NationStates Jolt Archive

How would you feel about your faith if therein, homosexuality was recognised as a valid sexual orientation afforded all the trappings of "morality" including a divinely ordained same sex 'union' and condemned the name calling, pontifficating and exclusivity seen as prevalent within Christian culture with respect to this particular minority group?

How would you feel about your faith if therein, homosexuality was recognised as a valid sexual orientation afforded all the trappings of "morality" including a divinely ordained same sex 'union' and condemned the name calling, pontifficating and exclusivity seen as prevalent within Christian culture with respect to this particular minority group?

Thats a rediculous hypothetical.

How would you feel about your faith if therein, homosexuality was recognised as a valid sexual orientation afforded all the trappings of "morality" including a divinely ordained same sex 'union' and condemned the name calling, pontifficating and exclusivity seen as prevalent within Christian culture with respect to this particular minority group?


Ok. Is this a trick question?

better (If I followed you correctly, your language usage is somewhat esoteric, but refreshing)

In some forms of christianity homosexuality is recognized and accepted.

It's neither a "rediculous" hypothetical nor a trick question. I am just curious about how much of the current Christian culture, particularly conservative, is centered around anti-homosexual beliefs and how tightly held are those beliefs as intrinsic to Christian values.

It's neither a "rediculous" hypothetical nor a trick question. I am just curious about how much of the current Christian culture, particularly conservative, is centered around anti-homosexual beliefs and how tightly held are those beliefs as intrinsic to Christian values.

Then you should have asked how they would feel about homosexuality if their religion condoned it. Obviously, hardly anyone would forsake their religion based on how it viewed homosexuality. In fact, the bible is very silent on homosexuality.

How would you feel about your faith if therein, homosexuality was recognised as a valid sexual orientation afforded all the trappings of "morality" including a divinely ordained same sex 'union' and condemned the name calling, pontifficating and exclusivity seen as prevalent within Christian culture with respect to this particular minority group?
They would add that part and call it a "newly discovered" book

hardly anyone would forsake their religion based on how it viewed homosexuality.
The American Episcopalian Church is splitting from the Anglican Church over the appointment of a gay bishop.

Then you should have asked how they would feel about homosexuality if their religion condoned it. Obviously, hardly anyone would forsake their religion based on how it viewed homosexuality. In fact, the bible is very silent on homosexuality.


The reason I worded it as I did was that I get the impression that to a large number of Christians, anti-homosexual doctrine is the cornerstone of their faith. I cite for example the various splits in Christian churches brought to a head by gay marriage and an increasingly liberal stance within the church towards homosexuals and other social issues. (The Episcopal and Baptists for example)

The reason I worded it as I did was that I get the impression that to a large number of Christians, anti-homosexual doctrine is the cornerstone of their faith. I cite for example the various splits in Christian churches brought to a head by gay marriage and an increasingly liberal stance within the church towards homosexuals and other social issues. (The Episcopal and Baptists for example)
Because they find it "icky" and found out other cristians thought it was so also and that drove them more togeather

it is fun to be in a group

The reason I worded it as I did was that I get the impression that to a large number of Christians, anti-homosexual doctrine is the cornerstone of their faith. I cite for example the various splits in Christian churches brought to a head by gay marriage and an increasingly liberal stance within the church towards homosexuals and other social issues. (The Episcopal and Baptists for example)

First of all, what is your religious preference? Are you atheist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.?

If my particular denomination, that being United Methodist, were to “recognize” same sex unions or even support them I have a feeling that a split would occur, similar to the that of the Anglican Church.

How would you feel about your faith if therein, homosexuality was recognised as a valid sexual orientation afforded all the trappings of "morality" including a divinely ordained same sex 'union' and condemned the name calling, pontifficating and exclusivity seen as prevalent within Christian culture with respect to this particular minority group?

What is written in the Word cannot be changed. Therein, nothing can change that the act of a man laying another man is an abomination. Therefore, I shall not look upon this question "out-side" the box, and therefore need I not.

You already know my answer, and my answer is I care not to agree.

For reference, I am Non-denominational, but believe only in the Lord.

