for the Jews only? And that since Jesus
>or the Holy Spirit didn't mention it specifically in the New Testament that
>it's okay for Christians to have sex with animals?
Of course not. I didn't say, "Anything not specifically prohibited is
allowed." Do you need the Bible to tell that bestiality is wrong? The
measure by which you tell whether specific acts are right or wrong--
is it ALWAYS the Bible? I don't think so. You apply PRINCIPLES that
you believe are in the Bible, or follow from what's said in the Bible,
or you have in your conscience, and you see how they apply to the
specific case.
I brought up Matthew 22 because it contains the summary of the spirit
of all of the Law. Does this violate love of God or of neighbor? Jesus
broke the letter of the OT law (and angered the pharisees) in obedience
to the spirit of the law.
Tim O'Keefe
tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
bh...@thomtech.com
> To love God with all of your heart, adn to love your neighbor as yourself--
> on these hang all of the laws and the prophets. For something to be wrong,
I agree wholeheartedly. If one's going to say that "homosexuality is
wrong", saying it based on societal norms or personal distaste won't
cut it -- if it's wrong, it has to be wrong by a standard that binds
all of us, otherwise it's me trying to push a personal prejudice on you.
If you agree -- then the next question would be "why would God consider
homosexuality wrong?" I.e., what is it about homosexuality that doesn't
fit with God;s plan for humanity; for how people use their gift of love
and companionship and sexuality? What did God had in mind when he
designed humans capable of the bond that love/marriage/sexual union all
comprise, and why did He design men and women as He has?
There are many things that are "wrong" for us as humans to do -- we
aren't equipped to breathe underwater, or to fly from a ten-story
building; the effects of these are pretty easy to discern. But we
know that God has given us capabilities and limits, some of which are
easily discernable from our physical nature.
J. Jackson asked why homosexual
> relations would be _commended_. I answer that they can bring joy to those
> involved, in the same way as can heterosexual romantic relationships.
But, Tim, if this is so, then why are homosexuals unable, physically
at a minimum, to procreate as heterosexuals can? If God had intended
for both heterosexuality and homosexuality to be equal; to be
interchangable and equally desirable options for us, then why is
only one capable of regenerating life -- which is not all there is
to love and commitment by any means, but which is, I'd say, crucial?
> ... against the counter-examples of adultery
> and so on, homosexual romantic relationships need not harm others, or
> involve a breaking of trust, or a disrespect for the other.
> ..I do believe that right and wrong are connected to the sorts
> of activities that bring joy and suffering here. Destructive, hateful,
> malicious, prideful, and greedy activities cause suffering and show
> a lack of love and respect for the other. That is why they are wrong.
But, is it the harmful effects of these things, themselves, that makes
them wrong? Or are these things wrong because we, as people, have
a standard of morality that binds us universally, that God created
when he created us?
The fact that something _doesn't_ harm or exploit another person may
make it beneficial to life on earth -- but this doesn't necessarily
mean that it's right in God's eyes.
> Homosexual romantic love can be the opposite of all of those things.
> Why, then, would it be wrong?
I can derive joy in many ways that, as far as the world is concerned,
are not only non-harmful to anyone else but beneficial to others --
helping the poor; inventing; writing. But Christ said "my kingdom is
not of this world" -- however excellent something may be to us, here,
now, it's not necessarily "excellent" to God. If we're going to believe
in Him, and in an eternity, then can we use the world as our ultimate
frame of reference for right and wrong?
Benjamin
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu
>Tim O'Keefe writes:
>: on these hang all of the laws and the prophets. For something to be wrong,
>: relations would be _commended_.
>No, I asked WHERE the Bible commended homosexuality. So far no one has
>given any specific biblical verses that commend homosexuality. If a person
>wants to say that homosexuality is okay by politically correct standards
>then I won't dispute that. If a person wants to say that homosexuality is
>okay by some human's standards then I won't dispute that. But if you say
>that homosexuality is okay by Biblical standards then that I will dispute.
Huh? Is Matthew 22 a "politically correct standard"? Is Matthew 22
"some human's standards?" I said at the very outset of this thread
that I didn't know of a Bible verse that singled out same-sex sex
for praise. But I think that there are principles enunciated by
the Bible, and that are well within the mainstream of Christian
thought, from which, one can argue, same-sex sex can be sanctioned.
Now I'll admit that many of the arguments I've been giving have to do
with things like the happiness that romantic love can bring, the respect
for t he other that it can engender, the growth that it can help spur,
which can be equally true of same-sex as opposite-sex couples. But
love and respect for others aren't purely secular virtues, are they?
Or do you think that in debate on moral issues one ought only to appeal
to the Bible, and not to any principles that might also gain assent
from people in general?
Tim O'Keefe
tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu
[massive snip--Mark is saying that I must think that incest and sex between
a 30-year-old and a 13-year-old are fine if I believe that same-sex sex is
sometimes OK]
Let's try this again Mark. Forget about homosexual sex for the moment.
Why do you think that incest, whether parent-child or sibling-sibling,
is wrong? Is it ONLY because it says so in the Bible? Or can you give
any other reasons for WHY God would want to prohibit it? (BTW, I don't
think that citing marriage will work in this case, because the reason
the siblings or a parent/child shouldn't marry is because incest is
wrong, not the other way around.)
OK. Now: why would it be bad for a 30-year-old to have sex with a
13-year-old? If they could get legally married, would it be AOK?
No? Why not?
So now, if you've followed me this far, you can tell me why you think
that incest and 30/13 sex are both bad things, that isn't based just
on marriage. Now imagine two 30-year-old men, who love one another,
who want to share their lives with one another in a life-long, monogamous
relationship. Do the reasons you thought of for why incest and 30/13
sex are wrong apply to this case?
Tim O'Keefe
tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
Hedgehog
>do not identify two grooms or two brides.
Do these verses speak of a man and a woman or of two men?
7 ! Then I returned, and I saw vanity under the sun.
8 There is one [alone], and [there is] not a second; yea, he hath
neither child nor brother: yet [is there] no end of all his labour;
neither is his eye satisfied with riches; neither [saith he], For whom do
I labour, and bereave my soul of good? This [is] also vanity, yea, it
[is] a sore travail.
9 Two [are] better than one; because they have a good reward for their
labour.
10 For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him
[that is] alone when he falleth; for [he hath] not another to help him up.
11 Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be
warm [alone]?
12 And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a
threefold cord is not quickly broken.
Note that it mentions that the one alone does not have a brother, but it
doesn't mention that he has a sister. So the topic of discussion does
seem to be male-male relationships. But how many times do _you_ sleep
with you male friends in order to "keep warm"?
Peace,
Hedgehog
James Jackson
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
: Of course not. I didn't say, "Anything not specifically prohibited is
: allowed." Do you need the Bible to tell that bestiality is wrong?
There are people who have sex with animals. Do they think that it's wrong?
: The measure by which you tell whether specific acts are right or wrong--
: is it ALWAYS the Bible? I don't think so. You apply PRINCIPLES that
: you believe are in the Bible, or follow from what's said in the Bible,
: or you have in your conscience, and you see how they apply to the
: specific case.
And these principles are based upon God's commandments as you point out below.
Two of which are that homosexuality and bestiality are sins. Neither of
these prohibitions were abrogated by Jesus or the Holy Spirit in the
Bible. Therefore why would they no longer be considered sinful if God hasn't
declared them to be okay?
: I brought up Matthew 22 because it contains the summary of the spirit
: of all of the Law. Does this violate love of God or of neighbor? Jesus
: broke the letter of the OT law (and angered the pharisees) in obedience
: to the spirit of the law.
I don't believe that Jesus broke the letter of the written Law. I believe He
broke the letter of the Oral Law which is what angered the Pharisees.
Jesus told the Pharisees that they "made the commandment of God of none
effect by your tradition" - Matthew 15:6. That's what is happening today.
People are saying that it is more important how humans feel about what is
right and what is wrong rather than what God says is right or wrong.
mark ashley
Response to: Tracy M Mills <mizm...@andrew.cmu.edu>
MA>Because Christ didn't. He only objected to fornication.
TM>He objected to adultery and divorce between (presumably heterosexual)
TM>married couples.
Sure. But nobody's arguing about these.
See Mark 10 on marriage.
TM>As for any other form of sexual
TM>activity, I can't recall any verses in the four Gospels wherein Jesus is
TM>quoted as speaking either for or against it.
Your memory has no bearing on what Christ taught.
Furthermore if you cite your own expertise, then you'd
have to prove that you are credible in the areas of
theology, history, and languages.
BTW, if you're out to prove that fornication is allowed
by Christian teaching, then you'd better have proof.
It will be interesting how many Christians will back you
on that. Telling us your denomination will be most
informative so we may know what denomination this
is that allows fornication.
mark ashley
Response to: Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu>
MA>Heterosexual sex acts are not good by default.
MA>Only those within a marriage are allowed. Your analogy is flawed.
HH>So now if it is better for people to marry than to burn and if some
The people who have the choice of marrying are those who
are eligible to marry. For example, you cannot cite passages
in the Bible where it says that marriage is recommended
for people who will just commit incest, pedophilia,
necrophilia, or bestiality. That's your line of argument:
Let them marry their sexual partners so that their activity
becomes moral and therefore no longer sinful.
Your recommendation is similar to the proposal that we
legalize narcotics so that we have less criminals and drug addicts.
HH>people are forbidden from marrying because of the seared consciences of
HH>church "leaders" then who isn't following the Bible?
Who are these leaders that you are condeming ? Are these
the apostles to whom Jesus said they can hold bound or loosed
WHATEVER they wanted ? If that is the case, can you point
it out where YOU are given authority ? Can you tell us
what your denomination is so we can understand how
authority is given in your denomination ? Are you one
of the clergy ? Are you a high-ranking minister with
sweeping powers in this church ? Do people regard you as
an authority in these matters ?
mark ashley
Response to: tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu
TO>Let's try this again Mark. Forget about homosexual sex for the moment.
Why do you avoid the issue ? Why are you unable to answer the questions:
MA>Incest passes for the same reasons you cite. So why condemn
MA>incestuous sex acts ? By whose authority do you condemn ?
Where's your answer:
TO>But I do believe that right and wrong are connected to the sorts
TO>of activities that bring joy and suffering here.
MA>Who's having this "joy" ? You or God ?
MA>Who's suffering ? You or God ?
MA>Who is more important ? You or God ?
MA>Who's Bible is it ? Your's or God's ?
TO>Why do you think that incest, whether parent-child or sibling-sibling,
TO>is wrong? Is it ONLY because it says so in the Bible?
That certainly is a major consideration, isn't it ? 8-)
TO>Or can you give
TO>any other reasons for WHY God would want to prohibit it?
Does this change Christ's teachings ? What is your goal for
conjuring up reasons ? Do your attempts at guessing God's
reasons for His rules affect His actual reasons ? Are you
perhaps claiming to know what God has in His mind ?
TO>OK. Now: why would it be bad for a 30-year-old to have sex with a
TO>13-year-old? If they could get legally married, would it be AOK?
You're just regurgitating information. It's your turn to
provide answers. If you are unable to answer, just say so:
MA>If a 13-year old is considered an adult (and in some countries
MA>13 year olds can marry and have children), then what's the difference ?
MA>Your reasons are the same as their reason -- so why condemn them
MA>(NAMBLA) and glorify yourself ?
Your avoidance of certain issues is also indicative of your
moral perspective. If you expound on that perhaps we may understand
your rationale and frame of mind. For example, how do you feel about the
dress, attire, and behavior of participants in gay pride
parades ? Do you approve of the rubber panties ? Do you
approve of bath houses ? Are we supposed to think that
people actually just go there to bathe ? Do you approve
of gay clubs with private rooms furnished with beds ?
Do you really expect people to think these are innocent
clubs with wholesome entertainment ? Assume for about
30 seconds that homosexual marriages are allowed, would
you also go for condemnation of premarital sex ? Would
you also go for condemnation of divorce ? Would you
also go for monogamy ? Would you also submit to testing
for ANY sexually transmitted diseases ? Would you also undergo
the same type of legal red tape associated with people
who are found to have syphyllis (contact all partners,
inform them, etc) ? Please answer the questions so we may
understand your perspective better. If Mr Hedgehog is reading
this, please give an answer too.
mark ashley
Response to: Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu>
MA>Because marriage is defined as such in the Bible.
MA>Mark 10 is a good one. Jesus' parables on marriage
MA>do not identify two grooms or two brides.
HH>Do these verses speak of a man and a woman or of two men?
Mark 10:6 talks about male and female. Which word don't you understand ?
The Bible is whole and consistent. If you are asserting that
marriages & sex between two men or two women are good, then
you'd have to show that the Bible is consistent: after all
your assertion will conflict with Romans 1 and other
verses like it including those in the Old Testament.
As an aside, it's not nice to list verses without stating
which book & chapter of the Bible they came from. We're not here
to serve you.
I found the thing anyways: Eccl 4:7-12
HH>Note that it mentions that the one alone does not have a brother, but it
HH>doesn't mention that he has a sister. So the topic of discussion does
HH>seem to be male-male relationships. But how many times do _you_ sleep
HH>with you male friends in order to "keep warm"?
Qoheleth (only a literary name) examines another vanity of toil:
the case of the solitary worker (Not a sexual partner as HH seems
to think) who has no "second one", either a son or brother, who
will benefit from the riches gained (verses 7-8). There follows
a series of examples which extol the value of a "second"
or companion (verses 9-12). The concluding story (v13-16) relates
how an old and foolish king loses popularity to a poor but
wise youth (v15). In Eccl 2:18-23 Qoheleth was resentful of others
enjoying after his death the fruit of his labors; in 4:7-16,
he recognizes the futility of toiling merely for personal gain.
Are you a Fundamentalist Mr Hedgehog ? Why do you take
words so literally ? Yes, there is no mention of females,
e.g. sister, because of the use of the generic word "he".
It's similar to the phrase about Jesus dying for the
sins of man. It does not imply that women's sins are
not forgiven. It's a style of writing and speaking that
English majors and other educated writers and orators
know about. If you tell me you're a Fundamentalist, at
least your assertion would make sense (from your point
of view). Otherwise, it doesn't.
HH>11 Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be
HH>warm [alone]?
HH>12 And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a
HH>threefold cord is not quickly broken.
^^^^^^^^^
If Mr Hedgehog can claim that verse 11 tells us that homosexual
sex acts between TWO men are good, then verse 12 can be taken as
approval for homosexual group sex, e.g. threesomes. Can you see how
absurd this can get ? Do you see the importance of having
the proper credentials to see who knows theology and
to see who is merely guessing ?
mark ashley
Response to: Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu>
MA>Jesus' parables on marriage do not identify two grooms or two brides.
HH>Lu 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two [men] in one bed;
HH>the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Luke 17: 22-37
Jesus talks about the randomness of death.
