All Comments (64)

"

From the beginning of Christianity homosexuality was considered an abomination in Gods eyes! It's in these "enlightened" days that people are trying to retranslate to hide their sins.
The Jews stoned homosexuals since the Levitical laws were enacted and possibly before.

As Jesus said, "from the beginning God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. Therefore what God has put together, let no man tear apart." Matthew 19:4-6
Anyone who tears apart marriage and promotes homosexuality is teaching heresy and must answer to God!"

To be honest that is an singular interpretation of the word "man" which is clearly in the latter context being used to describe anyone. Man was typically, and still is, used to define the entire species. And not only does that response not even really talk about homosexuality but the full context of the passage talks about Divorce, as that was what the man asked advise on in the first place.

From the beginning of Christianity homosexuality was considered an abomination in Gods eyes! It's in these "enlightened" days that people are trying to retranslate to hide their sins.
The Jews stoned homosexuals since the Levitical laws were enacted and possibly before.

As Jesus said, "from the beginning God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. Therefore what God has put together, let no man tear apart." Matthew 19:4-6
Anyone who tears apart marriage and promotes homosexuality is teaching heresy and must answer to God!

http://DrugsHome.com

Dear Paganplace,

“Ever wonder why Christian-raised gay kids do all those self-destructive behaviors?

You teach them that that's all they can have for a life.

Can't you see?”

Lets unpack that. You seem to imply that “Christian-raised gay kids” do those self destructive behaviors over and above the non Christian ones. Got any data to back that up? If not, it is a straw man.

Who is the “You” in “You teach them that that's all they can have for a life.”? Is that me? I don't do that. Is is Dick and Lynn Cheney? I doubt even those hidebound conservatives did that. So who is it? So it sounds to me like the straw man did it. ;-)

Can't you see?

Dear Paganplace,

“It's not a straw man if the 'straw man' arguments are actually what are being asserted by the 'opponent.'

If you look at anti-gay rhetoric and compare it to the anti-miscegenation rhetoric and countless other groups throughout history, you'll see most of the arguments are in fact the same, ...only the names of the stigmatized group have changed.”

In this case it is a straw man. I personally know a lot of Christians, and don't know a single one who is for segregation, slavery, or is against civil rights, or against women's rights. Depending upon how you count, there are up to 1.8 Billion Christians in the world. A group that size will have its share of kooks, wackos, male chauvinists, cultists, perverts, and every other kind of criminal. I suppose some mobsters even go to church. That does not mean the churches accepts their vices.

To suggest that the failings of these people represent the “...both the Protestant and Catholic sides of Christianity...” is to erect a straw man. John Shelby does exactly that, and in so doing is sloppy and low brow about his rhetoric. Where I come from they call that a cheap shot.

By the way, the reviled Catholic Church had the most liberal policy on homosexual clergy of any in the second half of the twentieth century. It went like this: because Priests are celibate by vow, it does not matter what kind of sex it is the Priest does not practice. What are your thoughts about that? What are John Shelby's?

Personally, I believe that homosexuals in committed and monogamous relationships are better off for it, just as heterosexuals are. Society should recognize this, even if it is called a Civil Union, or a Blessing of Friends, or whatever. I think society is better off as well.

My comments have to do with sex addicts who have “...had sexual contact with thousands.” If that is not done without proper safe sex practices, the probability approaches 100 percent that there is disease knowingly being spread. That effects humankind as a whole. Look at Africa where a whole generation is being wiped out by AIDS, for the Gods' sake! That is not an orientation specific comment.

I think what's galling about saying that to be gay is the same as to be an alcoholic is that in fact, it's more like saying it's the same thing to be *Irish* as to be an alcoholic.

As Pagan clergy, let me tell you, *anyone* who were to treat sex of any sort as a drunk treats alcohol, I would treat as someone who's abusing sex as something other than what it is.

Sex, gay or straight, is *not* an addictive compulsion at the heart, in the core of its being.

Committed love, such as the Lutheran minister in question is presumably being called 'like an alcoholic' for living, is *certainly* not the 'compulsion' that he was accused of so casually, just for being gay.

Sex is sex. Orientation is orientation.

Let's not forget, the ECLA has only said that they're 'urged' to not particularly make a witch-hunt out of ministers in *chaste and committed * relationships.

Seems some Christians have a problem with that. And say some nasty things in the process of trying to expunge the gays.

There's the presumptions that a) sex is morally-dubious in the first place if you enjoy it, and b) A gay minister has lots of wanton sex, despite preaching this, and c) Having a gay minister promotes the kind of wanton sexuality we freak out about whenever a counterexample to those defamatory images gets too close.

Ever wonder why Christian-raised gay kids do all those self-destructive behaviors?

You teach them that that's all they can have for a life.

Can't you see?