I belive that the church should have nothing to do with the sexuality of someone. If that person is gay, they are gay. The church should not have a say of how they live their sexual life.

First of all, what is your religious preference? Are you atheist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.?

If my particular denomination, that being United Methodist, were to “recognize” same sex unions or even support them I have a feeling that a split would occur, similar to the that of the Anglican Church.

I think I'd fall into atheist category and whatever leanings I had towards Christianity were utterly extinguished many years ago.

Kinda sucks to have to ask christians on the internet instead of the real life, huh?

Better to face one through a screen than through real talks...oi...

How would you feel about your faith if therein, homosexuality was recognised as a valid sexual orientation afforded all the trappings of "morality" including a divinely ordained same sex 'union' and condemned the name calling, pontifficating and exclusivity seen as prevalent within Christian culture with respect to this particular minority group?

Considering that my faith already recognizes this, I suppose I would feel exactly the same. =)

How would you feel about your faith if therein, homosexuality was recognised as a valid sexual orientation afforded all the trappings of "morality" including a divinely ordained same sex 'union' and condemned the name calling, pontifficating and exclusivity seen as prevalent within Christian culture with respect to this particular minority group?
You mean if Christianity didn't consider homosexual behavior a sin? I'd feel exactly as I do now. I don't derive my faith from what the Bible condemns or does not condemn; rather, the other way around - I start with the belief in God and the Bible, and derive what I believe is and is not sinful from that.

All in all, though, it is a pretty ridiculous hypothesis. Few people (I would hope) are Christians solely because the Bible condemns homosexual practice. You might as well ask, "What if the Bible said that God periodically appeared on Earth in the form of a woodchuck?" Admittedly, most Christians don't let the belief that God doesn't regularly incarnate Himself as a woodchuck drive their political positions (I can't even think how that would drive your political positions. Maybe woodchuck protection laws?), so yours is somewhat more relevant, but the point is that whether or not homosexual practice is a sin according to Christianity is (or at least should be) inconsequential to the larger outlook (though of course it's not always treated that way by some). No Christian I know (and I know many from very, very conservative circles) considers the Bible's stance on homosexuality a cornestone of their beliefs.

By the way, anyone who is honest with themselves about the Bible would tell you that it does condemn name-calling, etc., applied to homosexuals or anyone else. See Matthew 5:22 on name-calling.

[Your use of the word "pontificating" is rather ironic, since it means "To act the pontiff, assume the airs of a pontiff; to behave or speak in a pompous or dogmatic manner" (OED). A pontiff is a priest, especially a bishop or the pope within the Catholic Church. The New Testament, however, actually says that all believers are priests - 1 Peter 2:9 - which is generally accepted in nonconformist (i.e., neither Catholic nor Anglican) denominations; therefore, accusing someone who considers him or herself a priest of acting like a priest is not in itself very convicting. The addition after the semi-colon in the definition quoted above, however, is definitely despicable.]

The splits caused by gay rights issues are not always as simple as one group not caring so much about same-sex marriage and one having their stance on it being "the cornestone of their faith;" rather, I think it's just an issue that tends to bring to a head the larger one of how strictly we should adhere to the Bible. You don't have to center your beliefs around homosexuality in order to want to go to a church that follows the Bible very closely (with condemning homosexual behavior as a side effect of that). Many people simply feel that we should not "edit" the Bible to make it more acceptable to modern values; that is a legitimate position that does not require the person to even necessarily know what the Bible says about homosexuality, but still end up on that side. For example, someone could say, "I'll only go to a church that teaches life was created in six literal days," if that was their belief (it's not mine, but that's a whole other topic), and almost certainly end up in a church that doesn't support gay marriage. The conflict is more, "Should we adapt the Bible to our own 'common sense' morality, or should we adapt our 'common sense' morality to the Bible?"

I, personally, am against ANY division in the church (1 Corinthians 3). I think gay rights receives way too much attention from Christians (I believe it's a sin to sleep with someone of the same sex, but greed is also a sin, and you certainly don't see many so-called "Christians" with signs that say "God Hates CEOs", or actively trying to get rights that enable greed outlawed).