Verse 27 talks about people in Noah's days
who were just enjoying themselves and suddenly
WHAM !!! All dead. Furthermore between any two
people, there is no telling which one of the two
will "go" at any particular time. Verse 34 is
another example. Verse 35 is another example.
Nothing about advocating sexual habits of any kind.
You really have to stop taking verses out of context.
That's one sure way of misreading the Bible.
mark ashley
Response to: Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu>
MA>So where does Jesus say that marriage between two men
MA>or two women is in line with God's will ?
HH>I can't recall anywhere in the Bible where same sex marriages are
HH>denounced.
Your memory has no bearing on what the Bible contains.
Furthermore if you cite your own expertise, then you'd
have to prove that you are credible in the areas of
theology, history, and languages.
HH>Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is]
HH>abomination. So it is the sexual relationship which seems to be
HH>regulated here and not the contractual aspects of marriage.
So you wouldn't mind having marriages between homosexuals
such that sexual activity is banned. How well does that
sit with homosexuals ? 8-)
You also seem to forget about 1Cor 7:3-5. This contradicts
your proposal for sexless marriages. 8-)
MA>Where does it say that children should obey their two fathers,
MA>or their two mothers ?
HH>According to the Biology classes I have taken, two males can't produce
HH>children without a female and two females can't produce children without
HH>a male. Is the basis of your question a belief that children don't have
HH>to obey their step parents? How do you derive this idea from the Bible?
It's funny how you sidestep the issue. 8-)
Are you proposing that the terms "father" and "mother" refer
to two males or two females ? 8-) Let's see: in a male gay
couple, should the "mother" be the effeminate of the two ?
In a female couple, is the "father" the tomboy ? After all,
you follow it up with verses talking about the duties
of the husband and the wife. Surely you must also want the
same for gay couples. Which means you must have some kind
of way to tell who the "husband" is, and who the "wife" is.
Can you please describe that method ? That would certainly
be interesting to the newsgroup.
MA>Why is this thread dragging on when all it takes is ONE verse ?
HH> 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head
HH>of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
HH> 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives
HH>[be] to their own husbands in every thing.
HH>Paul goes at great length to say that the relationship of husband and
HH>wife is like that of Jesus and the Church. Some members of the Church
HH>are male, right? So Jesus has a sexual relationship to male members of
HH>the Church? Or is the most significant aspect of marriage not the
HH>physical sex acts, but the unity in love?
You forget that the pronouns (?) used for the Church are "she" and "her".
The situation is the same for countries. The same pronouns are used
for Mother countries and even Mother Earth, even though obviously
there are two genders in the human race.
HH>I tend to feel that what the Bible condemns as an abomination is not what
HH>we in the twentieth century know as homosexuality, but rather homosexual
HH>rape.
Uh oh. You fell into that trap again. Why do you cite
yourself when you do not have the credibility nor the authority ?
Christ's teachings are not based on your personal feelings.
What happened to the classic ? Romans 1 ? 8-)
HH>But we are getting a bit far afield here. The original request was for
HH>one verse that shows that Jesus did not consider homosexuality to be the
HH>worst of all abominations.
That's not what the Subject header says.
HH>As terrible as the behavior of the Sodomites was, there is one sin that
HH>is worse. What is that sin? Let us back up for some context.
I'm not sure what your goal is. Is it your goal to show what
the worst sin on earth is ? And then declare all lesser sins
to be no longer sins ? Let's try out your theory: between
murder and rape, which one is worse ? Answer that question
so that we may see which one you will declare moral.
bh...@thomtech.com
> Lu 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two [men] in one bed;
> the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
>
> Would you mind commenting on how thisn verse fits into your scheme on
> homosexuality?
Uh...not to split proverbial hairs, I have an NIV that says "two people".
Even if it were "two men" -- what does this have to do with sex?
Sharing a bed means, sharing a bed -- as people would do if they
were too poor to afford separate beds or separate rooms. Or as
people would do if they were family and saw sharing a bed as
something completely, asexually, normal. This is like the Vietnamese
custom wherein men hold hands in public, or, for that matter, the
custom in numerous cultures where men kiss in greeting. Why do
these things have to be "sexual?" Just because the popular myth
is that men have to beat the figurative hell out of each other,
and hide any sign of emotion, to be Real Men, why bring this pale
joke of a masculine ideal to the table when we're looking at the
Bible?
I went to Promise Keepers this May, held hands with FOUR men in
prayer, hugged my best male friend, whom I love, and can tell
you with all the honesty I have in me that I was not the slightest
bit attracted to or sexually involved with a single one of them, or
to any man, for that matter. The point being that trying to construe
affection, verbal or otherwise, as "evidence" of homosexuality isn't
valid.
By the way -- and no offense is intended -- why are you using an alias?
Benjamin "Benjamin" Haag
---
[The word "men" is not present in the Greek. --clh]
bh...@thomtech.com
This is probably getting out of hand, but...
Even if Biblical eunuchs WERE gay men, why would this get us
a third of a fraction of a step toward a conclusive answer
to the question: "Is homosexuality wrong by God's law, or
not?"
Benjamin "Some of my best friends do UNIX" Haag
===========================================================
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem: they know how it's
done, they see it done every day -- but they can't do it
themselves."
Brendan Behan
===========================================================
bh...@thomtech.com
> Clearly the most Christian thing to do is not to forbid same sex unions,
> but to require them of those with homosexual tendencies.
Just a question--
How's this clear? Where else in the Bible is it clear that a "same
sex marriage" is a remotely valid option, or even a meaningful
concept?
Benjamin
Hans-Michael
<4qvkum$4...@heidelberg.rutgers.edu>
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016
Distribution:
James Jackson (jaja...@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:
: Hans-Michael (ha...@teleport.com) wrote:
: : Read Matthew 5:18 and consider if this portrayal of Jesus would divide
: : the Law as you have.
: The Law was given for the Jews to obey completely.
Now try and reconcile this with portrayals of Jesus which demonstrate the
even JEWS must not "obey completely" the Law. He allowed for good deeds
and necessary labor to be done on the Sabbath. (Compare this with the
poor fellow from Num 15:33 who was killed merely for gathering wood.)
Jesus pronounced all food clean, even though a great many foods are
forbidden in the OT. How can you reconcile this?
: Gentiles were to keep. Therefore there are parts of the Law of Moses that
: pertain to the Gentiles.
How do you determine which parts of the Law a Gentile must keep?
Remember, Paul said that if a Gentile so much as allowed himself to be
circumcized (OUCH!), Christ would be of NO value to him. (Of course, Paul
also once had a Gentile circumcized, so as with other issues, don't look
for complete consistancy among Paul's writings.)
: :I think it might be better to argue that God doesn't want ANYONE murdering
: : people. Indeed, there are a host of laws common to the Jew and Gentile
: : which Paul didn't list in acts. But what did he include? Three
: : provisions regarding food. This is odd since Jesus declared ALL foods
: : clean. Lastly, Paul mentioned *porneia*.
: I wasn't implying that the prohibition against fornication was in Acts 15
: was referring to homosexuality. I was saying that there were parts of the
: Law of Moses that were not specified by the Holy Spirit in Acts 15 but
: that the Gentiles were still to keep them: murder being one of the laws.
But the list in Acts 15 is complete. Regarding the special Jewish laws,
Paul wrote: "It seemed good not to burden you WITH ANYTHING BEYOND the
following." He didn't include theft and murder, etc. since these were
already observed by the Gentiles.
: : It is evil for heterosexuals to engage in homosexual acts.
: : Not a sin in and of itself but rather a punishment used against
: : idolatrous heterosexuals.
: But as has been stated, that nowhere does the Bible commend homosexuality
: but talks about it in a negative light as is clear by Romans 1.
Actually, the example of David and Jonathan is currently being discussed.
I do honestly believe that they had a homosexual affair, and David spoke
of it in the most commendable of terms. When homosexual acts are
condemned, it seems to always be in conjunction with idolatry.
: I want to see if we have any common ground on this issue. You maintain
: that the prohibition against homosexuality pertains to the Jews only
: because of the Levitical laws given to them.
Not completely. I don't believe that the Levitical laws applied to ALL
homosexual acts. It obviously doesn't address ANY lesbian act. I think
the act of "man lieing with man" pertained to its connection with pagan
worship.
: Therefore are we agreed that
: according to what God said in His Word that it is a sin for two Jewish
: males to have homosexual relations with each other? Will you state that
: homosexuality is a sin if two Jewish males have sexual relations with each
: other?
No.
Peace, ha...@teleport.com
JMM625
Now hold on, just a minute, let's not lose the point.
Mark Ashley refers to NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association).
For those of you who have been lucky enough not to hear of this group,
allow me to blight your happiness. It is a political group dedicated to
the proposition that paedophilia (particularly homosexual paedophilia) is
harmless and should be allowed under criminal law.
Paedophilia completely anathaema to everyone I know, both gay and
straight. Despite NAMBLA's assertations, there is ample evidence that
paedophilia is not good for children and has a high incidence of serious
emotional and mental sequelae. One basic problem, in my very lay
understanding, is the profound lack of equality of power in the
relationship.
Now, I think that the previous posts in this thread, which is beginning to
resemble a hawser, were on the theme that homosexual relationships, per
se, are not harmful. I do not think that the same can be credibly said
for paedophilia, so lets not confuse the argument.
Looking back on this post, I think it highly likely that i will get flamed
by paedophiles. It should make a change from being flamed by
fundamentalists. :-)
James Jackson
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
: Huh? Is Matthew 22 a "politically correct standard"? Is Matthew 22
: "some human's standards?" I said at the very outset of this thread
: that I didn't know of a Bible verse that singled out same-sex sex
: for praise. But I think that there are principles enunciated by
: the Bible, and that are well within the mainstream of Christian
: thought, from which, one can argue, same-sex sex can be sanctioned.
How do these principles stand up against God's clear condemnation of
homosexuality in one case and speaking poorly of it in other cases?
: Now I'll admit that many of the arguments I've been giving have to do
: with things like the happiness that romantic love can bring, the respect
: for t he other that it can engender, the growth that it can help spur,
: which can be equally true of same-sex as opposite-sex couples. But
: love and respect for others aren't purely secular virtues, are they?
: Or do you think that in debate on moral issues one ought only to appeal
: to the Bible, and not to any principles that might also gain assent
: from people in general?
That's exactly what I believe. God created human beings and knows what is
best for them. The nazis thought it was moral to kill Jews. The KKK has
thought that it is moral to kill blacks. As this thread points out there
are humans who think homosexuality is okay and there are humans who think
homosexuality is wrong. This makes it clear to me that humans must look to
God and His Word to say what is right and wrong. If atheists are correct
and there is no God then why is it wrong for me to steal and murder other
humans? We see the animal kingdom doing these things and we say it is the
Law of survival. Why then would it be wrong for humans to do these things?
Because we are not evolutionary animals but creations of God and He tells
us they are wrong.
James Jackson
Hedgehog (hedg...@scripps.edu) wrote:
: Explain these verses to me if sodomy is homosexuality and if
: homosexuality is also an unforgiveable sin...
: Mt 11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be
: brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in
: thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
: Mt 11:24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land
: of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.
: Mr 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart
: thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them.
: Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha
: in the day of judgment, than for that city.
: Lu 10:12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day
: for Sodom, than for that city.
: These verses seem to be saying that it is better to engage in homosexual
: gang rape of a guest than to not have faith in Jesus. This is sort of
: shocking to say the least, wouldn't you say?
These verses to me say that on the Day of Judgment it is going to be bad
for Sodom and worse for the cities Jesus mentioned. If Sodom isn't going
to be judged harshly by God then why did He destroy them in Genesis 19?
James Jackson
: Peace,
: Hedgehog
James Jackson
Hans-Michael (ha...@teleport.com) wrote:
: Now try and reconcile this with portrayals of Jesus which demonstrate the
: even JEWS must not "obey completely" the Law. He allowed for good deeds
: and necessary labor to be done on the Sabbath. (Compare this with the
: poor fellow from Num 15:33 who was killed merely for gathering wood.)
: Jesus pronounced all food clean, even though a great many foods are
: forbidden in the OT. How can you reconcile this?
I agreed with you in an earlier post that something God had declared to be
unclean and then declared it to be clean was now clean. God as Creator has
full authority to make His Laws for mankind and to change His laws for
mankind. The Jews under the Old Covenant were to obey the Law. Jesus
instituted a new covenant as He said in Matthew 26:28, "For this is my
blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of
sins."
: How do you determine which parts of the Law a Gentile must keep?
: Remember, Paul said that if a Gentile so much as allowed himself to be
: circumcized (OUCH!), Christ would be of NO value to him. (Of course, Paul
: also once had a Gentile circumcized, so as with other issues, don't look
: for complete consistancy among Paul's writings.)
I look to the New testament to see which Laws have been abrogated by God,
either through Jesus' fulfillment of them (i.e. sacrificial laws, food
laws) or by command of the Holy Spirit through the New Testament writers
(i.e. sabbatical laws, feast laws). I do observe the Old Testament Law of
tithing because I see no New Testament correlation to it (In Acts 5 it
states that the Jerusalem Christians gave all of their possessions to the
Church but it was not a commandment for them to do so. Jesus told the
Pharisees who were under the Old Covenant that they should tithe in
Matthew 23:23). But as I stated in an earlier post I see no abrogation of
the prohibition of homosexuality or bestiality for that matter.
: But the list in Acts 15 is complete. Regarding the special Jewish laws,
: Paul wrote: "It seemed good not to burden you WITH ANYTHING BEYOND the
: following." He didn't include theft and murder, etc. since these were
: already observed by the Gentiles.
And murder and theft were also part of the Law of Moses yet they are
observed by the Gentiles to this day. What about bestiality? Do you
maintain that it is okay for Gentiles to have sex with animals? Yet again
God saw need to put that prohibition in the Law of Moses. Again there are
parts of the Law of Moses that pertain to the Gentiles.
: Actually, the example of David and Jonathan is curretly being discussed.
: I do honestly believe that they had a homosexual affair, and David spoke
: of it in the most commendable of terms. When homosexual acts are
: condemned, it seems to always be in conjunction with idolatry.
Do you have any specific Biblical evidence that David and Jonathan had a
homosexual relations (i.e. David "knew" Jonathan)? If not then you are
making a claim that has no basis IN FACT but is only unsubstantiated
speculation and possibly wishful thinking.
I, James Jackson previously wrote the following statements-
: : I want to see if we have any common ground on this issue. You maintain
: : that the prohibition against homosexuality pertains to the Jews only
: : because of the Levitical laws given to them.
Han-Michael responded-
: Not completely. I don't believe that the Levitical laws applied to ALL
: homosexual acts. It obviously doesn't address ANY lesbian act. I think
: the act of "man lieing with man" pertained to its connection with pagan
: worship.
It seems to be "always" in conjunction with idolatry? Where in Leviticus
18 is homosexuality associated with idolatry?
