---

It exists for something if you are a Christian...which is who this topic addresses.  Trying to derail onto moral relativism won't get you anywhere.

You'd think you'd be happy with this post.  In your own warped little mind you have everything to gain by a proof that Christians are "homophobic."  It validates your world view that religion is harmful and must be stamped out.

...but no.  I think you just like to bicker and don't mind being inconsistent in yourself.

---

You seem to have two options here.

1. Agree that it is objectively true that you ought to kill homosexuals in accordance with the verse from Leviticus.

or

2. Assert that the particular verse is not longer true, but that some other moral proposition is true, thus affirming moral relativism (which is false).

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

every place where the bible "states" that homosexuality is sin is either the old testimant or has been misinterpreted.

---

Did you read the OP?  You just made a nice little assertion and then presented no evidence to back it up whatsoever.  Please, I would love to see you address what Sean wrote.

---

there's a section in romans that describes a group of sinners, their sins including homosexual acts, who are damned, etc. but they were also worshipping other gods and not praising God.

---

You must have missed the context and the "God gave them over" part.  I love how Sean addressed just this, please read:

---

It is important here, as with all exegetical exercises, to know in what context this is said.  The above statement is not a direct prescription to Christians, but a description of pagan culture.  It is describing the lifestyle that results from ignorance of God.  Many will take this and argue that because of this, these are not rules which pertain to Christians.  However, it should be obvious that what is described is behavior contrary to God spawned because the people in question lacked knowledge of God.  Thus, those who do not lack knowledge of God (Christians) should not be engaged in these activities.  Note the use repeated use of unnatural that is reminiscent of phraseology quoted in the above extra-biblical literature and the "indecent" or "abominable" acts (the Greek is a rough equivalent). Here is a reiteration of the same condemnation that was expressed in the Law.  Homosexuality is "unnatural" and "indecent," explicitly between both males and females.  (Note, that unnatural here, as Douglas Moo and Gagnon suggest, means not "reflective of God's purpose.")

Again, people will try to ignore this verse on the basis that it refers to cultic practices.  Again, there is no indication in the context or wording that would suggest that.  Rather than rehash all that old logic, I will simply point out that there is a scholarly consensus that the reference is generic homosexuality as evidenced by statements in the Anchor Bible Commentary on Romans (a collaborative work), and the commentaries of Moo and John Murray (who represent different localities, times, and religious traditions).  To try and tie the condemnation of homosexuality to the "worship of images" mentioned earlier in the passage, one must additionally argue that all the listed sins (e.g. gossip, slander, disobedience to one's parents, arrogance) are cultic practices, a position which is indefensible.  The "oun" (therefore) refers back to the abandonment of God which leads to many sins, including image worship and homosexuality (they are on the same list, not the one a subset of the other).

Another important point rising out of this verse that makes pointed Paul's statement, is his use of arsaen (male) instead of the more standard anae (male) because it ties directly into the sin mentioned in Corinthians, arsaenokoitai (homosexual relations).

---

Please, elucidate on why Sean is incorrect here in his contextual argument of this passage.

---

there's also this part of the bible i found (i forgot where)

---

Wait ... besides just tossing out random assertions without addressing the OP, you don't even know where you are getting your material.  Wow.

---

that has been misinterpreted. two angels (male) came down and stayed in this guy's house. then all of the men in the city surrounded the house and demanded the guy bring the two men out so they could have sex with them. the city was destroyed. many people say that this is because of the homosexual factor, but really it was inhospitality to a guest. i'm also sure that God wasn't happy about the mens' intent to rape the angels, men or women.

---

Even if that were true, it ignores the fact that the passage is directly related to what Paul says in Romans 1:18 - which is an example of what Paul was stating.

---

also, the bible was written in a time with political and social views much different from our own. they may have been inspired by God's word, but they were human. they knew that the words in the book would have a lot of power one day, power over the entire world, and they would be tempted to add their own opinions and views to it. we can't know for sure if every word in the bible is exactly what god wanted in it.

---

Cute, but this topic isn't about whether the Bible is God's Word.  People like myself certainly don't think so, but that is not pertinent to this topic now is it?  This topic is about whether Christianity and Homosexuality are compatible and Sean is presenting not only Biblical passages to support his assertions in their context, but also historical figures within Christianity.

It should be of note then, that you in order to pertain to this topic, you need to present a rebuttal using just that.  You either didn't read the material whatsoever or you just wanted to pop in, post your view and run, but please actually take the time like Sean did and address the points or you have been thoroughly refuted.

tk

-------
"Argentum qui amat, cum argento numquam satiabitur." ~ Solomon

This topic asks whether or not Christians ought to be homosexuals in light of Scripture and history.  Any more of your posts not addressing this issue will be gleefully removed.

-------
"It is the wrong question to ask, and therefore, as one  might expect, has
no right answer." - Hans von Campenhausen

This is the philosophy of my life.