Lastly, THANK YOU for saying that homophobia is "seen as prevalent" rather than just "prevalent" within Christian culture! Believe me, there are a lot of Christians (including conservatives, evangelicals, Baptists, etc.) that don't devote their lives to making people feel bad. It's just harder to get the news to print that someone isn't bigoted than that someone is (I'm not claiming media bias, just that it doesn't make an interesting story to write about people who don't make outrageous statements).

Well, I started off thinking this was a pretty silly topic, but it ended up being pretty interesting! Thanks.

What is written in the Word cannot be changed. Therein, nothing can change that the act of a man laying another man is an abomination. Therefore, I shall not look upon this question "out-side" the box, and therefore need I not.



Are you a bronze age Jew as well because those are perhaps the only people who followed tribal Levitican code letter for letter. Even so, there are many translations of the passage you refer as well as ambiguity as to whom exactly percieves the 'abomination' in question.

Well, I started off thinking this was a pretty silly topic, but it ended up being pretty interesting! Thanks.

Same here. I'm rarely a serious person but even when I'm being silly there is some seriousness within. You're welcome.

Wish I had more time. I'm in a posty mood today. :D

*sighs*

Kinda sucks to have to ask christians on the internet instead of the real life, huh?

Better to face one through a screen than through real talks...oi...

I don't know nor associate with enough Christians to make it a worthwhile discussion. Here and with this approach I get a wider view rather than an anomolous cluster.

The American Episcopalian Church is splitting from the Anglican Church over the appointment of a gay bishop.

That doesn't mean they are giving up their Christian beliefs. The last time

The reason I worded it as I did was that I get the impression that to a large number of Christians, anti-homosexual doctrine is the cornerstone of their faith. I cite for example the various splits in Christian churches brought to a head by gay marriage and an increasingly liberal stance within the church towards homosexuals and other social issues. (The Episcopal and Baptists for example)

The last time I checked Christianity was based on the belief in God and the belief in Jesus as your "Lord and Savior", not about homsexuality.

How would you feel about your faith if therein, homosexuality was recognised as a valid sexual orientation afforded all the trappings of "morality" including a divinely ordained same sex 'union' and condemned the name calling, pontifficating and exclusivity seen as prevalent within Christian culture with respect to this particular minority group?
First off, I want to say that I think Lanelia's long post just above was really good, so I'm not sure I have much to add to the points raised there.
My question to you, New Fuglies, is to do with a confusion I have over your original hypothesis.
Are you saying:
1) What if the writers of the Bible had either stated or strongly implied that God rejoices in homosexuality and homosexual practice?
or
2) What if there existed a really convincing argument that the passages in the Bible that appear to condemn homosexual practice are not relevant in the context of today's society?
or
3) What if a church denomination decided that homosexual practice was acceptable and good and pleasing to God, with or without a convincing Biblical basis to their position?
or
4) Some mix of the above 3?
or
5) something else entirely?

First off, I want to say that I think Lanelia's long post just above was really good, so I'm not sure I have much to add to the points raised there.
My question to you, New Fuglies, is to do with a confusion I have over your original hypothesis.
Are you saying:
1) What if the writers of the Bible had either stated or strongly implied that God rejoices in homosexuality and homosexual practice?
or
2) What if there existed a really convincing argument that the passages in the Bible that appear to condemn homosexual practice are not relevant in the context of today's society?
or
3) What if a church denomination decided that homosexual practice was acceptable and good and pleasing to God, with or without a convincing Biblical basis to their position?
or
4) Some mix of the above 3?
or
5) something else entirely?


What form it may take is irrelevant though I asked in essence if homosexual orientation and relationships were seen as equivalent to heterosexuality being a natural variance in human reproductive behavior.

Anyhoo I am so outta time and this server is sucking as bad as the old one. :(

BBL!

That doesn't mean they are giving up their Christian beliefs. The last time

No one said it did.

The last time I checked Christianity was based on the belief in God and the belief in Jesus as your "Lord and Savior", not about homsexuality.