Lep,

I did not say that alcoholism is a sin. I said it is a moral issue. If you define 'sin' as hurting someone unnecessarily, then it may be a sin. It is NOT immoral to drink. It is immoral to drink to the point where those around you are harmed.

Hurting yourself isn't really a sin, it's just stupid. Hurting others is a sin. Or a moral issue. Whatever.

David and Arminius:

First of all, "sin" really isn't a word in my religious lexicon, but I'll use it here, since it is in yours.

I said that alcoholism is not a sin. I said that drinking is not a sin even for the alcoholic, as long as s/he does not harm anyone as a result of his drinking. My first husband was an alcoholic. he was violent when drunk. I left after he threw a television at me because his friends took his keys away from him at a party.
My current husband's mom was an alcoholic. She died of liver failure as a result of it. My husband drinks, but because he knows what it did to his mom, he watches his intake. Even though he has the genetic potential for alcoholism, it isn't immoral for him to drink. It would be immoral for him to do harm as a result of his drinking. The sin is in the harming, not the drinking.

As for promiuscuous sex that spreads disease being a sin, again, David, it's not the sex that's the sin, it's causing harm by not telling your partner that you hae a communicable disease before you knock boots, and not taking precautions to avoid transmitting it. And that applies to ANYBODY that has sex, regardless of orientation. Straight people spread STD's just as effectively as gay people. And lesbians have the lowest incidence of STD's of all.

""“...most of the support for slavery and segregation came from the Bible Belt and most of the negativity toward women's rights has also come from both the Protestant and Catholic sides of Christianity...”

"The fallacy of the straw man consists of making up an imaginary opponent, who conveniently turns out to be a good punching bag and rhetorically defeating them. This kind of argument is intellectually lazy and dishonest, and it fits in with his general level of dishonesty."

It's not a straw man if the 'straw man' arguments are actually what are being asserted by the 'opponent.'

If you look at anti-gay rhetoric and compare it to the anti-miscegenation rhetoric and countless other groups throughout history, you'll see most of the arguments are in fact the same, ...only the names of the stigmatized group have changed.

If the 'logic' is easily-defeated, that's not Bishop Spong's problem. :)

Lep,

David is right, alcoholism is a moral issue because it can harm or even destroy the lives of people around you. I know that from experience. An alcoholic, even if perfectly peaceful, can hurt those around him/her, and that is a moral issue.

Dear Lepidopteryx,

"Alcoholism isn't a sin - it's an addiction. You have every right to drink, even to drink to excess. It's only when your blood alcohol level causes you to act in a manner that harms someone else that it becomes an issue for anyone other than you (DWI, violence, missing work, etc.). Driniking is not immoral. Alcoholism is not immoral. Driving while drunk is immoral."

It really isn't that simple. My father was a major league alcoholic, and his father before him. He was a man with an IQ four standard deviations above the norm, but his lifelong drunken stupor robbed him of many of the real achievements that could have been his. He was not proud of himself at the end of his life. Destroying your life with drink IS a moral choice.

Being the child of alcoholism on both sides of the family, I had to make a decision either to be the father I should to my children, or to give up another generation to the bottle. I chose my children, but it was harder to do than I had imagined.

So do me a favor drop the sanctimonious and sophomoric nonsense. It most definitely is a moral choice we face. My genetic disposition, and my father's, and his father's before him, was not our fault. But that did not relieve us of responsibility for choices we made. Not even if we had to struggle against a genetic predisposition to achieve the morally right outcome.

Promiscuous sex that exposes others to fatal disease is also a moral choice. Even if you have a genetic predisposition to it.

SPONG IS WRONG:

**Before anyone says that homosexuals are 'born that way', just think for a second - there is probably a genetic factor in every sin people are predisposed to commit (alcoholics, people with violent tempers, etc.). Does this mean these sins are OK? Of course not! The source of the temptation to commit an action has nothing to do with whether the action is moral or not.**

Alcoholism isn't a sin - it's an addiction. You have every right to drink, even to drink to excess. It's only when your blood alcohol level causes you to act in a manner that harms someone else that it becomes an issue for anyone other than you (DWI, violence, missing work, etc.). Driniking is not immoral. Alcoholism is not immoral. Driving while drunk is immoral.

Same thing with temper. If you have a short fuse, and get angry at the drop of a hat, it's your problem, no one else's. If you hit when you're angry, then it becomes an issue for others, not because you have a temper, but becausae you act in a violent manner towards another person. Having a short fuse is not immoral. Beating the living crap out of someone for any reason other than self-defense is immoral.

Thank you for On Faith. I am thrilled that the Lutheran Church says okay to Gay Pastors...and living with another!!

And I do agree with Spong...We need to grow into a new consciousness. We need to have a new myth.
The myth of Abraham needs to go, and a new one needs to be recognized. And that is where the new consciousness is pushing us.