James Jackson previously wrote-
: : Therefore are we agreed that
: : according to what God said in His Word that it is a sin for two Jewish
: : males to have homosexual relations with each other? Will you state that
: : homosexuality is a sin if two Jewish males have sexual relations with each
: : other?
Hans-Michael responded-
: No.
Mr. Hans-Michael, Here is your response that you made in an earlier post
in this thread.
["James, i appreciate the candor in your response, and i will give you a
directed answer to your followup question. No, i cannot give you a
specific verse where God, Jesus or Paul is said to abolish this law as
they did others. But neither can i supply a verse outside of the
Levitical law which condemns homosexuality. Lesbian behavior isn't even
addressed in the Law." Peace, ha...@teleport.com]
You wrote that you couldn't find "a verse OUTSIDE of the Levitical law
which condemns homosexuality." Here you stated that homosexuality IS
CONDEMNED in the Levitical law. But now you won't agree with your previous
statement that homosexuality is condemned by God in the Levitical Law and
therefore a sin, at least for two Jewish males? Why is that?
James Jackson
: Peace, ha...@teleport.com
George R. Clark, Jr.
ha...@teleport.com (Hans-Michael) wrote:
>James Jackson (jaja...@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:
>: Hans-Michael (ha...@teleport.com) wrote:
>
What does it metter whether the Bible specifically condemns
homosexual *orientation*? (It does specifically proscribe
homosexual *activity* -- like it or not!)
It also doesn't condemn:
1) The use of Heroin
2) Drunken Driving
3) Nuclear warfare
4) Gambling
5) Cocaine
6) Genetic "engineering"
God's Word proscribes the misuse of God's gifts -- and
human sexuality is, indeed, one of those gifts. Sexual
proclivities may be analogized with ownership of property:
it is wrong to take the property of another, even if one
is, by nature or nurture, a kleptomaniac. Stealing is
wrong, no matter who does it.
So it is with sexuality -- unnatural acts are wrong, no
matter if the person(s) commiting them have it in their
nature to do so or not. We should all pray for and help
someone who is kleptomaniac -- without affirming theft as
an acceptable action. We should also pray for and help
someone whose sexual orientation os lesgay -- without
affirming homosexual activity as acceptable.
I realize I'll probably get flamed without end for this
post, but it's how I see things, and I would be less than
honest if I didn't "call 'em as I see 'em."
Yours Faithfully in Christ,
George
--
___________________________________________________________
___________
"Pride is usually absent in those who have the most reason
to be proud.
The same principle applies to humility." -- G. R. Clark
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu
Mark Ashley writes:
[snipola: Mark is trying to argue that, if I think that same-sex sex
is not sinful _per se_, then I must also think that pedophilia and
incest are OK, by my standards. He has asked me several times what
the relevant differences are, and I replied by asking him why _he_
thought pedophilia and incest were wrong.]
[TO is me. I asked him whether the only reason that he thought incest
and pedophilia were wrong was because the Bible said so...]
TO>Or can you give
TO>any other reasons for WHY God would want to prohibit it?
Mark replied:
>Does this change Christ's teachings ? What is your goal for
>conjuring up reasons ? Do your attempts at guessing God's
>reasons for His rules affect His actual reasons ? Are you
>perhaps claiming to know what God has in His mind ?
My goal for conjuring up reasons is that I've been trying (unsucessfully)
to get you to see for yourself that there ARE relevant differences
between same-sex sex and incest and pedophilia. But you've been too
busy attacking my character and motivations to actually read what
I've read carefully and see what I'm up to.
BTW, I'm surprised and disappointedthat such an ardent Catholic like
yourself would attack me when I aksed for the REASONS why God might
prohibit something. The Catholic Church has a long history of giving
the REASONS why various activities are right and wrong. I don't think
that my request was out of line.
Look, Mark. I asked you why YOU thought that incest and pedophilia
were wrong because there are some OBVIOUS differences between them
and same-sex sex between two consenting adults, especially if we
add the proviso that the two are in a loving, committed, life-long
monogamous relationship. You can very well believe that what the
two men is doing is wrong, while still acknowledging that there
ARE big differences between their situation and the incest/pedophilia
cases. You're just introducing a big fat red herring into the discussion.
OK, here is your wish--since you're unwilling to use your imagination
and/or sympathy and think of this yourself, here are (very briefly)
some of the relevant differences:
In pedophilia, there is a large power differential between the adult and
the child. Also, it is very questionable whether a child can truly give
informed consent to sex. There is also the great harm that being molested
causes a child. There is also the fact that what is emotionally involved
in an adult/child sexual relationship is not respect, love, mutual growth,
and openness, but power, domination, secrecy, and shame.
All incest has obvious problems of inbreeding. Also, parent/child incest
has the problems enumerated above with pedophilia. In sibling/sibling
incest, the type of emotional/familial bonds that siblings have with
one another, I believe, preclude any sexual realtionship from being
psychologically healthy, in addition to the concerns with inbreeding.
Are you happy now? Sheesh.
Tim O'Keefe
tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
Tracy M Mills
Excerpts from netnews.soc.religion.christian: 1-Jul-96 Re: Where does
the Bible CO.. by mark ash...@netcom.com
> TM>He objected to adultery and divorce between (presumably heterosexual)
> TM>married couples.
>
> Sure. But nobody's arguing about these.
> See Mark 10 on marriage.
I did. That's one place where Christ is quoted as objecting to divorce
and heard speaking of adultery in a derogatory manner which leads one to
ASSume Christ objected to it.
Your implied argument seems to be that Christ also "defines" marriage in
Mark 10 as a union of one man and one woman; that any sexual practice
outside of this one-man-one-woman "marriage" amounts to fornication; and
that fornication is a Bad Thing according to the usual passages in the
O.T. and in Paul's Letters. Fine and dandy; and not at all changing the
fact that Christ, Christself, is nowhere quoted as speaking *either* for
*or* against any sexual practices other than adultery.
Does this indicate tacit approval? Of course not; to say "Christ didn't
say anything about this and therefore it's OK" is to put words in
Christ's mouth. But to say, "Christ objected to fornication"
("fornication" being defined, for the purposes of this thread, as
homosexual relations), is also to put words in Christ's mouth. All we
can say for sure, based on what's in the canonical Gospels, is that
Christ, the Galilean raboni, is silent on the issue of homosexuality.
Probably because he had more pressing issues to worry about. ;>
All blessings -
Tracy Mills - mizm...@andrew.cmu.edu
"We, the unwilling, led by the unknowing, are attempting to do the
impossible for the ungrateful. So long have we done so much with so
little, that we are now qualified to do anything with nothing."
-Anon.-
Jason D. Smith
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
= For something to be wrong, there has to be a reason for it to be wrong.
While I agree whole-heartedly, a question remains to be answered - how
do we decide whether any reason is "good enough".
For example, what was the reason behind the mosaic law proscription
against the use of different fibers in one's clothing? Or against
simultaneously planting fields with different grains?
= J. Jackson asked why homosexual
= relations would be _commended_. I answer that they can bring joy to those
= involved, in the same way as can heterosexual romantic relationships.
By way of extension, what do you say to the Jew who gains satisfaction,
even joy, out of making and wearing clothes of variously blended
fabrics? What about the Jew who loved goat steaks in a cream sauce of
goat's milk?
Or the alcoholic who enjoys his drink? Or the swinging couple who
*together* shares joy and genuine affection in the arms of others? Or
the person who finds great joy and satisfaction in *privately*
fantasizing about the women he sees on the street?
And how far is all this from, say, the successful businessman who by
honest, hard work gains great wealth, but never took the time to help
the "least of these" despite the fact they huddled at his doorstep?
If we try, we can all come up with reasons why *any* of these might be
bad. But again - what makes that reason *good* enough for another?
[ ... ]
= Homosexual romantic love can be the opposite of [greed, spite and hatefulness].
= Why, then, would it be wrong?
For the same reason a field planted with barley and rye would be wrong
for a Jew under the mosaic law - he believes God has stated His
direction on the matter, and has found no further instructions from God
that more clearly elucidate a different direction.
Any who believes in and wants to honor God is in no different a
position:
He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require
of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your
God. [ Micah 6:8 ]
Jason.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason D. Smith | I'm not young enough to know everything. |
smi...@ngc.com | |
Jason D. Smith
Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu> wrote:
= My Bible has this statement in it by Jesus:
= Lu 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two [men] in one bed;
= the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
= Would you mind commenting on how thisn verse fits into your scheme on
= homosexuality?
You didn't ask me, but here's a shot. This verse (and its context)
doesn't even remotely describe (or even require) sex.
I've shared a bed with men several times (and several of them would pick
a fight if you alluded to them what you allude above) simply because
that was what was available.
My turn. Would you mind commenting on why that verse must describe (or
even *hint* at) a homosexual relationship?
Or how about that passage from Ecclesiastes you quoted elsewhere (where
two are better than one).
Anyone who has more than a passing familiarity of living without a
heater would know that sharing a blanket is very effective way to keep
warm (and one of *the* most effective treatments for hypothermia, btw).
I'm quite sure contemporaries of the Ecclesiast had no trouble grasping
this passage quite differently than contemporaries of "Beavis and
Butthead".
YMMV.
Hans-Michael
: : even JEWS must not "obey completely" the Law.
: The Jews under the Old Covenant were to obey the Law. Jesus
: instituted a new covenant as He said in Matthew 26:28, "For this is my
: blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of
: sins."
I see a discrepency between this and your earlier statement, "The Law was
given for the Jews to obey completely."
: : How do you determine which parts of the Law a Gentile must keep?
: I look to the New testament to see which Laws have been abrogated by God,
: either through Jesus' fulfillment of them (i.e. sacrificial laws, food
: laws) or by command of the Holy Spirit through the New Testament writers
Acts 15 abrogated most of the Law.
: : But the list in Acts 15 is complete. Regarding the special Jewish laws,
: : Paul wrote: "It seemed good not to burden you WITH ANYTHING BEYOND the
: : following." He didn't include theft and murder, etc. since these were
: : already observed by the Gentiles.
: And murder and theft were also part of the Law of Moses yet they are
: observed by the Gentiles to this day. What about bestiality? Do you
: maintain that it is okay for Gentiles to have sex with animals?
No. Bestiality, like theft and murder was looked down upon by the
Gentiles to whome the letter in Acts was addressed. If there were no OT
prohibition of bestiality, would you engage in it?
: : Actually, the example of David and Jonathan is curretly being discussed.
: Do you have any specific Biblical evidence that David and Jonathan had a
: homosexual relations
I believe the flow of events is very telling. It was love at first sight.
They swore this awesome covenant upon their first meeting. They became
"one in spirit" as Jonathan loved David as his "own soul."
: It seems to be "always" in conjunction with idolatry? Where in Leviticus
: 18 is homosexuality associated with idolatry?
I think the connection with *toevah* points to an association with
idolatry. Ezekiel's usage of *toevah* supports this well.
: : : Will you state that homosexuality is a sin if two Jewish males have
: : : sexual relations with each other?
: Hans-Michael responded-
: : No.
: Mr. Hans-Michael, Here is your response that you made in an earlier post
: in this thread. [But neither can i supply a verse outside of the
: Levitical law which condemns homosexuality. Lesbian behavior isn't even
: addressed in the Law." Peace, ha...@teleport.com]
: You wrote that you couldn't find "a verse OUTSIDE of the Levitical law
: which condemns homosexuality." Here you stated that homosexuality IS
: CONDEMNED in the Levitical law. But now you won't agree with your previous
: statement that homosexuality is condemned by God in the Levitical Law and
: therefore a sin, at least for two Jewish males? Why is that?
Not a very good "gotcha." I never that all homosexuality was condemned in
Leviticus. I have long maintained that Leviticus doesn't address female
homosexuality. As for what aspects or instances of male homosexuality
Leviticus is supposed to address, my opinions are in flux. As for your
question, why Jewish males need not follow your interpretation of the Law,
it's safe to say that Jesus freed Jews from the Law as well as Gentiles.
Peace, ha...@teleport.com
Hedgehog
In article <4r7kro$4...@geneva.rutgers.edu> , bh...@thomtech.com writes:
>In Article<4qvl0b$3...@heidelberg.rutgers.edu>, <hedg...@scripps.edu>
writes:
>
>>
>
>Uh...not to split proverbial hairs, I have an NIV that says "two people".
My, how politically correct the NIV is.
>Even if it were "two men" -- what does this have to do with sex?
So now I have to find a parable where two men are actually having sex?
And in how many parables are a man and a woman actually having sex?
There is nothing like moving the goal posts in the middle of the game.
>Sharing a bed means, sharing a bed -- as people would do if they
>were too poor to afford separate beds or separate rooms.
Does the NIV say the two people/men were poor? If you are allowed to
read this much into the story, how much can I read into the story?
>Or as
>people would do if they were family and saw sharing a bed as
>something completely, asexually, normal. This is like the Vietnamese
>custom wherein men hold hands in public, or, for that matter, the
>custom in numerous cultures where men kiss in greeting.
What a minute! The Bible was not written in Vietnam so why judge it by
those standards. Certainly the NT was written under Hellenistic
occupation of the Middle East and we know that homosexual activity in
Hellenistic society was not shocking.
>Why do
>these things have to be "sexual?"
You tell me. It sounds like this is more of an issue for you than for me.
> Just because the popular myth
>is that men have to beat the figurative hell out of each other,
>and hide any sign of emotion, to be Real Men, why bring this pale
>joke of a masculine ideal to the table when we're looking at the
>Bible?
Heck if I know. I never said you couldn't hold hands with your best
friend of the same gender. I never said that you couldn't share your bed
with someone of the same gender. I think you might have me confused with
someone else.
>I went to Promise Keepers this May, held hands with FOUR men in
>prayer, hugged my best male friend, whom I love, and can tell
>you with all the honesty I have in me that I was not the slightest
>bit attracted to or sexually involved with a single one of them, or
>to any man, for that matter.
So what?
>The point being that trying to construe
>affection, verbal or otherwise, as "evidence" of homosexuality isn't
>valid.
Then why can't two men marry?
>By the way -- and no offense is intended -- why are you using an alias?
It is my e-mail address. I see your e-mail address is "bhaag". Why not
sign your messages as "Bhaag"?
> Benjamin "Benjamin" Haag
>[The word "men" is not present in the Greek. --clh]
Perhaps not, but then neither is "people". Perhaps a longer quote from
the KJV would be interesting.
Luke 17
33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever
shall lose his life shall preserve it.
34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two [men] in one bed; the
one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
35 Two [women] shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and
the other left.
36 Two [men] shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the
other left.
37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto
them, Wheresoever the body [is], thither will the eagles be gathered
together.
The KJV translators seem very certain about when it should be "men" and
when it should be "women". Note also that I did not edit out the square
brackets.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
In article <4r7kpp$4...@geneva.rutgers.edu> mark ashley, ash...@netcom.com
writes:
> Response to: Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu>
>
>MA>Jesus' parables on marriage do not identify two grooms or two brides.
bed;
>HH>the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
>
>Luke 17: 22-37
>Jesus talks about the randomness of death.