Funny, that's what I keep telling people. However, there are a large number of "Christians" who seem to think that someone's stance on homosexuality determines their religion.

All in all, though, it is a pretty ridiculous hypothesis. Few people (I would hope) are Christians solely because the Bible condemns homosexual practice. You might as well ask, "What if the Bible said that God periodically appeared on Earth in the form of a woodchuck?"

I was right!!! I told Fuglies that this was a rediculous hypothetical.

What form it may take is irrelevant though I asked in essence if homosexual orientation and relationships were seen as equivalent to heterosexuality being a natural variance in human reproductive behavior.

Anyhoo I am so outta time and this server is sucking as bad as the old one. :(

BBL!
I see the form that your original hypothesis takes as highly relevant, as I, for one, would have highly different responses based on the three scenarios I described.
For the record, if my first option, that the Bible actively supported homosexual practice, was the case, then I too would support homosexual practice in the contexts that the Bible supported it.
If the second option were the case, that it could be shown that the Bible isn't really opposed to same-gender sexual activity the way it appears to be, then I would certainly consider supporting that position. Some people think this is already the case; I've read some Biblical arguments they've presented, and I'm not persuaded.
If it's my third option, that a denomination is in favour of homosexual practice, well, that's already the case with the Metropolitan City Church in the U.S. I'm not going to join them, because I think they are carefully distorting the Bible to suit their beliefs on this topic, rather than carefully changing their beliefs to line up with God's revealed will found in the Bible.

It's a shame your server connection is playing up; mine does too sometimes!

What is written in the Word cannot be changed. Therein, nothing can change that the act of a man laying another man is an abomination.
This is funny, because the Word has been changed, at least somewhat. There's no way you can expect to have a translation of a translation where this is not the case; some languages don't have words to express what other languages say.
If I recall correctly, the Old Testament's attack on homosexuality was actually derived from a word meaning the use of a young boy as a prostitute. So, in translation they could have said the Bible was against pedophilia or prostitution instead of homosexuality. If you want the true Word, you have to go find the version in the original language.

This is funny, because the Word has been changed, at least somewhat. There's no way you can expect to have a translation of a translation where this is not the case; some languages don't have words to express what other languages say.
If I recall correctly, the Old Testament's attack on homosexuality was actually derived from a word meaning the use of a young boy as a prostitute. So, in translation they could have said the Bible was against pedophilia or prostitution instead of homosexuality. If you want the true Word, you have to go find the version in the original language.

Not to mention that, in order to believe that the entire Bible is literally the word of God, you have to believe that Christ was born twice in different years, that Judas died twice in different ways, that creation happened twice in different orders and with different ends in mind, that slavery, genocide, and the denigration of women are all condoned by God, and that somehow an all-powerful God makes mistakes.

This is funny, because the Word has been changed, at least somewhat. There's no way you can expect to have a translation of a translation where this is not the case; some languages don't have words to express what other languages say.
If I recall correctly, the Old Testament's attack on homosexuality was actually derived from a word meaning the use of a young boy as a prostitute. So, in translation they could have said the Bible was against pedophilia or prostitution instead of homosexuality. If you want the true Word, you have to go find the version in the original language.
I get what you're saying here, at least, I think I do, but I have a few comments.
The first is that most Bibles today are not translations of translations, but go back to the earliest reliable manuscripts in the original languages (Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, 1st century Greek) to use for their translation. I've heard this charge levelled at the King James Version, but NIV, NASB, and many others are free from this particular problem. My currently used version (Updated New American Standard Bible) has Leviticus 18:22 as "You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination".
On your potential correct recollection, it depends who you talk to. Some biblical scholars would agree with you, some would disagree. Finding out the truth and separating out everyone's prejudices is very difficult, which is why I try never to base part of my life on one verse from the Bible, but am continuing to read the whole of the Bible to use as the moral foundation of my life.