Thank you for On Faith. I am thrilled that the Lutheran Church says okay to Gay Pastors...and living with another!!

And I do agree with Spong...We need to grow into a new consciousness. We need to have a new myth.
The myth of Abraham needs to go, and a new one needs to be recognized. And that is where the new consciousness is pushing us.

Moderate - you hit that out of the park.
The main reason theological conservatives of ALL denominations are exasperated by Spong is that he strongly espouses atheist positions (like the 12 theses), and yet he claims to be a Christian, served as Bishop, and seems to think (ironically) his version of Christianity is the only "correct" one. It's like a member of Peta who eats fillet mignon (to steal Todd Friel's analogy).

He does also seem to exhibit a knee jerk hostility and contempt for ANYONE who believes orthodox Christianity (guilt complex?).

Dr. Bob Price is a genial, clever, good natured guy who doesn't take himself too seriously. He lost his faith and just admits he's agnostic.

I enjoy listening to his 'Bible Geek' show even though I disagree with most of it.

If Spong really wants to change things he should live a more Price-like life.

Dear Spong is Wrong,

"He has been patiently working on the destruction of the Episcopal Church for about 30 years,..."

He pretty near wrecked the Diocese New Jersey. So the saying of Jesus “By their fruits ye shall know them.” seems to apply.

My message to him is that It is okay if you loose faith. But it is not okay to use a position obtained when he did have faith, or under false pretenses as a platform.

When I was an Atheist, I made no bones about it and people respected the honesty of an openly taken and vigorously defended position. Personally, I can respect a variety of honestly taken positions, even if as I debate with them. But I have to agree with you on John Shelby's cheap shots about his mythical Christian straw men like:

“...most of the support for slavery and segregation came from the Bible Belt and most of the negativity toward women's rights has also come from both the Protestant and Catholic sides of Christianity...”

The fallacy of the straw man consists of making up an imaginary opponent, who conveniently turns out to be a good punching bag and rhetorically defeating them. This kind of argument is intellectually lazy and dishonest, and it fits in with his general level of dishonesty.

Even if one agrees with him on the point gay marriage, One's teeth should be set on edge by this kind of low brow rhetoric.

Godfrey:
""The words "arsen" and "koite" are used in that famous verse, Lev 20:13, which reads, "If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have both committed an abomination.""

That's curious. I thought Leviticus was written in Hebrew."

Dr. Davy is referring to the LXX (Septuagint). This is the version that the apostles quote from in their epistles when referring to OT texts (such as the Psalms).

Also, I think you're going a bit far when trying argue for the lack of meaning of the relevant passages. AFAIK there are a handful of fringe scholars (mostly gay activists such as Mollenkott and Boswell) who concocted their interpretations out of whole cloth within the past few decades.

Read Robert Gagnon.

Spong's little analogy sounds nice, but here's the problem: You cannot equate an immutable condition of being (such as being black, old, disabled or female) with conduct (such as homosexuality).
To do so leads to absurdity - you could justify any sin that way, such as bestiality, or thievery.

Before anyone says that homosexuals are 'born that way', just think for a second - there is probably a genetic factor in every sin people are predisposed to commit (alcoholics, people with violent tempers, etc.). Does this mean these sins are OK? Of course not! The source of the temptation to commit an action has nothing to do with whether the action is moral or not.

It's true not all gays who convert to Christianity will be freed of their SSA's. Again this is irrelevant. Sometimes Chrisitans are required to carry their cross (whatever it might be) to the end of life. But just as it wouldn't make sense to complain "I want to smoke and not get lung cancer, so I'll smoke anyway!", it also makes no sense to live in the homosexual lifestyle and yet claim to be a Christian who desires to be cleansed of sin so that you may have everlasting life. You must deal with the facts as they are, not as how you'd like them to be.

In short, think the issue through for yourselves. Please do not fall for this man's rhetorical devices. He has been patiently working on the destruction of the Episcopal Church for about 30 years, and his work will be completed September 30, 2007. ELCA apparently hasn't learned anything from the Episcopal disaster.

Dear Former Christian,

“Putting aside for a moment the fact that much of the old testament is just plain evil...”

If you read it, you will find the evil is in the hearts of men. It is an historical library of a civilization of three to five thousand years ago. It is remarkably full of insights on the human condition. Who that lived through the Twentieth Century can really doubt that mankind is flawed and fallen? The OT is our story as much as God's.

“and that getting down to the specifics of the new testament finds contradictions, inconsistencies and discrepancies with the historical record.”

There no discrepancies between the NT and the historical record. If only because the historical record is so incomplete. Nor are there any contradictions in the four Gospels. They differ in details presented in each, as one would expect any eye witness accounts to do, but there is no contradiction.

“But again, putting that aside, do you really want to base your moral code (the values that you teach your children) on the moral lessons of the bible?”