Yes, but that isn't our topic, is it? Our topic is why there are men
sleeping together. You sort of dodged that question.
>Nothing about advocating sexual habits of any kind.
Then homosexuality is not condemned even though two men are sleeping
together. This was my point precisely.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hans-Michael
George R. Clark, Jr. (gcl...@gsaix2.cc.GaSoU.edu) wrote:
: What does it metter whether the Bible specifically condemns
: homosexual *activity* -- like it or not!)
The bible doesn't proscribe lesbian *activity*. It only proscribes male
homosexual *activity* in the the Law.
: So it is with sexuality -- unnatural acts are wrong, no
: matter if the person(s) commiting them have it in their
: nature to do so or not.
All that is unnatural is NOT sinful. Check out Romans 11:24.
: I realize I'll probably get flamed without end for this
: post, but it's how I see things, and I would be less than
: honest if I didn't "call 'em as I see 'em."
: Yours Faithfully in Christ,
: George
bene.
Peace, ha...@teleport.com
mark ashley
Response to: tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: Where does the Bible COMMEND homosexuality?
[My local news provider is having problems and articles
are getting dropped left and right. For anyone who
posted a response to which I did not answer back, I
probably never saw your article. Mail me a copy if
you want a response.]
TO>In pedophilia, there is a large power differential between the adult and
TO>the child.
What is the power differential between a person who is 17 years
and 364 days old and another person who is 18 years and 1 day old ?
What age does the Bible define as adult ? And what age does the
Bible define as child so that one day after that day, the child
becomes an adult ?
TO>Also, it is very questionable whether a child can truly give
TO>informed consent to sex.
Read what I wrote:
MA>If a 13-year old is considered an adult (and in some countries
MA>13 year olds can marry and have children), then what's the difference ?
The 13-year old is considered an ADULT. The person is in fact allowed
to have SEX and CHILDREN.
TO>All incest has obvious problems of inbreeding.
The problem with you is you don't read the articles:
MA>How do you define "just fine" ? Is that the same as the children
MA>of incestuous relationships being "just fine" ? Incestuous
MA>couples can adopt too !!! So why not allow them ?
Incestuous couples can ADOPT. Exactly as you want homosexual couples
to do. See the hypocrisy ?
TO>Also, parent/child incest has the problems enumerated above with
TO>pedophilia.
How can a relationship between a 50-year old and a 30-year old
become a case of pedophilia ? Where is the underaged person ?
Where is the juvenile ?
TO>In sibling/sibling incest, the type of emotional/familial bonds
TO>that siblings have with one another, I believe, preclude any sexual
> ^^^^^^^^^
TO>realtionship from being psychologically healthy,
First of all .. why do you use yourself as the one who determines
anything ? What does your personal belief have to do with Christ's
teachings ? NONE. You can believe anything you want.
It has no bearing on Christ's teachings. Second of all,
are you a psychologist ? Are you a widely respected
psychologist ? Why are you making a diagnosis if you
do not have a medical degree ? (Or do you ?)
I wonder why you refuse to answer a lot of my questions ?
Are you unable to answer them ? Or ar you just scared of
answering them ? Here's another one which you failed to answer:
Since you are free to do ANYTHING YOU WANT, what is your interest
in insisting that Christ allowed the homosexual sex act ?
Nobody's forcing you to obey Christ's teachings so your obsessive
efforts are quite surprising. Why ?
mark ashley
[My local news provider is having problems and articles
are getting dropped left and right. For anyone who
posted a response to which I did not answer back, I
probably never saw your article. Mail me a copy if
you want a response.]
MA>Because Christ didn't. He only objected to fornication.
TM>He objected to adultery and divorce between (presumably heterosexual)
TM>married couples.
MA> Sure. But nobody's arguing about these.
MA> See Mark 10 on marriage.
TM>Your implied argument seems to be that Christ also "defines" marriage in
TM>Mark 10 as a union of one man and one woman; that any sexual practice
TM>outside of this one-man-one-woman "marriage" amounts to fornication
Don't blame me for the definition of the word. Blame Webster 8-).
TM>All we
TM>can say for sure, based on what's in the canonical Gospels, is that
TM>Christ, the Galilean raboni, is silent on the issue of homosexuality.
What do YOU believe about fornication with respect to Christianity ?
Do you assert that fornication is condemned by Christianity
or do you assert that fornication is advocated by Christianity ?
Should Christianity be limited to teachings made by Christ only ?
In other words, throw out huge chunks of the Bible ?
BTW, Christ did provide authority in Mt 16:18 and 18:18.
Yes, Christ did not address every possible issue in the universe,
but He certainly gave authority for other people to handle those.
It doesn't escape notice that you are not one of these people
with authority.
TM>Probably because he had more pressing issues to worry about. ;>
People cannot even control their own sex organs. How do you expect
them to even follow Christ's more difficult teachings. Sex is
such a trivial thing and people cannot even handle it. Pathetic.
Why would a person even call himself/herself Christian if he/she
loves sex more than God ?
Hedgehog
In article <4r7l14$4...@geneva.rutgers.edu> James Jackson,
jaja...@freenet.columbus.oh.us writes:
>As this thread points out there
>are humans who think homosexuality is okay and there are humans who think
>homosexuality is wrong. This makes it clear to me that humans must look
to
>God and His Word to say what is right and wrong.
But no one has presented even a single verse to support the idea that
homosexuality (as opposed to certain homosexual sex acts) might be wrong.
Perhaps it might be a good idea to see what the Bible says before one
starts making statements about homosexuality being wrong.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
In article <4r7l17$4...@geneva.rutgers.edu> James Jackson,
jaja...@freenet.columbus.oh.us writes:
>These verses to me say that on the Day of Judgment it is going to be bad
>for Sodom and worse for the cities Jesus mentioned. If Sodom isn't going
>to be judged harshly by God then why did He destroy them in Genesis 19?
Where in the verses does it say things will be bad for Sodom at the last
judgement? I worry a bit that you might be reading something into the
text that isn't there. For example, God treated Job harshly in this life
and Job didn't do anything wrong. Will God judge Job harshly? Since
your logic doesn't work for other Bible characters, I doubt your
reasoning is Biblical in the case of Sodom.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
In article <4r7kq1$4...@geneva.rutgers.edu> mark ashley, ash...@netcom.com
writes:
>Your memory has no bearing on what the Bible contains.
Perhaps not, but if you have a particular verse in mind, you can present
it to the newsgroup.
>Furthermore if you cite your own expertise, then you'd
>have to prove that you are credible in the areas of
>theology, history, and languages.
I have to be an expert in all of that before I can even say I don't
remember ever seeing such and such an item. Why not just produce the
verse, Mr. Ashley.
>HH>Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is]
>HH>abomination. So it is the sexual relationship which seems to be
>HH>regulated here and not the contractual aspects of marriage.
>
>So you wouldn't mind having marriages between homosexuals
>such that sexual activity is banned. How well does that
>sit with homosexuals ? 8-)
That's not for me to say. Remember the goal here is not to explore mere
human opinion, but the teaching of the Bible.
>You also seem to forget about 1Cor 7:3-5. This contradicts
>your proposal for sexless marriages. 8-)
I never made a proposal for sexless marriage. Perhaps you need to read
more carefully.
I looked at 1st Corinthians 7:3-5 and that section is not dicussing
homosexual marriages. Perhaps you misquoted. This section is clearly
dicussing heterosexual marriages. Now even if I had made a proposal for
a sexless homosexual marriage, then what would would that have to do with
a sexless heterosexual marriage?
>MA>Where does it say that children should obey their two fathers,
>MA>or their two mothers ?
>HH>According to the Biology classes I have taken, two males can't produce
>HH>children without a female and two females can't produce children
without
>HH>a male. Is the basis of your question a belief that children don't
have
>HH>to obey their step parents? How do you derive this idea from the
Bible?
>
>It's funny how you sidestep the issue. 8-)
Not at all. If an orphan is adopted, does the orphan have to obey his
adoptive parents. That _is_ the issue.
[Irrelevant material deleted.
>You forget that the pronouns (?) used for the Church are "she" and "her".
And you, Mark Ashley, are you a her or a him? If you are a him, are you
included under the female pronoun in the verses which I quoted? Please
explain this in greater detail.
>The situation is the same for countries.
So do you say "Germany tried to expand its borders in WWII" or do you say
"Germany tried to expand her borders in WWII"? And what of the German
tendency to describe their country as a "Fatherland"?
>HH>I tend to feel that what the Bible condemns as an abomination is not
what
>HH>we in the twentieth century know as homosexuality, but rather
homosexual
>HH>rape.
>
>Uh oh. You fell into that trap again. Why do you cite
>yourself when you do not have the credibility nor the authority ?
Fine, show me a single verse in the Bible that condemns homosexuality and
prove your credentials.
>Christ's teachings are not based on your personal feelings.
Nope! But then, maybe my personal feelings are based on Christ's
teachings.
>What happened to the classic ? Romans 1 ? 8-)
Let's see what Romans 1 actually says.
19 ! Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God
hath shewed [it] unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God,
neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their
foolish heart was darkened.
They did not glorify God. This was the sin. If this is the flaw, then
the best course of action is to get these people back to glorifying God.
Here is how they were punished:
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made
like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and
creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of
their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served
the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their
women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
They became foolish, they became idolators, and they used women against
naure. (i.e. these people were _not_ homosexuals by the current meaning
of the word.)
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which
is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error
which was meet.
Once again, these are not people who were born with sexual tendencies,
but rather people who had a life with a member of the opposite sex, but
gave that up. Note that the lifestyle these men adopted is a punishment
for their earlier sin: not glorifying God. Also note that at best this
verse only applies to males. No lesbian could be considered to fall
under the terms of this verse.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God
gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not
convenient;
Describing homosexuality (even if I accept that this is the matter under
discussion) as "inconvenient" is hardly a stinging condemnation.
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,
covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit,
malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of
evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection,
implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things
are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that
do them.
Wow! What a list!
Few of this set seems to be specifically oriented to homosexuality.
Verse 32 is the last verse in this chapter, but the real kicker is the
first verse of the following chapter.
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.
Now I know I have never committed a homosexual sex act. So clearly the
main thrust of this section isn't about homosexual acts. SInce you seem
to be the one condemning Homosexuality, do you find that you are also
guilty of it?
>I'm not sure what your goal is. Is it your goal to show what
>the worst sin on earth is ? And then declare all lesser sins
>to be no longer sins ?
No.
>Let's try out your theory [snip]
Isn't it better to find out what I am saying rather than placing words in
my mouth.
You asked for one verse and I gave you one verse. You can either be a
man of your word or you can go back on your promise. The choice is yours.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Edward Pothier
Hedgehog (hedg...@scripps.edu) wrote:
[DELETIONS]
> >[The word "men" is not present in the Greek. --clh]
>
> Perhaps not, but then neither is "people". Perhaps a longer quote from
> the KJV would be interesting.
>
> Luke 17
>
> The KJV translators seem very certain about when it should be "men" and
> when it should be "women". Note also that I did not edit out the square
> brackets.
[Although the passage has nothing to do with "homosexuality", I will
try to respond to some of the above comments on the translation of
Luke 17:34-37 in the KJV and some modern translations.]
TRANSLATION OF LUKE 17:34-37
Edward Pothier June 1996
There is a question asked about the differences in translation
of Luke 17:34-37 in the King James Version and some modern
translations, specifically whether "men" and "women" should appear in
Lk 17:34 and Lk 17:35 respectively. The KJV text of Luke 17:34-37 is:
34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two *men* in one bed; the
one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
35 Two *women* shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and
the other left.
36 Two *men* shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the
other left.
37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto
them, Wheresoever the body *is*, thither will the eagles be gathered
together.
The KJV text usually prints in italics, shown above as
"*men*" and "*women*", not for emphasis but to attempt to indicate
words not explicitly in the underlying Greek text but felt necessary
in English translation. This is now a peculiar typographical feature
since usually now italics are for emphasis.
[There is a text-critical problem with verse 36. Although it is
included in the Greek _Textus Receptus_ and thus is included in the
King James Version, it is not included in most modern editions of the
Greek NT, e.g. NA27 or UBS4. Most modern English translations either
omit it entirely or indicate it only in textual footnotes. No further
comments will be made on that verse. I agree with most text critics
that its omission is correct. This verse with two in the field, etc.,
does occur in Matthew 24:40 followed there in Mt 24:41 with the two
women grinding. Matthew's account has no parallel to the two men in one
bed.]
Verses 34 and 35 which are our focus of interest read in
transliteration (with "e:" for eta and "o:" for omega):
<Lk 17:34>lego: humin, taute:i te:i nukti esontai duo epi kline:s mias,
ho heis parale:mphthe:setai kai ho heteros aphethe:setai
<35> esontai duo ale:thousai epi to auto, he: mia parale:mphthe:setai,
he: de hetera aphethe:setai.
Although the apparently same word _duo_ is used for "two" in
verses 34 and 35, the implicit difference comes with the separation in
each verse. Each of these verses speaks literally of "the one" who
will be taken and "the other" who will left. In verse 34 these terms
are "_ho heis_" and "ho heteros_", both grammatically masculine. In
verse 35 they are "_he: mia_" and "_he hetera_", both grammatically
feminine. [Needless to say, _heteros_ and _hetera_ have nothing to do
with "homosexuality" or "heterosexuality" except that they are the
usual Greek word for "other".]
How do some modern English translations treat this. A small
sample, more could be checked, follows:
verse 34 verse 35
NASB two men two women
NIV two people two women
NRSV two two women
NAB two people two women
REB two people two women
NJB two two women
Although all of the above translations do use the "women" explicitly
in verse 35, there are differences in verse 34.
--
=============================================================================
= Edward L. Pothier epot...@lynx.dac.neu.edu =
= Physics Department PREFERRED EMAIL: pot...@neuhep.hex.neu.edu =
= Northeastern University / Boston, MA 02115 =
Timothy
ash...@netcom.com (mark ashley) wrote:
>People cannot even control their own sex organs. How do you expect
>them to even follow Christ's more difficult teachings. Sex is
>such a trivial thing and people cannot even handle it. Pathetic.
>Why would a person even call himself/herself Christian if he/she
>loves sex more than God ?
Sex and anger are probably two of the most problematic areas in
anyone's life.
Jack King
Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu> writes:
>But no one has presented even a single verse to support the idea that
>homosexuality (as opposed to certain homosexual sex acts) might be wrong.
Hmm. I haven't been following this thread, but let me see if I've
got your point. Just as it is ok to be an alcoholic as long as you
don't drink, it's ok to be homosexual as long as you don't have sex.
Correct?