Not to mention that, in order to believe that the entire Bible is literally the word of God, you have to believe that Christ was born twice in different years, that Judas died twice in different ways, that creation happened twice in different orders and with different ends in mind, that slavery, genocide, and the denigration of women are all condoned by God, and that somehow an all-powerful God makes mistakes.
This is a lot of claims to make all in one post. I have possible answers for some of them (the Judas one, the creation one, maybe some of the others), but I'll need you to be more specific, especially about the last one.

Not to mention that, in order to believe that the entire Bible is literally the word of God, you have to believe that Christ was born twice in different years, that Judas died twice in different ways, that creation happened twice in different orders and with different ends in mind, that slavery, genocide, and the denigration of women are all condoned by God, and that somehow an all-powerful God makes mistakes.
My personal belief is that the Bible is mostly the Word of God, but mankind screwed some of it up.
Some of your examples have explanations, though. For example, the reason the creation stories are confusing can be explained thusly: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1) happens several millenia before Genesis 1:2. Lucifer being ejected from heaven messed the world up pretty bad, and 1:2 to the end of that creation story are acutally cleaning up the mess. This part is all introduction. Then, at 2:4, the real story begins.
As for Judas' death, not all of the writers of the Gospels were there when Judas died, so it's quite possible that that part is word-of-mouth.

This is a lot of claims to make all in one post. I have possible answers for some of them (the Judas one, the creation one, maybe some of the others), but I'll need you to be more specific, especially about the last one.

Creation:
Priestly and Yahwistic accounts of creation, both with a different focus and events happening in different orders and ways.

Slavery:
OT laws regulating it and explicitly stating that slaves are property. And before you start talking about letting them go in the year of Jubilee, that only applied to male, Hebrew slaves. Even then you could coerce them into staying by holding their wife or child hostage.

Genocide:
Canaan.

Denigration of women:
Mostly OT laws. For instance, women were ceremonially unclean for twice as long after a female child than a male one. Women were expected to prove their virginity through a method that really means nothing, while males were not. Women were forced to marry their rapists. Female Hebrews could be sold into life-long slavery, while male Hebrews could not. Etc.

Mistakes:

In the second account of creation in Genesis, God has to try every single animal on the planet before figuring out that the perfect "helper" for Adam would be a female human being.

In the account of the flood, God regrets having done it, thus implying a mistake.

In the version of the Bible that most have read, Moses parts the Red Sea (correctly translated, this would be sea of reeds which would not be a problem and would make a whole lot more sense), suggesting that God got lost on the way to Sinai and led the Israelites in a circle.

A law supposedly written by God states that bleeding during the first sexual encounter is a sure-fire way to know whether or not a woman is a virgin, which we now know to be entirely wrong.

A law supposedly written by God states that a woman who doesn't cry out and get heard and rescued within a town (with no exception for those who are incapacitated or threatened) obviously wanted to have sex and cannot possibly have been raped. [[Imagine if we instituted this one in New York]]

Those are the first that come to mind, but I know I have found others in my reading. There are two possible explanations - 1) God is not omnipotent or 2) The Bible was written by flawed human beings who got some things wrong.

My personal belief is that the Bible is mostly the Word of God, but mankind screwed some of it up.
Some of your examples have explanations, though. For example, the reason the creation stories are confusing can be explained thusly: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1) happens several millenia before Genesis 1:2. Lucifer being ejected from heaven messed the world up pretty bad, and 1:2 to the end of that creation story are acutally cleaning up the mess. This part is all introduction. Then, at 2:4, the real story begins.

Did Lucifer being ejected from heaven somehow kill off all the human beings and animals already on the planet? Also, if God had already created males and females, why did God get confused and offer all the animals as helpers when a good helper was already known?

If you read up on it, you would find that there are two very separate creation stories, written by two different authors.

As for Lucifer being ejected from heaven, that isn't even Biblical. The idea of Satan was added to Jewish theology after the Babylonian exile.

As for Judas' death, not all of the writers of the Gospels were there when Judas died, so it's quite possible that that part is word-of-mouth.

Exactly, as is most of the Bible. Divinely inspired? Probably much of it was. Divinely written? Absolutely not.