That and the rich heritage of Western culture including Thucydides, Plato, Kant, Newton, Einstein, Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, Godel, Sartre, Penrose, Virgil, Aeschylus, Aquinas, Caesar, Aspasia, Pericles, Mother Teressa, King, Chuikov, Patton, Douglass, and a host of others. I gave them a lighter mixing of Eastern culture because of my lack of acquaintance.

Still, the bible is truly the major cultural well spring of our culture, whether you like it or not. What you make of it is your decision, but it is clearly the most important single document guide star of our culture.

Dear Godfrey,

In the 2000 Jerusalem Bible, with Hebrew and English on facing pages by Koren Publishers Jerusalem LTD, which is the closest thing to an authoritative translation we are likely to get, gives Leviticus 20:13 on the English page as:

“If a man also lie with a man, as one lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: They will surly be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

By the way, Leviticus 20:10 in the same translation says:

“And the man that commits adultery with another man's wife, that commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”

There is a LOT of rugged stuff in Leviticus that the folks who cling to Lev. 20:13 really don't want to contemplate or apply to themselves, their brothers, or their sisters.

To Pablo and Richmond T. Stallgiss:

Being able to quote the bible or your understanding of the bible makes it neither right nor moral. Pablo, where is there evidence that the bible was the "inspired", the perfect, the inerrant word of God?

Me thinks the evidence points against the bible being the foundational support one needs in order to lead a moral life and by abstraction, because the bible prohibits it doesn't make it moral wrong.

It certainly seems to me that Spong got it exactly right, while the two of you are busy deciding which first century notion best explains your positions.

But there is this teeny, tiny flaw in that logic.
Your conclusions are based on a belief that the bible is the holy, inerrant word of God and not subject to intepretation.

Putting aside for a moment the fact that much of the old testament is just plain evil and that getting down to the specifics of the new testament finds contradictions, inconsistencies and discrepancies with the historical record. But again, putting that aside, do you really want to base your moral code (the values that you teach your children) on the moral lessons of the bible?

I contend that it would be hard to find a reasonable person today, who would want to follow the moral lessons of the bible and as such, are forced to abandon many verses and chapters from the bible in order to arrive at some semblence of a moral guideline.

In the bible, there are admonitions against working on the sabbath, obeisity, worshiping graven images, even coveting (thinking about) a neighbor's wife. Shall we exclude fat people from church services? (Does the subconscientious count when coveting my neighbor's wife?)

And while we're excluding people based on the bible, how do you reconcile the bible's silence on the idea of owning another person (slavery)? Who today would try to say that the bible's position on slavery is moral?

Who among us would teach their children that God, in his infinite love, would kill everything (the flood) and start again -- especially considering that this means God killed innocent children and animals that, by definition, cannot know sin? What moral lesson can we learn from this story?

Or how about the story of Lott, who was so willing to give up his virgin daughters to be gang raped in place of a couple of men? Where is the good moral lesson to be learned from this story of the bible -- protect male friends at all costs even if it means allowing your daughters to be gang raped?

And of course there's my favorite, Moses. Now here's a good moral story. Forget about the plagues brought down by God against all the people of Egypt, let's just concentrate on the pass over. Here we have God, supposedly punishing all the first born of Egypt including animals and people, because of the stubborn nature of Pharaoh. Only, wasn't it God who hardened Pharaoh's heart? And what did the poor citizens of Egypt have to do with Pharaoh's behavior? What control did they have over Pharaoh's actions?

So where are the moral lessons we should teach our children from these stories? Okay, now is the time for you to say, you have to throw out portions of the Old Testament -- Jesus replaced those teachings. Which ones -- prohibitions for the sabbath? How about coveting? What about homosexuality? I don't seem to remember Jesus talking about that at all.

So, if major portions of the bible need to be thrown out because they no longer apply, who's to decide which? Is it subject to my own interpretation? Is there some kind of devine revelation that God, through the holy spirit will send to me so that I might know whether to talk to a gay person? If that's the case, I sure hope I don't get the same revelation that George got when he thought God told him to invade Iraq.

I sure wish God would use email -- maybe his followers would spend less time treating other people so badly when it all could be avoided if God knew how to communicate. Let's face it, either there is no God or God is woefully behind in the technology arena. I bet he doesn't even know how to text message. Some omnipotence.

And as far as the bible is concerned, a reasonable person would be far better off taking their moral guidance from any of the Harry Potter novels. I don't remember whole sale slaughter in any of the HP novels. I don't remember stories of worlds being destroyed or of God killing the innocent along with the guilty. Killing the innocent along with the guilty. Say....that sounds a little like Goerge Bush doesn't it. Let's see -- invade Iraq, kill a few hundred thousand. What, no WMD. My bad. Can you see God saying the same thing -- "you mean I didn't have to kill all of Egypt's first born, only the Pharaoh. My bad.