Jack
James Jackson
Hedgehog (hedg...@scripps.edu) wrote:
: Where in the verses does it say things will be bad for Sodom at the last
: judgement? I worry a bit that you might be reading something into the
: text that isn't there. For example, God treated Job harshly in this life
: and Job didn't do anything wrong. Will God judge Job harshly? Since
: your logic doesn't work for other Bible characters, I doubt your
: reasoning is Biblical in the case of Sodom.
: Peace,
: Hedgehog
Where does it say that Job's troubles were a judgment on him by God? Quite
to the contrary God was commending His servant Job before Satan. God
allowed Satan to test Job but He told Satan that he could not take Job's
life. And at the end God blessed Job two-fold.
Now compare what God said about Sodom in Genesis 18:20-21: "And the LORD
said, 'Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and BECAUSE their
SIN is VERY grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done
altogether according to the CRY of it, which is come unto me; and if not,
I will know.'" In Genesis 19:13 God judged and sentenced Sodom and Gomorrah
to be destroyed, "For we will destroy this place because the cry of them
is waxen great before the face of the LORD; AND THE LORD SENT US to
destroy it." In Genesis 19:24-25 the sentence was carried out.
In the example of Job God allowed His commended servant to be tested by
Satan and in the latter example God pronounced judgment on Sodom and
Gomorrah to be carried out in this life. Why would God have judged them so
severely in the first place yet on the Day of Judgment say "Your innocent."
James Jackson
Tracy M Mills
Excerpts from netnews.soc.religion.christian: 3-Jul-96 Re: Where does
the Bible CO.. by mark ash...@netcom.com
-Well, if I have no "authority" or "credentials", what does it matter? ;>
-I believe that our sexual behavior, like *all* our behavior, should be
examined against - and guided by - these two overarching commandments:
1. Love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, soul, mind and strength;
2. Love your neighbor as yourself (or, as slightly re-phrased by Jesus,
"Do unto others that which you would have them do unto you").
"That is the Law and the Prophets," says Jesus.
In other words, before we say or do *anything*, sexual or otherwise, we
are to ask ourselves two questions:
1. Is it consistent with what one would expect of someone who claims to
love God?
2. Is it consistent with a spirit of love toward *both* myself *and* my
[neighbor, friend, relative, lover, child, opponent, etc.etc.etc.]?
If the answer to both questions is "yes", then IMH(eretical?)O I'm on
pretty solid ground.
OF course, as with anything that looks good and simple and easy on
paper, actually living this way is difficult, messy and fraught with
potential for spectacular screw-ups. :> -It's much less work, isn't
it? -to have specific "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots", everything
spelled out for us, lines inside which to color. /And, in fact, I
haven't thrown out any of my Bibles. Thousands of years' worth of
collective wisdom and experience is kind of handy to have around. :>
-But I believe the Bible must be read intelligently and critically, as
well as prayerfully and respectfully. I believe that these specific
injunctions and commandments we find peppered all through the thing need
*also* be tested against the Two Big Rules listed above; and if, after
struggling and wrestling and praying and seeking to understand something
that I don't "like", I find that it just *is not passing the test*,
period....then I *will* throw it out. Wrongheaded and heretical?
-maybe so. :} Will this neat little formula keep me from sinning?
*hysterical laughter* -no way.
But I'm no expert, no Enlightened Soul (TM), none of that. I'm just
another wandering slob, figuring it out as I go along and needing Grace,
like anybody else.
Hedgehog
In article <4rd14m$8...@geneva.rutgers.edu> mark ashley, ash...@netcom.com
writes:
>What do YOU believe about fornication with respect to Christianity ?
This seems to be a different type of approach. Just yesterday I read a
post from someone who said it doesn't matter what _I_ believe. I think
the exact words were:
In article <4r7kq1$4...@geneva.rutgers.edu> mark ashley, ash...@netcom.com
writes:
>Your memory has no bearing on what the Bible contains.
>Furthermore if you cite your own expertise, then you'd
>have to prove that you are credible in the areas of
>theology, history, and languages.
(Let me point out that at no point did Mr. Ashley present me with a Bible
verse that showed the flaw in my memory. He was merely reacting to my
stated use of memory.)
So perhaps Mr. Ashley would care to explain the various roles that the
Bible, Biblical Scholarship, secular scholarship, and individual
conscience have in forming sound doctrine. Once we get those issues
settled, perhaps the issue of what to do about homosexuals will just fall
right into place.
Peace,
Hedgehog
James Jackson
<4rd11o$8...@geneva.rutgers.edu>
Distribution:
Hans-Michael (ha...@teleport.com) wrote:
: James Jackson (jaja...@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:
: : Do you have any specific Biblical evidence that David and Jonathan had a
: : homosexual relations
: I believe the flow of events is very telling. It was love at first sight.
: They swore this awesome covenant upon their first meeting. They became
: "one in spirit" as Jonathan loved David as his "own soul."
: I think the connection with *toevah* points to an association with
: idolatry. Ezekiel's usage of *toevah* supports this well.
: : : : Will you state that homosexuality is a sin if two Jewish males have
: : : : sexual relations with each other?
: : Hans-Michael responded-
: : : No.
: : Mr. Hans-Michael, Here is your response that you made in an earlier post
: : in this thread. [But neither can i supply a verse outside of the
: : Levitical law which condemns homosexuality. Lesbian behavior isn't even
: : addressed in the Law." Peace, ha...@teleport.com]
: : You wrote that you couldn't find "a verse OUTSIDE of the Levitical law
: : which condemns homosexuality." Here you stated that homosexuality IS
: : CONDEMNED in the Levitical law. But now you won't agree with your previous
: : statement that homosexuality is condemned by God in the Levitical Law and
: : therefore a sin, at least for two Jewish males? Why is that?
: Not a very good "gotcha." I never that all homosexuality was condemned in
: Leviticus. I have long maintained that Leviticus doesn't address female
: homosexuality. As for what aspects or instances of male homosexuality
: Leviticus is supposed to address, my opinions are in flux. As for your
: question, why Jewish males need not follow your interpretation of the Law,
: it's safe to say that Jesus freed Jews from the Law as well as Gentiles.
: Peace, ha...@teleport.com
This post by you and some earlier posts by Mr. O'Keefe, who also has
maintained a pro-gay position in this thread, illustrate to me the crux of
the issue of homosexuality and the Bible.
The subject of this thread was: WHERE does the Bible COMMEND homosexuality?
The very first response to my initial post was from Mr. O'Keefe. His first
sentence was, "There are no passages in the Bible that specifically COMMEND
homosexual relations." The discussion then turned to: Not only does the
Bible not commend homosexuality it calls it an abomination in one place
and speaks negatively of it in others.
You in this post and the previous post that it is based on illustrated the
problem to me that the pro-homosexual people have in trying to make
homosexuality Biblically acceptable. When I asked you about Leviticus
18:22 and asked if you would state that it speaks of homosexual relations
between two Jewish males as being an abomination and therefore a sin you
responded with a succinct "No". In that same post you introduced the story
of Jonathan and David and said that YOU honestly believed that they had a
homosexual affair. I asked you to quote a verse that stated they had
homosexual relations. In this post you didn't come up with one verse
that states that David and Jonathan had homosexual relations.
That's the problem. In the first example concerning Leviticus 18:22 you
would not agree that this condemns homosexuality even though it states in
black and white, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
is abomination." In the second example of Jonathan and David there is not
one verse in the Bible that states they had homosexual relations with each
other yet you read into that story that they were homosexual lovers.
In other words, you are more interested in making the Bible say what you
want it to say in order to justify something you believe in rather than
receiving what God (not me) has to say on that subject. In an earlier post
you stated, "I cannot give you a specific verse where God, Jesus, or Paul
is said to abolish this law (against homosexuality) as they did others"
yet for some reason you want to believe that God did abolish His
prohibition of homosexuality and that He now condones it even though there
is not one verse in the Bible that states this as being so.
Mr. O'Keefe in another response to one of my posts illustrates my point.
He stated, "Now I'll admit that many of the arguments I've been giving
have to do with things like the happiness that romantic love can bring,
the respect for the other that it can engender, the growth that it can
help spur, which can be equally true of same-sex as opposite-sex couples.
But love and respect for others aren't purely secular virtues, are they?
OR DO YOU THINK THAT IN DEBATE ON MORAL ISSUES ONE OUGHT TO ONLY APPEAL TO
THE BIBLE, AND NOT TO ANY PRINCIPLES THAT MIGHT ALSO GAIN ASSENT FROM
PEOPLE IN GENERAL?" - Tim O'Keefe tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
As I indicated in another post, the pro-gay point of view may gain
acceptance with those who hold to politically correct standards, or they
may gain acceptance with those who look to human standards, but it will
not be accepted by those who hold the standards as they are laid out by
God in His Word. Legislation by man can be passed commending homosexuality
but that will never change the truth as it is written in God's Word.
And if I and others who hold the viewpoint that God in His Word condemns
homosexuality as a sin are correct (and every reference in the Bible to it is
negative) then those who don't repent of it will as Paul puts it, "... not
inherit the kingdom of God." Who then is causing more harm, those who are
accused of being homophobic and accused of laying guilt upon homosexuals,
or those who say homosexuality is okay and that God will overlook your sin?
James Jackson
James Jackson
<4rd11o$8...@geneva.rutgers.edu>
Distribution:
Hans-Michael (ha...@teleport.com) wrote:
: James Jackson (jaja...@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:
: : And murder and theft were also part of the Law of Moses yet they are
: : observed by the Gentiles to this day. What about bestiality? Do you
: : maintain that it is okay for Gentiles to have sex with animals?
: No. Bestiality, like theft and murder was looked down upon by the
: Gentiles to whome the letter in Acts was addressed. If there were no OT
: prohibition of bestiality, would you engage in it?
Your list here includes murder, theft, and bestiality. Why not add
homosexual sex to the list as being looked down upon by the Gentiles?
All four are prohibited by God in His Word and as you agreed in an
earlier post, none of these laws have been abrogated by God, Jesus, or
Paul in the Bible.
Obviously God thought that there were going to be humans who would engage
in bestiality. Why else would He make a law prohibiting it if He knew that
not one of His human creations were going to participate in it?
James Jackson
: Peace, ha...@teleport.com
mark ashley
Response to: Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu>
MA>What do YOU believe about fornication with respect to Christianity ?
HH>This seems to be a different type of approach. Just yesterday I read a
HH>post from someone who said it doesn't matter what _I_ believe.
The question was directed to TM. The statements I made towards
you are still true. I asked TM what her beliefs regarding
fornication are -- the next step is to find out where those
beliefs came from. Then investigating the credibility of the
source of those beliefs. After all, TM asserted that Christ
did not condemn fornication -- which leads us to ask if
TM advocates fornication.
MA>Your memory has no bearing on what the Bible contains.
MA>Furthermore if you cite your own expertise, then you'd
MA>have to prove that you are credible in the areas of
MA>theology, history, and languages.
HH>(Let me point out that at no point did Mr. Ashley present me with
HH>a Bible verse that showed the flaw in my memory. He was merely
HH>reacting to my stated use of memory.)
How quickly you forget Romans 1. How quickly you forget that
Jesus gave authority in Mt 16:18 and 18:18. The problem with
you is you pretend that these things have not been brought to your
attention. I don't know whether you want us to think of you
as ignorant or stupid.
How quickly you forget the simple fact that the Subject
header is telling people from your side of the argument
to present proof. What part of the Subject header do you
not understand ?
HH>So perhaps Mr. Ashley would care to explain the various roles that the
HH>Bible, Biblical Scholarship, secular scholarship, and individual
HH>conscience have in forming sound doctrine.
That would make it a separate thread outside the scope of the
subject header. Let's do a simplistic review of what society
does in general before it believes in a person. Credibility
has to be established. Is the person actually a Christian ?
Does the person follow rules on avoiding temptation, confession,
penance, mortification, sacrifice, charity, humility, and chastity,
poverty, and love ? Are there witnesses ? Does the person have any
lineage to Peter and company (Mt 16:18 & 18:18) ? Does the majority
of Christian peoples recognize this person as an authority
and as a credible Christian ? Do you pass any of these tests, Hedgehog ?
I doubt very much that you are interested in any form of truth.
Why not ? First, because you hide under a pseudonym. What are
you afraid of ? Second, because you do not tell us what your
denomination is. How do we know that you are not a cultist ?
How do we know that you are not a Cafeterian Christian ?
How do we know that you are not one of those people who
simply make up their own rules then disguise it as "Christianity" ?
I also doubt that you are interested in any form of scholarly debate.
Why not ? Because in a lot of your Bible "interpretations",
you advance LITERAL interpretations. It's pathetic because
you're making mistakes that usually come from 4th graders.
Why don't you cite theologians ? Why don't you use study guides ?
Why don't you provide a name like Mother Teresa and state
if that person backs you up on your stated belief. Do you
really think s.r.c readers are gullible idiots who will believe
anything you say ? You cannot even prove that you are a Christian
and you want us to think you know Christian teaching ?
Where do you get the audacity to expect such high respect
when you deliberately insult us with your conjured-up
interpretations ?
HH>Once we get those issues settled, perhaps the issue of what
HH>to do about homosexuals will just fall right into place.
Being a homosexual is not a sin any more than being a heterosexual is.
These two terms refer to people. People are not condemned.
They are to be loved.
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu
[sorry about the long delay on this...]
Benjamin Haag writes:
>[Why would homosexual sex be wrong. Let us look at how God has designed
> us.]There are many things that are "wrong" for us as humans to do -- we
>aren't equipped to breathe underwater, or to fly from a ten-story
>building; the effects of these are pretty easy to discern. But we
>know that God has given us capabilities and limits, some of which are
>easily discernable from our physical nature.
First of all, thanks for the moderate and constructive tone of your
posts. It's difficult to discuss some subjects (like this one) without
a flamewar breaking out. I'll agree that the activities you listed are
wrong for us to do. But I'm not so sure that the analogy with same-sex
sex is convincing, since (as you admit) the activities you list would
cause us to die or be seriously injured. In the cases you list, at least,
I think that it's the harm that makes them wrong, not that we're somehow
"overstepping our natural limits" _per se_.
>But, Tim, if this is so, then why are homosexuals unable, physically
>at a minimum, to procreate as heterosexuals can? If God had intended
>for both heterosexuality and homosexuality to be equal; to be
>interchangable and equally desirable options for us, then why is
>only one capable of regenerating life [...]
But then why would God make some people such that they are unable to
sustain satisfactory romantic relationships with members of the opposite
sex adn able to with members of the same sex? I don't want to get into
a long debate about Exodus and similar organizations, so I'll simply
state: Gay people who enter into marriage and have children with somebody
of the opposite sex almost always make a hash of it and end up getting
divorced and causing all sorts of problems all around.
More broadly, I am suspicious of arguments that start from some fact
about the biological function of an organ and conclude with some moral
thesis about how one can only use that organ for its 'natural end.'