Thus, every law, etc. must be examined in light of the entirety of Christian ideal as well as with quite a bit of prayer and reflection and belief that God will lead you to the correct conclusion. In this way, I have come to the conclusion that the condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible was created by human beings, not God. This is only further solidified by the fact that all biological evidence shows that a range of sexuality is perfectly natural, and is certainly not a choice that the person/animal makes.

Did Lucifer being ejected from heaven somehow kill off all the human beings and animals already on the planet? Also, if God had already created males and females, why did God get confused and offer all the animals as helpers when a good helper was already known?
I agree with your post, except for this part. Effectively, Lucifer's fall from heaven was the meteor that killed the dinosaurs, or something similar (if it is not in fact an invention of man as you have stated). Also, God did create animals first; in my translation, at least, the text you are refferring to said God had made the animals. It was just at this point that He brought them to man.
As to the creation of man and woman, Genesis 1:27 (which is part of the introduction) says that God created man and woman, not that He created them at exactly the same time. It's a perfectly logical assumption that God created man, brought the animals he had already made to where man was, then decided to make woman.

But yes, I agree that it could have been two different authors. I just don't find the two accounts all that contradictory.

EDIT: By the way, the comment about sexuality was unneccessary, as I completely agree that homosexuality is acceptable. Imagine that, a Christian that supports homosexuality! It must be a sign of the appocolypse! ;)

Creation:
Priestly and Yahwistic accounts of creation, both with a different focus and events happening in different orders and ways.

Slavery:
OT laws regulating it and explicitly stating that slaves are property. And before you start talking about letting them go in the year of Jubilee, that only applied to male, Hebrew slaves. Even then you could coerce them into staying by holding their wife or child hostage.

Genocide:
Canaan.

Denigration of women:
Mostly OT laws. For instance, women were ceremonially unclean for twice as long after a female child than a male one. Women were expected to prove their virginity through a method that really means nothing, while males were not. Women were forced to marry their rapists. Female Hebrews could be sold into life-long slavery, while male Hebrews could not. Etc.

Mistakes:

In the second account of creation in Genesis, God has to try every single animal on the planet before figuring out that the perfect "helper" for Adam would be a female human being.

In the account of the flood, God regrets having done it, thus implying a mistake.

In the version of the Bible that most have read, Moses parts the Red Sea (correctly translated, this would be sea of reeds which would not be a problem and would make a whole lot more sense), suggesting that God got lost on the way to Sinai and led the Israelites in a circle.

A law supposedly written by God states that bleeding during the first sexual encounter is a sure-fire way to know whether or not a woman is a virgin, which we now know to be entirely wrong.

A law supposedly written by God states that a woman who doesn't cry out and get heard and rescued within a town (with no exception for those who are incapacitated or threatened) obviously wanted to have sex and cannot possibly have been raped. [[Imagine if we instituted this one in New York]]

Those are the first that come to mind, but I know I have found others in my reading. There are two possible explanations - 1) God is not omnipotent or 2) The Bible was written by flawed human beings who got some things wrong.
(Uh, oh, he called my bluff, I'll have to come up with something)
Not pretending to have concrete answers to all these, but here's a few ideas.
Creation: The two sequential accounts are not contradictory, but complementary.
Genocide: God gets to determine if a society has slid too far to continue (child sacrifice and all kinds of incest, bestiality etc. were common in Canaan at the time of the Exodus).
Helper: God brought the animals to Adam for him to name, not as potential "helpers".
Flood: Can I have the verse where God "regretted" the flood? If you mean Gen. 6:6, my version has "The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart", which is about the creation, not the flood, and it doesn't quite imply error, more sadness.
Moses: My Bible has "sea of reeds" as well.

For the other stuff (all OT as far as I can see), all I have to suggest is that God was speaking to a Late-Bronze-age, tribally-based society in the Ancient Near East, and that context does matter. God was calling a people to be his own, and giving them a law code centered around Him, but He didn't pretend they were in the 21st century, just as He doesn't pretend that we're 1st century Greeks or Jews, living under the Roman empire. I believe that the Sinai law code improved the rights of women and slaves significantly over the cultural norms of the day, but to judge a child by adult standards is wrong, and to judge Bronze-agers by modern standards is also wrong.