Dear Godfrey:

“I've had sexual connection with thousands. Should I be watching my back?”

Joking aside, that kind of behavior does raise a medical and legal issues. Many gay men, (or straight basketball players like “Magic Johnson”), have many sexual partners. Along the way they become infected with HIV, and even they know what has happened, continue with their sexual escapades. Should one of the unfortunate partners of these idiots die, this is rightly called murder under our law. Thus it can become a moral issue in a big hurry.

It was how the HIV epidemic spread. This is not simply recreational activity. The whole human community is effected.

If you are not joking, I do hope you practice safe sex.

Godfrey:

Very thought provoking. Thank you.

Dr. Davy:

"The words "arsen" and "koite" are used in that famous verse, Lev 20:13, which reads, "If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have both committed an abomination.""

That's curious. I thought Leviticus was written in Hebrew.

Here (to the end of this post) is an excerpt from a post by Robert in West Hollywood, back in February:

The following is neither my original writing nor my original research, it has been sourced from much more scholarly theologians than myself. But, since knowledge can be legitimately learned from other people without having to personally conduct the original research, I'm including it here so you can learn something other than commonly accepted doctrinal dogma...

> Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

This is a passage from the Mosaic Code that is often used to condemn homosexual behavior in general. In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some form of anal sex with other men. But they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities.
For example:

The Living Bible greatly widens the scope of the original Hebrew to include all homosexual acts by both men and women. They confuse the matter further by not differentiating between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. They render the first part of this verse as: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden."

On the other hand, many religious scholars have interpreted the beginning of this verse as referring only to sexual activities between two males during a Pagan temple ritual. A translation of the Bible using this interpretation might say, "Ritual anal sex between two men in a Pagan temple is forbidden."

The second part of this verse explains what type of sin this transgression falls under. There are two types of sin in the Mosaic Code:

Moral sin is produced by rebellion against God. This seems to be the interpretation of most biblical translations imply when they translate the Hebrew "toeyvah" into English words such as "abomination," "enormous sin," or "detestable."

Ceremonial uncleanliness is caused by contact with a forbidden object or by engaging in a behavior which might be quite acceptable to non-Hebrews, but which was forbidden to the Children of Israel. Eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples of acts of ritual impurity which made a Child of Israel unclean.

These were not necessarily minor sins; some called for the death penalty.

The verse is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is unclear. The phrase "lay lyings" has no obvious interpretation. Attempts have been made to make sense out of the original Hebrew by inserting a short phrase into the verse. For example:

The Net Bible® translation 1 inserts two words to produce "And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman." A man must not have sexual intercourse with another man as he would normally have with a woman. i.e. anal intercourse between two men is not permitted. From this literal, word for word translation, they produce a smoother English version: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman."

An alternate translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman's bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman's bed was sacred and was to be reserved for heterosexual sex.

Which is the correct translation?

Obviously, it is important for a student of the Bible to resolve exactly what behavior is forbidden: is it:

All homosexual behavior, by either men or women, or

All sexual behavior between two men, or

Only anal sex between two men, or

Only anal sex in a Pagan temple ritual, or

Sexual activity between two men in a woman's bed?

Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the meaning of this verse. Many people tend to select that interpretation that most closely reinforces their initial beliefs about the Bible and homosexual behavior.

English translations of this verse:

These are not a great deal of help. Bible publishers are under strong economic pressures to turn a profit. If a translation of Leviticus 18:22 were included that did not generally condemn at least male homosexual behavior, their sales would drop precipitously and are therefore unlikely to deviate from the traditional interpretation

Some translations are:

ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."

KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".

LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"

Net Bible: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act."

NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

The LB and NLT translations use the term "homosexuality" That is unusually deceptive for three reasons:

The passage in the ancient Hebrew is clearly talking about male-male sex acts. By using the word "homosexuality," the English translation appears to condemn lesbian activity as well. The latter behavior is definitely not mentioned in the original Hebrew text of this passage. In fact, lesbian behavior is not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.

The term "homosexuality" has two distinct meanings in English. Sometimes it refers to sexual behavior (what some people do). Sometimes it relates to sexual orientation (what some people are). One reader might conclude from an English translation that homosexual orientation is criticized in the Bible; others might assume that homosexual behavior is criticized.

The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late in 19th century CE. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text.

Godfrey:

Different strokes for different folks, I say, as long as it's all between consenting adults, open and honest, like Lepidopteryx said. But the topic here was this Lutheran decision regarding clergy in "mutual, chaste and faithful committed same-gender relationships"; that's why I used that phrasing. And to be honest, I wouldn't want to discriminate against anyone but I'm not sure I'd hire you as a marriage counsellor, for example. Not out of any disrespect or dislike but just on practical terms. (Same reason I wouldn't go to a celibate priest for the that kind of service. If you can't form a long-term relationship you're in no position to help me with mine, which is part of a minister's job.)