All sorts of (seeming) counterexamples to the general Thomistic
pattern of argument.
Tim O'Keefe
tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
mark ashley
Response to: Timothy <tim...@singnet.com.sg>
ash...@netcom.com (mark ashley) wrote:
MA>People cannot even control their own sex organs. How do you expect
MA>them to even follow Christ's more difficult teachings. Sex is
MA>such a trivial thing and people cannot even handle it. Pathetic.
MA>Why would a person even call himself/herself Christian if he/she
MA>loves sex more than God ?
T>Sex and anger are probably two of the most problematic areas in
T>anyone's life.
Everybody has his/her own weaknesses. The question is whether
the person uses that weakness as an excuse to disobey God
and commit sin. Temptation is not a sin. Jesus Himself was
tempted. The temptation to engage in any type of fornication,
whether heterosexual, homosexual, or asexual (e.g. with
sexless inanimate objects), is perfectly fine. But whom
does the person worship more ? Does the person spend more time
praying for deliverance from the temptation or does the
person spend more time planning on how to succumb to the temptation ?
Does the person turn to God and immerse himself/herself in prayer
and learn Christian values or does the person seek out
things that further intensify the temptation and things that
reinforce the sin ? Sexual sins are no different from any
other sins. The sad thing is their advocates go through the
same rituals as the advocates of other sins. They spend
more time seeking out things that will lead them to sin
and satisfy their pride and their flesh rather than
go learn (and do) the ways of Christ. If that is the case,
then why should we think they are followers of Christ ?
Why should we believe what they say if they are not
followers of Christ ?
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu
James Jackson writes:
>Tim O'Keefe writes:
>>[Some of the reasons that I give for why same-sex sex are right have to
>>do with the virtues such as love and respect that it displays, and the
>>happiness and growth that it can bring to those involved, ideally.
>>But this does not make my argument somehow "purely secular."]
>>: love and respect for others aren't purely secular virtues, are they?
>>Or do you think that in debate on moral issues one ought only to appeal
>>to the Bible, and not to any principles that might also gain assent
>>from people in general?
>That's exactly what I believe. God created human beings and knows what is
>best for them. The nazis thought it was moral to kill Jews. The KKK has
>thought that it is moral to kill blacks. As this thread points out there
>are humans who think homosexuality is okay and there are humans who think
>homosexuality is wrong. This makes it clear to me that humans must look to
>God and His Word to say what is right and wrong.
Hmm. First of all, your position goes against what Paul and almost all of
the church fathers believed. When the 1st evangelists went around preaching
to the Greeks and Romans that forgivness and new life were available to
them, the evangelists assumed that those who were listening already had
a knowledge of what was right and wrong that they could appeal to, in
order to show them that they NEEDED forgivness. And St. Thomas (among
many, many others), thought that reason and revelation were two sources
of knowledge, both of which ultimately come from God. And part of our
reason is our moral reason, our ability to tell right from wrong, which
(Thomas thought) we all have simply in virtue of being human beings.
The Nazis were wrong to think it's OK to kill Jews; likewise with the
KKK and blacks. They might disagree. it doesn't follow from this that
we just throw up our hands and say 'Reason can't get us anywhere! We
can't convince EVERYBODY to agree, so reasoning is futile!" We don't
do that in any OTHER foeld, do we? A few people are convinced that
the erath is flat, or that Elvis is alive, and we can't change their
minds. We don't conclude from this that the only way to resolve THOSE
disputes is to look to the Bible, or that reasoning about the shape
of the earth or the death of Elvis is futile. Almost all people,
Christians and non-Christians, would agree that what the KKK and
Nazis do is wrong, and we can talk about why in terms that make
sense both to believers and non-believers.
So let me get this right--when discussing any ethical issue, I can't
talk about LOVE, because LOVE is a value that might gain assent from
people in general. I can't talk about RESPECT, or GROWTH, or UNDERSTANDING,
or anything like that, because those principles might gain assent from
people in general. Do you really think this?
I thought that talk about love for oneself and for one's neighbor
was amply Biblically licensed. But non-Christians might understand
it too, so it's _vorboten_?
^^^^^^^^^^ (_verboten_)
Tim O'Keefe
tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
James Jackson
: : Do you have any specific Biblical evidence that David and Jonathan had a
: : homosexual relations
: I believe the flow of events is very telling. It was love at first sight.
: They swore this awesome covenant upon their first meeting. They became
: "one in spirit" as Jonathan loved David as his "own soul."
Let's say by some stretch of the imagination that David and Jonathan had a
homosexual relationship. Since they were under the Levitical Law which if
nothing else clearly prohibits homosexual sex between two Jewish males,
why wouldn't their homosexual relationship be a sin?
James Jackson
: Peace, ha...@teleport.com
mark ashley
Response to: Tracy M Mills <mizm...@andrew.cmu.edu>
MA> What do YOU believe about fornication with respect to Christianity ?
MA>Do you assert that fornication is condemned by Christianity
MA>or do you assert that fornication is advocated by Christianity ?
MA>Should Christianity be limited to teachings made by Christ only ?
MA>In other words, throw out huge chunks of the Bible ?
TM>-Well, if I have no "authority" or "credentials", what does it matter? ;>
Why are you scared to state your belief ?
Are you always so non-committal ? Do you have any convictions at all ?
MA>BTW, Christ did provide authority in Mt 16:18 and 18:18.
MA>Yes, Christ did not address every possible issue in the universe,
MA>but He certainly gave authority for other people to handle those.
MA>It doesn't escape notice that you are not one of these people
MA>with authority.
No answer ? Why are you so scared to answer ?
What is your denomination ? Do they consider YOU an authority ?
Do they consider you as a credible person ? If your denomination
does not think you are credible, then why do you expect us
to think that you are ?
TM>-I believe that our sexual behavior, like *all* our behavior, should be
TM>examined against - and guided by - these two overarching commandments:
TM>1. Love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, soul, mind and strength;
TM>2. Love your neighbor as yourself (or, as slightly re-phrased by Jesus,
TM>"Do unto others that which you would have them do unto you").
Some people equate sex with love. How will you handle those people ?
TM>In other words, before we say or do *anything*, sexual or otherwise, we
TM>are to ask ourselves two questions:
TM>1. Is it consistent with what one would expect of someone who claims to
TM>love God?
TM>2. Is it consistent with a spirit of love toward *both* myself *and* my
TM>[neighbor, friend, relative, lover, child, opponent, etc.etc.etc.]?
Do you realize that David Koresh can honestly answer "yes"
to your questions ? Yet, his behavior is condemned by a lot
of Christians ? Do you realize that your questions are
very subjective to the way the person defines the word "love" ?
TM>If the answer to both questions is "yes", then IMH(eretical?)O I'm on
TM>pretty solid ground.
No because it's a self-fulfilling question.
It's the same as the belief that if it makes you feel good,
then it must be good.
Furthermore, If Christ wanted everybody in His Church to have
the authority, then His statement in Mt 16:18 and 18:18
should have been directed towards a larger group of people.
How come it wasn't ? Can you account for that ?
TM>Thousands of years' worth of
TM>collective wisdom and experience is kind of handy to have around. :>
So do you agree that teachings that have come from the group of people
who trace back to the apostles are better than the teachings that
come from people practically just yesterday who have no experience,
no history, no links, etc, compared to the group of Christians
who trace back almost two thousand years !!! Is that right ?
TM>-But I believe the Bible must be read intelligently and critically, as
TM>well as prayerfully and respectfully.
Do you think that people with different levels of education and
intelligence can arrive at the same interpretation ?
Since we cannot all be experts in law, medicine, civil engineering,
carpentry, commercial fishing, etc, surely you don't expect
all people to be knowledgeable in the area of Christian theology !
Do you ? In that case, who is more credible and who is less credible ?
Precisely how much praying do you do ? Wouldn't you agree
that statements from wise, holy, and pious people also
make more sense than statements from people who are not ?
For example, how are you with respect to Mother Teresa ?
Would you claim to be more wise, holy, and pious than her ?
If not, then wouldn't her words make more sense than yours ?
TM>I believe that these specific
TM>injunctions and commandments we find peppered all through the thing need
TM>*also* be tested against the Two Big Rules listed above; and if, after
TM>struggling and wrestling and praying and seeking to understand something
TM>that I don't "like", I find that it just *is not passing the test*,
TM>period....then I *will* throw it out.
Since you can pick and choose any belief you want, then you are
making yourself the authority in determining which of Christ's
teachings are valid and which are invalid. Is that right ?
Is this the type of Christianity you advocate ? Where does
Christ state that the teachings you hold bound will be bound
in heaven as well ? Where does He give you authority to make
the choices according to the criteria you described ?
TM>But I'm no expert, no Enlightened Soul (TM), none of that. I'm just
TM>another wandering slob, figuring it out as I go along and needing Grace,
TM>like anybody else.
For non-believers wanting to learn about CHristianity and
for weak believers or freshmen believers (just starting out),
would it therefore make more sense to learn from the likes
of Mother Teresa who has quite a wide respect as a Christian
rather than you who is not quite learned or experienced in
the subject ? Wouldn't it make more sense to look up to those
to whom Christ was speaking when He gave out authority rather
than to you who obviously has no authority or credibility
whatsoever ?
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu
James jackson writes:
{Question by Hans-Michael: which OT laws to keep, which not to?}
>I look to the New testament to see which Laws have been abrogated by God,
>either through Jesus' fulfillment of them (i.e. sacrificial laws, food
>laws) or by command of the Holy Spirit through the New Testament writers
>(i.e. sabbatical laws, feast laws). [...]
>But as I stated in an earlier post I see no abrogation of
>the prohibition of homosexuality or bestiality for that matter.
What about the prohibiion of sleeping with a woman having her period,
which appears in the same list as the prohibition of male-male sex?
Does it still stand, or not?
Tim O'Keefe
tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
James Jackson
.edu> <4ri2r7$i...@heidelberg.rutgers.edu>:
Distribution:
I will agree that there is a KNOWLEDGE of right and wrong in mankind's
hearts. Paul in Romans 2:14-15 states that, "For when the Gentiles, which
have not the law, do by nature THE THINGS CONTAINED IN THE LAW, these,
having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which SHEW THE WORK OF THE
LAW written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and
their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;".
But in this passage the STANDARD that Paul holds the Gentiles to is
THE LAW OF GOD, not their feelings or their personal desires or to any
secular standards.
> The Nazis were wrong to think it's OK to kill Jews; likewise with the
> KKK and blacks. They might disagree. it doesn't follow from this that
> we just throw up our hands and say 'Reason can't get us anywhere! We
> can't convince EVERYBODY to agree, so reasoning is futile!" We don't
> do that in any OTHER foeld, do we? A few people are convinced that
> the erath is flat, or that Elvis is alive, and we can't change their
> minds. We don't conclude from this that the only way to resolve THOSE
> disputes is to look to the Bible, or that reasoning about the shape
> of the earth or the death of Elvis is futile.
Whether the earth is flat or Elvis is alive has no relation to moral
truth or human behavior. I do not look to the Bible for the recipe to make
a cake but then what does making a cake have to do with moral behavior? We
are discussing what is the moral basis for human relationships with other
humans or with God. I still maintain that the only standard for moral
behavior is what God says that standard is.
> Almost all people,
> Christians and non-Christians, would agree that what the KKK and
> Nazis do is wrong, and we can talk about why in terms that make
> sense both to believers and non-believers.
And as I stated above the Law of God has been written in mankinds
hearts and therefore there is behavior that is abhorrent to most humans.
But just as there are Jews who disobeyed God's WRITTEN Law there are
Gentiles who subvert the Law of God that is WRITTEN in their hearts. "For
all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"-Rom.3:23. Again
though, the behavior that is abhorrent to us comes from the Law of God
that is written in our hearts which is also the standard of God, not man.
> So let me get this right--when discussing any ethical issue, I can't
> talk about LOVE, because LOVE is a value that might gain assent from
> people in general. I can't talk about RESPECT, or GROWTH, or UNDERSTANDING,
> or anything like that, because those principles might gain assent from
> people in general. Do you really think this?
But what is the basis for your ethical beliefs about love, respect,
growth or understanding that you want to discuss with others? What would your
opinions be based on? What a college professor taught you, what your
parents taught you? What is the authority that you would use to support
your beliefs? If it is man's authority then I'm sure you can come up with
totally opposite beliefs by men about any number of issues. Which of these
human's opinion would be the correct one and by what authority do you
decide the answer?
> I thought that talk about love for oneself and for one's neighbor
> was amply Biblically licensed. But non-Christians might understand
> it too, so it's _vorboten_?
> ^^^^^^^^^^ (_verboten_)
Non-Christians can understand some concepts about love but can they
understand it from God's point of view which is the point of view that
matters? Jesus said, " God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him MUST
worship Him in SPIRIT and in truth" (John 4:24). In the previous chapter,
John 3:5-6 Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be
born of water and of the SPIRIT, he CANNOT enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the FLESH is FLESH; and that which is born of the
SPIRIT is SPIRIT."
Now read what Paul wrote in Romans 8:4-8: "That the righteousness of
the LAW might be fulfilled in US, WHO WALK NOT AFTER THE FLESH, BUT AFTER THE
SPIRIT. For THEY THAT ARE AFTER THE FLESH DO MIND THE THINGS OF THE FLESH;
but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. FOR TO BE
CARNALLY MINDED IS DEATH: but to BE SPIRITUALLY MINDED IS LIFE AND PEACE.
Because the CARNAL MIND IS ENMITY AGAINST GOD: FOR IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO
THE LAW OF GOD, NEITHER INDEED CAN BE. So then they that are in the flesh
CANNOT please God."
So to answer your question, Do I think that in a debate on moral issues
one ought only to appeal to the Bible, and not to any principles that might
gain assent from people in general, I would respond again, Yes. If they
are taking the position from a secular or FLESH/CARNAL point of view then
their opinions are not Spirit-based. If their opinion agrees with God's
Word (and since the Law of God is written on their hearts and therefore
this is possible) then I will receive it as truth. But the standard cannot be
their's, it has to be God's and that standard is found in His Word.
James Jackson
> Tim O'Keefe
> tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
James Jackson
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
: James jackson writes:
: {Question by Hans-Michael: which OT laws to keep, which not to?}
: >I look to the New testament to see which Laws have been abrogated by God,
: >either through Jesus' fulfillment of them (i.e. sacrificial laws, food
: >laws) or by command of the Holy Spirit through the New Testament writers
: >(i.e. sabbatical laws, feast laws). [...]
: >But as I stated in an earlier post I see no abrogation of
: >the prohibition of homosexuality or bestiality for that matter.
: What about the prohibiion of sleeping with a woman having her period,
: which appears in the same list as the prohibition of male-male sex?
: Does it still stand, or not?