I can't find a bible at the minute but you seem pretty well versed in this so I'm sure you know the passages I'm referring to. If its accepted that social factors played a part in Paul's writing in these cases and thus should not be adhered to by modern Christians, the same could, in theory, be understood of Paul's fairly occasional opposition to homosexually.

---

Pauline writings aren't always taken to be unquestionable or even the infallible 'word of God' by all Christians though. Most Protestant churches now have female preachers (and even Catholics have female nuns, missionaries etc) who preach in Church despite Paul's warning in Corinthians that a woman must not speak in Church. Neither are his strict instructions on how Christians, male and female, must wear their hair in public or whilst worshipping.  

I can't find a bible at the minute but you seem pretty well versed in this so I'm sure you know the passages I'm referring to. If its accepted that social factors played a part in Paul's writing in these cases and thus should not be adhered to by modern Christians, the same could, in theory, be understood of Paul's fairly occasional opposition to homosexually.

---

First, Prince is very much for women being silent (and possibly keeping 10 steps behind the man, though that may just be on Sundays), so that argument is not going to fly with him.

Second, that is a misunderstanding of that verse, as far as every scholar I've spoken to (aside from Prince, whom I don't count as a scholar) understands it; the verse is referring to women gossiping, yakking away during the sermon, calling out across the room "What's that mean?" and that sort of rudeness, not actually speaking in a pastoral position.

Third, I saw nothing in that whole time consuming mess that suggested that the orientation itself is wrong or attraction is wrong, so there's always that.

Fourth: still not convinced, but good on you, Prince, for having too much time on your hands.

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after

---

Cute, but this topic isn't about whether the Bible is God's Word.  People like myself certainly don't think so, but that is not pertinent to this topic now is it?  This topic is about whether Christianity and Homosexuality are compatible and Sean is presenting not only Biblical passages to support his assertions in their context, but also historical figures within Christianity.

---

Post edited at 6:25 pm on June 10, 2008 by iamben

-------
I'm not stupid, I'm just misunderstood

---

Fourth: still not convinced, but good on you, Prince, for having too much time on your hands.

---

---

Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 12:38 am on June 11, 2008

---

 Fourth: still not convinced, but good on you, Prince, for having too much time on your hands.

---

Reasoning or it didn't happen.

---

*shrug* It's fairly obvious, at least to me, that someone who would put that much effort into researching and typing up that post for LiveWire has way too much time on their hands. If it was for a course in school or perhaps for work, or even for another site, okay. But LiveWire, where you know 99% of the responses will consist of "lol"...yeah.

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after

---

Quote: from osmoticdespair at 9:36 pm on June 10, 2008

---

Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 12:38 am on June 11, 2008

---

 

  Fourth: still not convinced, but good on you, Prince, for having too much time on your hands.

---

Reasoning or it didn't happen.

---

*shrug* It's fairly obvious, at least to me, that someone who would put that much effort into researching and typing up that post for LiveWire has way too much time on their hands. If it was for a course in school or perhaps for work, or even for another site, okay. But LiveWire, where you know 99% of the responses will consist of "lol"...yeah.

---

---

Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 4:57 am on June 11, 2008

---

Quote: from osmoticdespair at 9:36 pm on June 10, 2008

---

Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 12:38 am on June 11, 2008

---

  Fourth: still not convinced, but good on you, Prince, for having too much time on your hands.

---

Reasoning or it didn't happen.

---

 

 *shrug* It's fairly obvious, at least to me, that someone who would put that much effort into researching and typing up that post for LiveWire has way too much time on their hands. If it was for a course in school or perhaps for work, or even for another site, okay. But LiveWire, where you know 99% of the responses will consist of "lol"...yeah.

---

LOL.
I mean reasoning why his argument is unconvincing.

---

Well, largely because if I cared enough, I could probably find just as many scholars who say that the entire thing is whacked and wrong.

I just don't care enough because...seriously, d00d, it's LiveWire.

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after

Your argument that they are merely a reflection of social bias is invalid because I have demonstrated an Judeo-Christian stance toward homosexuality stretching (in my post) around 1,500 years, though it can be demonstrated to extend much further. All the documents cited were written in a milieu that was in some shape or form sympathetic to homosexuality, much like our own. The Jews forbade it when it was all around them practiced socially and culticly. Later the condemnation was supported when the Hellenistic empires embraced it even more fully. Christians continued the prohibition in a Greco-Roman culture that permitted the behavior. To say that we now live in a different culture is to delude oneself. We live in a culture sympathetic to homosexuality, as did those generations before us. They still refused to practice it.

Post edited at 12:44 pm on June 11, 2008 by Prince o palities

-------
"It is the wrong question to ask, and therefore, as one  might expect, has
no right answer." - Hans von Campenhausen

This is the philosophy of my life.