Also because the text being used by Pablo to condemn all homosexuals clearly referred to acts of prostitution, not to the long-term relationships we were talking about, so I was making a specific rebuttal to his generalization.

Regards

A Hermit

PeaceTroll sure has gotten meaner and meaner, hasn't she?

Yea, she definitely needs to get laid.

And for the record, homosexuality is not a mental illness. What a wanker.

Dear All4TheKing:

In response to:

“embarrased that the Christian church is against something that is totally what Christ taught against?”

I am afraid that you have to appeal to someone other than Christ to justify opposition to homosexual behavior.

The proscriptions against homosexual behavior really come from the OT in Leviticus. It says there that you should be stoned to death if you work on the Sabbath, and that women should never wear pants, and men should never shave. It also requires dietary restrictions that modern Christians simply do not accept as part of the New Covenant. Do you live to the whole code of Leviticus? If not, why select Leviticus 18:20 as the only passage to keep and reject the rest?

After having spent some years studying the canonical Gospels I have found no mention or teaching by Christ Jesus about homosexuality. He was silent upon this issue. He did not teach against it, or for it. In view of the fact that he grew up near a center of Greco-Roman culture where homosexuality was doubtless practiced, this omission may well be significant. An argument from silence is always risky, but this issue had to be current in the Galilee during his life. Jesus Christ condemned hypocrisy, and failure to live up to our relationship with God, and he commanded us to love one another. He never condemned us for being Human.

I infer that if you are persecuting some one in the name of Jesus Christ, you may be actually following some one else.

Godfrey,

You wrote: The word I was referring to was "arsenokoitai." (Singular: arsenokoites.) It's frequently translated as "one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual," but that translation is the sheerest speculation. The word doesn't appear anywhere else, and may have been made up by the author of 1 Corinthians. The root "arsen" refers to men, and that's all we know.

I reply: Actually, the word "arsenokoitai" occurs twice in the Bible: 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10. And it occurs at least six other times in Greek literature, and there it's clear what it means. It's a man who has sexual relations with another man, just as "metrokoites" is one who has sexual relations with his mother. The words "arsen" and "koite" are used in that famous verse, Lev 20:13, which reads, "If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have both committed an abomination."

I found this information in a Greek lexicon called BDAG.

Godfrey:

**I've had sexual connection with thousands. Should I be watching my back?**

I'd say that depends on the thousands and how good their aim is...

Seriously, though, I have no issue with recreational bump and tickle as long as it's mutually agreed on beforehand that that's all it is, and you're not betraying a trust with someone else. If you told each of the thousands that they were the one and only while texting another behind your back, then it's aproblem, not because you had mutiple partners, but because you did so under false pretenses.

A. Hermit:

"As for the application of conscience, I actually think you make a good point there. My conscience tells me that it's wrong to discriminate against people in longterm, mutually supportive, loving relationships just because one might not personally share their private sexual preferences."

What about people that never can seem to form a long-term, mutually supportive relationship? Who go through men (or women) like water? Is it OK to discriminate against them? I've had sexual connection with thousands. Should I be watching my back?

Pablo:

The word I was referring to was "arsenokoitai." (Singular: arsenokoites.) It's frequently translated as "one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual," but that translation is the sheerest speculation. The word doesn't appear anywhere else, and may have been made up by the author of 1 Corinthians. The root "arsen" refers to men, and that's all we know.

"All4theKing:

embarrased that the Christian church is against something that is totally what Christ taught against?"

Oh, is it that simple? Show me 'Christ' 'totally teaching against' ....well, whatever you think is going on here.

Not that it'd be an excuse for anything, but, well, people have been 'totally' trying to say this a long time, and, OMGDDs... *tossing hair* like, it's totally unsubstantiated. Even if you can *wicked* transubstantiate.

As in... Pony up.

Dear John Shelby,

"...since most of the support for slavery and segregation came from the Bible Belt and most of the negativity toward women's rights has also come from both the Protestant and Catholic sides of Christianity."

You don't get out much do you? It was Christian Abolitionists who undermined and ultimately abolished slavery.

Let me tell you, that having grown up in a gritty industrial town where there wasn't much premium placed on religion, that traditionalists of no particular religion or any particular religion who feared change of any kind had much more to do with opposition to desegregation and women's rights than anyone else.

Maybe you only knew folks from the “Bible Belt” so you have no basis of comparison. What I remember is the church pastors supporting Civil Rights and desegregation to the extreme discomfort of the hidebound traditionalists. Maybe you understand how things were Down South back then, but that is not how it was Up North.

Dear John Shelby,

“A committed Christian who has spent a lifetime studying the Bible and whose life has been deeply shaped by it, ...”