: Tim O'Keefe
: tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
Several years ago when I was a young, single Christian I was reading
through the New Testament. I had a desire to be married and whenever a
scripture spoke of marriage I took note of it. I can remember coming to
Hebrews 13:4 and reading, "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed
undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." I spoke to my
pastor about this particular passage and we agreed that it speaks of a
freedom in a sexual relationship between a husband and wife in Jesus
Christ that is guilt free (undefiled). To me this covers the part about
having intercourse with your wife even if she's on her period.
But maybe it wouldn't be such a bad law for Christians to observe as the
following story illustrates. My pastor told me about a conversation that
his wife had with an older Jewish woman on this issue. The Jewish woman
related how that she and her husband observed this law and that there were
only two weeks during each month in which they would have sex. The Jewish
woman said it was like having a honeymoon each month :)
A side point to the above scripture that is related to this thread. If
there was a verse in the Bible that mentioned marriage between two men or
two women then I would say that same-sex marriage was "honourable in all".
But the Bible never mentions marriage in that context.
James Jackson
Tracy M Mills
Excerpts from netnews.soc.religion.christian: 4-Jul-96 Re: Where does
Of course I do. ;> One thing I'm convinced of is the sense and
sensibility of Rule Number One Of Logic. With this in mind, I wish you
Godspeed on your faith- and life-journey and respectfully bow out of
this thread.
All blessings -
mark ashley
Response to: Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu>
MA>Jesus' parables on marriage do not identify two grooms or two brides.
HH>Lu 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two [men] in one bed;
HH>the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
MA>Luke 17: 22-37
MA>Jesus talks about the randomness of death.
MA>Verse 27 talks about people in Noah's days
MA>who were just enjoying themselves and suddenly
MA>WHAM !!! All dead. Furthermore between any two
HH>Yes, but that isn't our topic, is it? Our topic is why there are men
HH>sleeping together. You sort of dodged that question.
You enumerated some verses. You bastardized by replacing
the word "people" with "men". Then you claim that Jesus
wants men to sleep together !!! Gee !!! How stupid do you
think we are ?!?!?! Since when did two people ALWAYS equal
two men ? Since when did two people in one bed ALWAYS
equal two people having sex ? Perhaps we should also assume
that the women grinding the meal are doing the "bump and grind" ?!?!
Wow !!! Think about it ! Christ advocates strip bars and lesbianism
all in one statement !!! Why do you deliberately try to fit
Christ's words into your agenda ? Why don't you take the
context of what Christ is talking about ? And then go from
there ? That's why you cannot cite an authority figure
supporting your laughable interpretation. It is just so
funny I don't know whether you want pity or ridicule.
The topic is Luke 17: 22-37. Interpret these statements
as they are. Then see if Christ was talking about sex
of any sort. He wasn't. What does sex have to do with
with the randomness of death ?!?!? Absolutely none.
MA>Nothing about advocating sexual habits of any kind.
HH>Then homosexuality is not condemned even though two men are sleeping
HH>together. This was my point precisely.
ROTFL 8-). Remember that one of them will DIE. Let two "men"
be in bed "sleeping" together and Christ will KILL ONE OF THEM. 8-)
My dear Hedgehog, have the humility to realize that you are
not an expert in theology, history and languages. The more
you persist in your bastardized interpretations, the more you
convince people not to take you seriously.
bh...@thomtech.com
Tim,
Once again into the breech...what you said about "flames breaking out" is
sad yet accurate. I think a lot of it, frankly, is email; it's easy to
insult someone when all you seem to be doing is typing words. One way
to get around that is with those silly emoticons >:)>.
> I'm not so sure that the analogy with same-sex
> sex is convincing, since (as you admit) the activities you list would
> cause us to die or be seriously injured. In the cases you list, at least,
> I think that it's the harm that makes them wrong, not that we're somehow
> "overstepping our natural limits" _per se_.
But, if God has made these natural limits, then wouldn't they be as
much a part of His law as any clause starting with "thou shalt?"
I realize that the examples I keystroked were on the "extreme" end
of the spectrum as far as the consequences are concerned -- but some
consequences are more subtle.
My belief on this is that God designed the world to operate on cause -->
effect to teach us. I.e., that the harm which you mentioned is not what
makes an action wrong, but what identifies it as wrong, and warns us
that we're acting contrary to God's purpose -- which has consequences far
greater than any worldly one.
It's kind of like a parent's discipline of his/her children: when you,
say, scold your child for disobeying you, it's because you're trying to
establish in that child's mind a pattern of thought: some things are
right, some things are wrong. And the ultimate goal of the discipline
is not to beat a set of arbitrary rules into your child, but to train
him/her to internalize the basic premise that actions have consequences.
I think that God does the same for us: he's given us a cause-and-effect
world to live in as a reminder that there are absolutes, and that the
choices that we make, however good or however trivial they may seem,
have results beyond what we may see.
> But then why would God make some people such that they are unable to
> sustain satisfactory romantic relationships with members of the opposite
> sex and able to with members of the same sex...Gay people who enter into
> marriage and have children with somebody of the opposite sex almost always
> make a hash of it and end up getting divorced and causing all sorts of
> problems all around.
OK...would you agree that many people, all of us, in fact, have parts
of our character, and of our identity, which is not necessarily good
of Godly but which nonetheless runs deep?
Part of the Fall in Genesis, as I read it, was the fall of the character
of man -- once Adam chose to violate God's law, it started a pattern of
man-versus-God which grew and perpetuated from generation to generation.
One of the consequences of this has been/is/probably will always be a
desire to do it our way; to act on desires which seem, as far as humanly
possible, to be harmless and beneficial, yet which are not what God had
in mind for us.
> More broadly, I am suspicious of arguments that start from some fact
> about the biological function of an organ and conclude with some moral
> thesis about how one can only use that organ for its 'natural end.'
> All sorts of (seeming) counterexamples to the general Thomistic
> pattern of argument.
No, you're right; trying to discern God's intent based
solely on scientific (or in my case, diehard layman) observations is a
risky path to take -- a better question is, does the apparent design of the
human body, or of an aspect of it, fit in with God's laws as documented
in the Bible? In this case -- could there be a connection between God's
OT statements about how we're to use/not use ourt sexuality, plus God's
repeated celebration of "hetero"sexuality exclusively, plus the design of
the human body's sexual functionality (sorry, I'm a techie)?
Your phrase "Thomistic" cracked me up, by the way, I work for the Thomson
Corporation. I wonder if we have a book of Doctrine around here somewhere...
Regards,
Benjamin
Hedgehog
In article <4rfncq$d...@heidelberg.rutgers.edu> mark ashley,
ash...@netcom.com writes:
>Talk to the Pope. He's got the credentials. Do you want to challenge
>the Pope ?
Sure. Let's see the pope's credentials. Please post a GIF scanned from
the Pope's credentials. Make sure the GIF is clear enough that we can
read God's signature on the bottom.
>Do you want to challenge the likes of Mother Teresa ?
Mother Theresa is not a theologian and she does not, as far as I know,
have theological credentials. If you feel differently, please post a GIF
of her diploma showing that she has a doctorate in Theology.
>Then prove it. I dare you to show your immense holiness and piety.
Sorry, but that doesn't come under the subject heading of this post.
>Show us the millions of people who recognize you.
The Truth is not determined by a popularity contest.
>Do I matter ? No.
Remember this comes from your own mouth.
>I don't make Church rules.
No doubt! Frankly, I don't even think you are a Roman Catholic. I have
had an immense problem finding Roman Catholics on this newsgroup who have
a close enough relationship to their priest that they are willing to show
their own posts to their priest and discuss with him whether or not their
tactics are in the spirit of Christ. If Roman Catholics don't trust
their own parish priests, why should I trust the RCC clergy?
Peace,
Hedgehog
---
[This discussion looks like it's going to turn into another
Catholic/...errr... whatever Hedgehog is... argument. I'm not
going to allow it to go any further. --clh]
Hedgehog
In article <4rfnc3$g...@heidelberg.rutgers.edu> Edward Pothier,
epot...@lynx.dac.neu.edu writes:
>[Although the passage has nothing to do with "homosexuality", I will
>try to respond to some of the above comments on the translation of
>Luke 17:34-37 in the KJV and some modern translations.]
I think it does have something to do with homosexuality. If you learned
that two teenagers of the opposite sex were regularly sharing the same
bed, would you assume that their bed sharing revealed nothing about their
sexuality? Conversely, if you saw two men holding hands and kissing in
public, wouldn't you have a tendency to conclude that they might be
homosexuals even though the actual acts which you witnessed are nowhere
condemned in the Bible?
> There is a question asked about the differences in translation
>of Luke 17:34-37 in the King James Version and some modern
>translations, specifically whether "men" and "women" should appear in
>Lk 17:34 and Lk 17:35 respectively.
Actually, that wasn't my question.
> The KJV text of Luke 17:34-37 is:
> 34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two *men* in one bed; the
> one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
> 35 Two *women* shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken,
and
> the other left.
> 36 Two *men* shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the
> other left.
[snip]
> The KJV text usually prints in italics, shown above as
>"*men*" and "*women*", not for emphasis but to attempt to indicate
>words not explicitly in the underlying Greek text but felt necessary
>in English translation. This is now a peculiar typographical feature
>since usually now italics are for emphasis.
Indeed, but no one was claiming that the italics meant emphasis in this
case.
> [There is a text-critical problem with verse 36. Although it is
>included in the Greek _Textus Receptus_ and thus is included in the
>King James Version, it is not included in most modern editions of the
>Greek NT, e.g. NA27 or UBS4. Most modern English translations either
>omit it entirely or indicate it only in textual footnotes.
But as it was introduced only to show the KJV translators' awareness of
gender in the texts that they used, it is still valuable in that context.
> Although the apparently same word _duo_ is used for "two" in
>verses 34 and 35, the implicit difference comes with the separation in
>each verse. Each of these verses speaks literally of "the one" who
>will be taken and "the other" who will left. In verse 34 these terms
>are "_ho heis_" and "ho heteros_", both grammatically masculine. In
>verse 35 they are "_he: mia_" and "_he hetera_", both grammatically
>feminine.
In other words, the KJV translators added the word "men" and the word
"women" in order to show the gender cues that do exist in the original
language.
> How do some modern English translations treat this. A small
>sample, more could be checked, follows:
> verse 34 verse 35
>NASB two men two women
>NIV two people two women
>NRSV two two women
>NAB two people two women
>REB two people two women
>NJB two two women
>
>Although all of the above translations do use the "women" explicitly
>in verse 35, there are differences in verse 34.
In other words, a whitewash has been taking place. There is no more
reason to add "women" than "men". So why do the modern translators
exhibit a gender bias that translators in the 17th century didn't
exhibit? It seems especially silly for modern translators to do this
since in _our_ culture, grinding grain is no longer seen as women's work.
Peace,
Hedgehog
mark ashley
TO> tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu writes:
TO>The prohibition on murder still stands. Why?
TO>Matthew 22. Murder clearly violates love of ones neighbors.
No. It still stands because God said so.
Remember Abraham. God makes the rules.
And didn't the Father want His Son crucified ?
God makes the rules.
If you choose to make your own "Christian" rules
then you start getting into trouble. That's how
people like Jim Bakker and Oral Roberts operate.
Self-defined Christianity never produces any good
because it is intrinsically self-centered.
tok...@yellow.cc.utexas.edu
James Jackson writes:
>Hans-Michael writes:
>>[Murder, theft, and bestiality were already looked down upon by the
>>gentiles to whom the letter reported in Acts was addressed.]
>>If it weren't for the OT prohibition of bestiality, would you
>>engage in it?
>Your list here includes murder, theft, and bestiality. Why not add
>homosexual sex to the list as being looked down upon by the Gentiles?
>All four are prohibited by God in His Word and as you agreed in an
>earlier post, none of these laws have been abrogated by God, Jesus, or
>Paul in the Bible.
James, I think you're missing Hans-Michael's point, and maybe mine.
Hans is saying that we don't NEED to look to the OT law in order to
know that bestiality is wrong--the gentiles already knew _that_.
There are many OT laws that are not specifically abrogated, but
which Christians (rightly) ignore, such as the prohibition against
sex with a woman having her period (Lev 18).
Likewise, there are many OT laws that are not _specifically_ upheld,
such as the prohibition against bestiality, but which Christians
(rightly) believe are still in force.
James, you seem to want to be able a find a specific mechanism in the
NT, by which we can declare certain OT laws no longer binding, and
declare the rest as still in force. To me, this is a form of legalism.
The essence of all of the laws and the prophets is contained in Matt.
22--which is why I keep bringing it up. You don't need a list of "do's"
and "don'ts" to look to. When you asked for a Biblical reason to commend
homosexual activity, the reasons I gave you--which you ridicule as
"politically correct"--flow directly from Matt. 22, and the rest of
the NT ethic.
Tim O'Keefe
tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu
James Jackson writes:
>I can remember coming to
>Hebrews 13:4 and reading, "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed
>undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." I spoke to my
>pastor about this particular passage and we agreed that it speaks of a
>freedom in a sexual relationship between a husband and wife in Jesus
>Christ that is guilt free (undefiled). To me this covers the part about
>having intercourse with your wife even if she's on her period.
Yes, I think you're right about that--thanks for pointing it out.
Obviously the verse doesn't directly speak to the Lev. prohibition,
but the application of it that you make is pretty starightforward
and (I think) convincing.
I liked the story about the Jewish couple also.
Tim O'Keefe
tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
mark ashley
Response to: Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu>
If you want to know more about Pope JP2 and Mother Teresa,
books costing about $5 to $10 are available
at the bookstore. Browse them if you cannot
afford $5. Retyping a whole book over the net
is not exactly a rational idea. Also, you have not
identified your denomination so I can validly
conclude that you are practicing your own personal
variation of Christian teaching, e.g. nobody
else subsribes to your *set* of beliefs.
So it's rather absurd for you to argue that
you are right and a billion Christians are
wrong. Think about Oral Roberts and his alleged
talk with God before you try to dispute that.
You are now down debating nit-picky details from
the side issues that came up from the main thread.
And that's because you're unable to respond to the main issues.
And that's precisely the goal I had with this exercise.
Christianity or the practice
of following Christ is not limited to one act or one
belief. It is a whole set of acts that we must do.
Christ did not identify one act which will guarantee
us a seat in heaven and allow us to disobey all of
His other teachings. So it's absurd to argue only
about one form of activity and say that we should
ignore the rest of the person's background. Just look
at the way we pick public officials and judges of the
supreme court. Just look at the way people pick
their spouses ! Don't worry CLH, this won't degrade
into a The Church vs. Hedgehog argument. It's a non-issue.
It's ridiculous to compare an entity with comprehensive
teachings to an entity with only one belief.
Here's another tip Mr Hedgehog: it does you no good
to argue for homosexual marriages because you chose
not to condemn lascivious "pride" parades, extra-marital
sex, pre-marital sex, bath houses, etc, even under the
hypothetical scenario where homosexual marriages are allowed.
You'd be hard-pressed to prove that an advocate of fornication
is faithful to Christ's teachings. That's true for just about
every denomination around.
mark ashley
Response to: Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu>
HH>Not at all. If an orphan is adopted, does the orphan have to obey his
HH>adoptive parents. That _is_ the issue.
MA>Was Christ talking about adoptive parents ?
HH>So where does the Bible commend adoption?
My article for you was very long and you chose
to avoid answering 100% of it. Sadly this
is a typical scenario. When it gets down to the
nitty-gritty of actually accounting for Christian
acts, nobody on pro-fornication side of this
thread has yet been able to explain their actions
and their beliefs.
All I can advise you Mr Hedgehog is if you have
questions about Christian teaching, ask those who
have the credibility and authority as Christ said
in Mt 16:18 and 18:18. Your questions are very
trivial -- the fact that you don't know the answer
just tells me you're just goofing around. If you
were serious about getting answers, you would have
already pursued it -- the answers are easy to come by.
mark ashley
Response to: Tracy M Mills <mizm...@andrew.cmu.edu>
MA> What do YOU believe about fornication with respect to Christianity ?
MA>Do you assert that fornication is condemned by Christianity
MA>or do you assert that fornication is advocated by Christianity ?
MA>Should Christianity be limited to teachings made by Christ only ?
MA>In other words, throw out huge chunks of the Bible ?
TM>-Well, if I have no "authority" or "credentials", what does it matter? ;>
MA>Why are you scared to state your belief ?
MA>Are you always so non-committal ? Do you have any convictions at all ?
TM>Of course I do. ;> One thing I'm convinced of is the sense and
TM>sensibility of Rule Number One Of Logic. With this in mind, I ...
TM>bow out of this thread.
Non-believers have a ball mocking made-up belief systems
like this. Why do people claim to be Christian when they
actually follow their god, "Me" ?
James Jackson
tok...@yellow.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
: James, I think you're missing Hans-Michael's point, and maybe mine.
: Hans is saying that we don't NEED to look to the OT law in order to
: know that bestiality is wrong--the gentiles already knew _that_.
: There are many OT laws that are not specifically abrogated, but
: which Christians (rightly) ignore, such as the prohibition against
: sex with a woman having her period (Lev 18).
: Likewise, there are many OT laws that are not _specifically_ upheld,
: such as the prohibition against bestiality, but which Christians
: (rightly) believe are still in force.
Why is bestiality still a sin and homosexuality not still a sin?
: James, you seem to want to be able a find a specific mechanism in the
: NT, by which we can declare certain OT laws no longer binding, and
: declare the rest as still in force. To me, this is a form of legalism.
: The essence of all of the laws and the prophets is contained in Matt.
: 22--which is why I keep bringing it up. You don't need a list of "do's"
: and "don'ts" to look to. When you asked for a Biblical reason to commend
: homosexual activity, the reasons I gave you--which you ridicule as
: "politically correct"--flow directly from Matt. 22, and the rest of
: the NT ethic.
God does want us to love others as ourselves. God loved us while we were
yet sinners by sending Jesus to die for us. But the reason He had to die for
us is because WE ARE SINNERS. God judged our sins and PUNISHED Jesus
Christ because of them. God didn't overlook our sins with His love. He
JUDGED them and PUNISHED Jesus for them. Now does that mean we can continue
to live a lifestyle of sin? To quote Paul, God forbid. So I will ask you
again, if God calls homosexuality a sin (and the Bible speaks only
negatively of homosexuality), who is showing the homosexual GOD's LOVE, the
person who says that if you don't repent of your sin then you will be
separated from God for eternity or the one who says do what you want
because God is a God of love and He will overlook your sin. If God
overlooked sin then He didn't need to punish His Son Jesus Christ for our
sins.
I maintain that to hide the truth of God's Word concerning sin, death,
punishment from people is NOT loving them but enabling them in their
sinful lifestyles.
As for any relationship between "political correctness" and Matthew 22
there is none. Jesus made it clear that there is only one way to God and
that is through Himself. Politically correct people believe that a person
can reach God through any particular path that individual believes is
right. So would I be loving my neighbor if I said, Yes there are many paths
to God, which would be the politically correct statement, even though Jesus
said that apart from Him people will die in their sins and be sent to Hell?
In other words, we MUST live our lives by GOD's standards or we are
condemned to Hell. To imply otherwise to a person is not showing love to
that person. God does allow people to choose to live their lives according
to their own standards but as I indicated above they will be judged by
God's standards and according to God's Word, They will fall short of the
glory of God.
Royce Buehler
In article <4qvl0o$4...@heidelberg.rutgers.edu>, bh...@thomtech.com writes:
> Tim,
>
> > To love God with all of your heart, adn to love your neighbor as yourself--
> > on these hang all of the laws and the prophets. For something to be wrong,
> > there has to be a reason for it to be wrong.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly. <snips>
> > Destructive, hateful,
> > malicious, prideful, and greedy activities cause suffering and show
> > a lack of love and respect for the other. That is why they are wrong.
>
<snips>
> The fact that something _doesn't_ harm or exploit another person may
> make it beneficial to life on earth -- but this doesn't necessarily
> mean that it's right in God's eyes.
God declares that that means it is right in His eyes. So who are we
to argue?
It's in a number of places, but the clearest is Romans 13:8-10 --
8. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth
another *hath fulfilled the law*.
9. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, thou
shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not
covet; and *if there be any other commandment*, it is briefly
comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself.
10. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: *therefore* love is the
fulfilling of the law.
If you want to know whether the law is fulfilled, Paul says the *only*
question you have to ask is: did it harm another person? ('work ill
to his neighbor'). If not, then *the law was not broken*.
That's holy writ talking, not modern "political correctness".
Next you are free to do what legalists of every stripe always do.
You can jump to the gospels and quote "Thou shalt love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart and all thy soul and all thy mind." You
can say, "There are many commandments we must obey solely because
God says to. Whether anyone is harmed doesn't enter into it."
Fine, go ahead. Just bear in mind that you are contradicting Paul.
Paul says this saying *alone* sums up the whole of the law. You are
saying this saying alone is incomplete, and there are lots of important
laws it just doesn't cover. James says the same thing as Paul;
Jesus (in another place than the one the legalists always quote) says
the same thing again. Fine, go ahead and say they were wrong.
Or you *could* stop and consider: why is the law of love of neighbor
cited all by itself in half a dozen places, while the commandment to
love God with all your heart and soul and mind is *never* cited all
by itself?
Does Scripture have a reason for this peculiar set of silences?
Would the reason have anything to do with the fact that time after time
down through history, Christians have commanded other Christians to go
out and kill, torture, persecute - because God wants them to, and
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God" is more important than "Thou shalt
love thy neighbor"?
Would the reason have anything to do with the fact that Christians today
say you must love God more than people? That you must not let mere
concern for the harm done stop you, when you drum into the ears of
depressed teenagers on the brink of suicide that they are vile, worthless
sinners? That God and men will continue to hate them until they magically
transform themselves into heterosexuals?
Would it have anything to do with the fact that love of God is abstract,
and anybody can claim it as a motive for any deed, however wicked, and
for any misinterpretation of scripture, however abominable? Whereas love
of neighbor is concrete and relatively clearcut in what it demands?
Might that possibly be what John is getting at when he writes (I John
4:20), "For he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can
he love God whom he hath not seen?"
To ask "Who might be harmed by this?" is in fact probably the single most
biblically correct question you can ask, to determine whether an act is
right or wrong. It is when their legalisms advocate the greatest harm that
legalists take refuge in the dots and crosses of the Law, so they won't
have to consider this 'humanist' question. This humanist question which
the bible, rightly divided, would press vigorously upon them.
--
Royce Buehler bue...@space.mit.edu (617)-253-9766
"Comme un fou se croit Dieu, nous nous croyons mortels"
-- Pierre Delalande
tok...@blue.cc.utexas.edu
James Jackson writes:
>So to answer your question, Do I think that in a debate on moral issues
>one ought only to appeal to the Bible, and not to any principles that might
>gain assent from people in general, I would respond again, Yes. If they
>are taking the position from a secular or FLESH/CARNAL point of view then
>their opinions are not Spirit-based. If their opinion agrees with God's
>Word (and since the Law of God is written on their hearts and therefore
>this is possible) then I will receive it as truth.
I don't have the ability to quote extensive passages of anybody's posts
here, so please excuse me if this is a bit jumbled. You bring up a number
of considerations, and I'll try to paraphrase them and answer them before
going on to the main point here.
First of all, you say in a number of places that you believe that the
basis of morality is God's Law, not people's feelings, and thus we
should only appeal to the Bible and not to any principles that might
gain general assent. But there are two problems with this:
1) Your conclusion about appealing only to the Bible doesn't follow.
If I talk about (let us say) love in such a way that somebody who is
not Christian can understand me and see how it applies to the ethical
issue at hand, NOTHING AT ALL follows about the basis of morality
being merely human feelings instead of the Law of God. Since you DO
apparently agree with Paul that the Law of God is written on the hearts
of all people, if you appeal to those general ethical principles, you
ARE appealing to the Law of God, right?
2) The two options (appealing to Bible/appealing to general ethical
principles) are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it's very difficult
to appeal to the Bible without appealing to general ethical principles,
especially in the NT. For instance, one of the most common moral principles
(acorss MANY cultures) is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto
you." But according to what you wrote above, I SHOULD NOT ever appeal to
that principle in ethical matters, because that principle could gain
assent from people in general. So, if we were to follow what you say
above, we would effectively be unable to appeal to large sections of
the Bible.
Now, you might say that I'm misrepresenting your position, but it seems
to me that this is EXACTLY what you've been doing to what I've said.
I've been appealing to various considerations that I think make same-sex
sex, under certain circumstances, a good thing. Although many of these
considerations are ones that non-Christians could accede to, I CAN find
Biblical support for the various virtues that I appeal to. Now, if you
want to quarrel with my application of the principles or if you want
to say that I'm overlooking other things (like B. Haag has), that's
fine. But you've been trying to undercut my arguments simply by sneering
that my standards are "politically correct," just because non-Christians
could understand the ethical principles that I appeal to. But it would
be impossible even for Christians to talk intelligently about ethical
issues if they were to follow your rules, for the reasons given in
the paragraph above--large sections of the Bible itself would be
closed off.
Now, the second set of consdierations that you bring up seem to concern
how to APPLY the various general principle, that are both written in
the Bible and on the hearts of people. You seem to be worried that,
if we appeal just to those principles, we'll be co-opted in accepting
the "world's" standards on what "Love" is, or "respect," or the principle
"Do unto others...", etc., instead of God's. The only way to avoid this,
you think, is by appealing only to the Bible.
But, to put it bluntly, it simply doesn't work this way. HOW to apply
the various principles enunciated in the Bible isn't made any easier
by restricting ourselves to "the Bible itself"--witness the various
ethical stances people take on the basis of the Bible, from the pacifism
of the Mennonites and Peacemakers, to Thomas' Just War Theory, to
Niebuhr's theory that no rules apply in war, from the civil rights
activism of Martin Luther King to the pro-slavery exegesis of the
Bible by Southern slaveholders. Now, you might say that not all
of these applications adn interpretations of the bible are equal--
and I'd agree. But the same holds in ethical reasoning in general.
the point is that restricting ourselves, adn excluding any consideration
of ethical principles that might gain general acceptance, is certainly
no panacea for curing ethical disagreement.
And, in any case, it would be totally unworkable. Let me take another
case, that doesn't raise everybody's hackles the way in which homosexuality
does: adoption law reform. Should the records of people in "closed
adoptions" (adoptions where the records were sealed and the biological
mother's identity kept secret) be opened? To what extent--what information
should be given out? Should the adoptee be given the b-mom's current
address if he/she wants it, or only "non-identifying" information?
In discussing these questions, a Christian entering into the debate will
inevitably be using the same moral vocabulary as all other parties to
the debate, and bringing up the same sorts of considerations--what
will be the ffects of opening the records? Of not opening them?
Was a promise made ot the b-mom about anonymity? Does an adoptee
have a right to such information? What would _I_ want done if I
were in the shoes of an adoptee? Of a b-mom? Of an adoptive parent?
9These last three questions are a way of trying to apply the "Do
unto others" injunction.) But if we were to follow the rules laid
down by James jackson, one should not enter into such a debate,
using such considerations, since they involve appealing to principles
that might gain GENERAL ASSENT.
Don't you yourself do the very thing that you say we ought not to do,
Mr. Jackson?
Tim O'Keefe
tok...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
Royce Buehler
In article <4r7kcd$4...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, jaja...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (James Jackson) writes:
>
> I don't believe that Jesus broke the letter of the written Law. I believe He
> broke the letter of the Oral Law which is what angered the Pharisees.
> Jesus told the Pharisees that they "made the commandment of God of none
> effect by your tradition" - Matthew 15:6. That's what is happening today.
> People are saying that it is more important how humans feel about what is
> right and what is wrong rather than what God says is right or wrong.
Specifically, Jesus said that the Pharisees made the commandment to
honor your father and mother of no effect, by permitting children to
neglect their parents' well-being for "religious" reasons.
Similarly, Jesus today would tell Christians today that they make His
commandment "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" of no effect,
by not only neglecting, but ostracizing and persecuting gays for
"religious" reasons.
When you look at Jesus and see only someone who was more stringently
and rigidly legalist than the Pharisees, you are in danger of losing
sight of Jesus as He was. His point in this incident, as always, was to home
in on love of others as the real meaning of the Law.
Royce Buehler
In article <4ri2pb$i...@heidelberg.rutgers.edu>, jaja...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (James Jackson) writes:
>
> Obviously God thought that there were going to be humans who would engage
> in bestiality. Why else would He make a law prohibiting it if He knew that
> not one of His human creations were going to participate in it?
Perhaps for the same reason He would make a law against "a man lying with
a man": because it was a practice that formed part of the idolatrous worship
of the Canaanites.
That explains why both laws appear in the same chapter as the prohibitions
against other idolatrous practices: the worship of Molech, necromancy and
fortunetelling. As well as the prohibitions of the adultery which was
essential to Canaanite fertility rites, and the sacred incest which formed
part of the state religion of the Egyptians.
It also explains why, of all the sins punishable by death, the one of
"a man lying with a man" is the only one which is not repeated in
Deuteronomy. The explanation being: it *is* repeated there - as a prohibition
against male (and female) sacred prostitutes. In that form, it is repeatedly
enforced by the good monarchs in Kings - who, oddly enough, do not bother to
execute men having sex with each other in a secular context.
Bestiality is the only one of these items of which I am unsure. I know
that coupling between women and men dressed as totemic beasts is a
fairly common form of pagan ritual. (Compare Stravinsky's Rites of Spring.)
I don't know enough about middle eastern archeology to be sure whether
the Canaanites did the same. Any archaeologists among us who could venture
to say?