I hear that about half of the Episcopalians in the Diocese of New Jersey up and quit when you were Bishop there. Your relentless message that a religion really doesn't matter seemed to drive people off. Perhaps you think that it was something like “homophobia” or some such that made them leave? But could it have been a Bishop who repudiated all the tenants of the Faith and yet would not yield the pulpit to some one who actually still believed?

Having read some of your later books I take it that you have repudiated virtually every major belief of formal Christianity. That is fine. Lots of people don't believe all that stuff.

When I came to a such a point I left the church for thirty years. No one thought less of me because it was an honest choice. There are lots of great people here who are non Christian who are interesting and on a journey of faith and or exploration that I deeply admire. A good step might be modify your biography to say:

“A former Christian who has spent a lifetime studying the Bible and whose life has been deeply shaped by it, but has now moved on to a new phase in his spiritual journey that may be Deist or Agnostic, but who still deeply cares for the future of the human community.”

There is nothing wrong with that, and it would be more straight forward.

All the best to you on your journey.

embarrased that the Christian church is against something that is totally what Christ taught against? What's wrong with Christians stick up for what they believe to be as the only truth? It should be expected from Christians to be aganst something that is against what the bible teaches. I'm proud to be a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ. And i will do my best to be obedient to what Christ has commanded of me. If that means going against the flow so be it. Just because if it seems to be like a loosing battle, or "the battle has already been one" doesn't mean that the Christian church should be tolerant (or in otherwords, compromise their commitment to Christ). It should just pushes Christians to be stronger and take a stand biblical truth.

As for 'Pagan shacks,' wanna hear about Conaire? ;)

Peacetroll:

"Pagan-shack.

"Have you not been told or understood the foundation of wisdom??
Has your tree's or your druid gods not explained to you the root of wisdom?"

Funny you should ask...

"Nede answered:
'Not hard: I am the son of poetry,
Poetry, son of scrutiny
Scrutiny, son of meditation
Meditation, son of lore,
Lore, son of inquiry
Inquiry, son of investigation
Investigation, son of great knowledge
Knowledge, son of great sense
Great sense, son of understanding
Understanding, son of wisdom,
Wisdom, son of the triple Gods of poetry."

--the Colloquy of the Sages.

How's that for Druidry and roots. :P

Pagan-shack.

Have you not been told or understood the foundation of wisdom??

Has your tree's or your druid gods not explained to you the root of wisdom?

Proverbs 8:13
The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

It is evil to propagate a mental illness such as homosexuality. Just as it's evil to propagate sex with an animal, or theivery or fornication.

John 3:20
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Still not seeing the first part of your name, there, Peacetroll.

lepidopteryx:

"Dammit, Hermit, stop reading my mind!"

..awww...I was just getting to the good stuff...;-)

Shelby your an apostate wolf in sheeps clothing.

For you would rather have the approval of men then God.

You sick folks want to propagate your sickness as 'OK', and you desperately seek God's approval, but you will not obtain it.

Wake up, stop advocating a mental illness.

Hey, I kind of liked Ecclesiates. "This, too, is vanity." Including the book. :)

See, Concerned,
"As the Bible is torn apart and only "select" portions are acceptable, what is left? A God made by man, sinful man. We must return to the God of the Bible."

I find it interesting that you find 'a God made by man' so unacceptable, then turn right to the artifact: a book, which says the only way to know God is through obedience to a manmade interpretation of the same artifact... which is assuredly made by man.

You like to denigrate people who find 'God' elsewhere, or even in different interpretations of the same book...

Isn't that something *you* made?

Out of something someone *else* made?

You essentially have decided, "The Bible doesn't count as manmade cause it wasn't really made by those guys that made it. Something might as well be the Only God, and I choose this book that's the only thing that says that's important in the first place. Besides, it gives me the comfort of thinking I'm OK if I say someone else is bad. "

Pagans would say the Gods are in everything and every one.... many of us call the whole universe a living embodiment of the Goddess... We're certainly allowed to make things, but we find the Sacred where it is... not insist the world is like a book says and then flip out and hurt people over it when the world proves different than we thought.

If you wish to avoid 'corruptions of man' ...then look at the *world.* Don't look at a book to judge people you haven't met, nor see them through the lens of the elaborate justifications constructed for the places where the book is *wrong.*

Much of religious homophobia is in fact trying to *justify fears of losing control and dominance.

But it was never justice for people to enjoy those feelings of righteous chosen-ness at the expense of others. It wasn't true for other races, for women, for Jews, for Catholics, for interracial couples, artists, scientists, atheists, or for anyone before who has been labelled 'sinful' and feared as undermining the Biblical order of the universe if they were treated fairly... often with the exact same language used for each.

Look at the world. See more than 'sin and poison' for once.

See people.

Dammit, Hermit, stop reading my mind! :p

Hermit: Thanks for your respectful reply. You make some good points with respect to biblical interpretation under uncertainty as well as with respect to using your conscience to ensure people are treated justly.

I am sure we will not resolve this issue by ourselves so I won't press the point, but if you wanted to "go there" I would say that the one topic we have left untouched is the definition of marriage. Church marriage… state marriage… community-defined marriage …what marriage includes (sex) … whether the appropriate setting for sexual activity is only within marriage… whether marriage “rights” are philosophically prior to the establishment state or whether the state has the right to grant and revoke marriage rights.

People disagree on these, and intelligent and considerate people on both sides have their own reasons. How do we, in this postmodern era, find a way to live together in society when our opinions and ontologies seem irreconcilable?

Peace,
RT

Here's my 2 cents:

If people worried more about whether the choices made and actions taken in their lives were likely to move themselves closer to God (however each person may define God, be it either Truth, Trinity, Jehovah, etc.), instead of worrying whether or not others were moving closer to God, society would likely have far fewer problems to deal with.

Richmond, thank you, that's a pretty good explanation of the reasoning Christians have used to excuse their selective application of the law. This of course is not new to an old ex-believer like me, but I always felt there were serious flaws in the argument, and in the end it leaves the door open for new and more enlightened interpretations, does it not? Are those who cling to a belief about the rights of others simply because of its ancient pedigree in danger of committing the same mistakes as the Pharisees?

And it certainly undermines the whole "it's in the Bible. therefore that's the way it is and I don't have to think about it" reaction we see from far too many Christians, like our friend Pablo here. If some of the Law no longer applies then it is certainly legitimate to debate which aspects of the Law should still apply and why or why not. Especially when it concerns a subject which is not addressed in any of the teaching s actually attributed to Jesus Himself.

As for the application of conscience, I actually think you make a good point there. My conscience tells me that it's wrong to discriminate against people in longterm, mutually supportive, loving relationships just because one might not personally share their private sexual preferences. I personally don't need to know what sexual positions or practices my friends, neighbours or colleagues enjoy in the privacy of their homes. It's irrelevant to their ability to their jobs, to be good neighbours and friends etc.

I hope you will take this in the spirit of honest dialogue as intended, and not as "flak".

Regards

A Hermit

Anon: I suspect you have never read the Bible beyond say, Genesis. I agree that it gets mythy in there, but if you read other books of the Bible there's a lot of other types of stuff. Proverbs contains wise sayings. Psalms contains song lyrics. Ecclesiastes is an essay about how life sucks.

A lot of people criticize the Bible without even understanding what's in it.

-RT

Lep said "If Christians truly believed that the Bible was meant to be taken in toto, then Levitical law would still be in effect,"

Ok... uh... a Quick Bible lesson in case you wanted to know...

1) The OT (the written intellectual history of God's relationahip with the Israelite people) points to the Messiah.

2) The Messiah points to God.

3) The NT records what the Messiah said and did, and also lists the letters the early church leaders wrote to each other about how to proceed until the Messiah returns.

Christians believe in the Bible because the Messiah cited it and taught with it and because the early church leaders recommended it for teaching as well. The Essene-like Messiah chastized the Pharisee and Saducee leaders of Israel for missing the point of the Levitical laws ("Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees") ... but He didn't cancel them or tell people they shouldn't follow them... he elucidated their meaning (with parables) and taught how to fulfill their requirements (through fully relying on God).

The early Christian leaders deliberated on how much to emphasize compliance with the law, especially for new converts. The 15th chapter of "Acts of the Apostles" contains a history of this deliberation recorded by Luke the physician, and it talks about how they decided that new converts ought to conform to the regulations (Levitical laws, Chapter 18) about sexual immorality, but not be required to be circumcised or follow other Levitical regulations.

As Christians in the tradition of these apostles, we respect the decisions of those who communed with the Messiah and were in the best position to discern what His will was on these matters. Many Christians also look beyond just the Bible, and by examining their consciences, they "know" it's wrong just like your conscience tells you that other things are wrong. You might call it homophobia, but not everything that the conscience tells you to avoid is necessarily a phobia.... like eating rotten food or something. You just know.

That's the basics of why Christians are generally resistant to *affirming* homosexual "conduct" ... although these same people are *generally* ok with homosexuals ... just don't ask them to approve of those *actions*.

-RT, who recognizes that he'll take a lot of flak for this opinion but feels it's important to explain where he's coming from in order to foster dialogue.

The bible was written before god had invented common sense,and it was just a first draft anyway.
It was never intended to be taken literally,or to be seen as a guide for living.
It is a nonsensical compendium of superstitious ideas from the depths of history,when all was ignorance and myth.
The Mother Goose book is a much better guide to living.

I have come to have an epiphany:

Man doesn't need God to exist. God ne