I might have missed something, or you might just feel my answer is inadequate. I'm kinda tired now (in the U.K.!), so I'm going to bed!

How would you feel about your faith if therein, homosexuality was recognised as a valid sexual orientation afforded all the trappings of "morality" including a divinely ordained same sex 'union' and condemned the name calling, pontifficating and exclusivity seen as prevalent within Christian culture with respect to this particular minority group?
I agree with Vittos in that this is very very very hypothetical.

But, hypothetically, I would be fine with it. I'm not a homophobe: I actually have several gay friends.

I just think it's wrong. I don't go around damning gay people to hell or anything, I just think it's wrong. If I knew the Bible to say otherwise, then I wouldn't think it was wrong, I just wouldn't want to be gay because I'm straight...that's all there is to it...

I get what you're saying here, at least, I think I do, but I have a few comments.
The first is that most Bibles today are not translations of translations, but go back to the earliest reliable manuscripts in the original languages (Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, 1st century Greek) to use for their translation. I've heard this charge levelled at the King James Version, but NIV, NASB, and many others are free from this particular problem. My currently used version (Updated New American Standard Bible) has Leviticus 18:22 as "You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination".
On your potential correct recollection, it depends who you talk to. Some biblical scholars would agree with you, some would disagree. Finding out the truth and separating out everyone's prejudices is very difficult, which is why I try never to base part of my life on one verse from the Bible, but am continuing to read the whole of the Bible to use as the moral foundation of my life.

So you belive in everything the bible says no exeptions?

I agree with Vittos in that this is very very very hypothetical.

But, hypothetically, I would be fine with it. I'm not a homophobe: I actually have several gay friends.

I just think it's wrong. I don't go around damning gay people to hell or anything, I just think it's wrong. If I knew the Bible to say otherwise, then I wouldn't think it was wrong, I just wouldn't want to be gay because I'm straight...that's all there is to it...


Actually it isn't hypothetical at all as this is the direction some denominations are moving and it's sending shockwaves through the respective churches. Not only with respect to gay rights issues but an overall liberalization of church doctrine. Lastly, and this is a bit away from my original point, the usage of homophobe as a noun I myself find imprecise and somewhat offensive. Behaviorally speaking, on a very fundamental level, most people are homophobic not excluding homosexuals. Having gay friends or even being gay does not necessarily make one not homophobic though I'd personally never use 'homophobe' to label them. IMHO it's part of the human condition and how it factors into religion and society is what I find most interesting.

I was right!!! I told Fuglies that this was a rediculous hypothetical.

No more rediculous than spelling ridiculous "rediculous" AGAIN :mad: and the 'hypothetical' biblical approval of homosexuality no greater nor less than that of heterosexuality it seem is the idea not correctly understood.

As a christian I and my church love people even if they are homosexual. However we do not love or agree with the homosexuality which is an abomination to the bible - what our faith is based upon. How can someone be homosexual and a christian... it just is not possible, they are clearly disobeying what God has commande of them and therefore are being completely hypocritical.

I see the form that your original hypothesis takes as highly relevant, as I, for one, would have highly different responses based on the three scenarios I described.
For the record, if my first option, that the Bible actively supported homosexual practice, was the case, then I too would support homosexual practice in the contexts that the Bible supported it.
If the second option were the case, that it could be shown that the Bible isn't really opposed to same-gender sexual activity the way it appears to be, then I would certainly consider supporting that position. Some people think this is already the case; I've read some Biblical arguments they've presented, and I'm not persuaded.
If it's my third option, that a denomination is in favour of homosexual practice, well, that's already the case with the Metropolitan City Church in the U.S. I'm not going to join them, because I think they are carefully distorting the Bible to suit their beliefs on this topic, rather than carefully changing their beliefs to line up with God's revealed will found in the Bible.

It's a shame your server connection is playing up; mine does too sometimes!

Not much to say but why do people "practice homosexuality" when it is not a skill, profession nor habit nor necessarily a lifelong desire to get really good at it? :D

*shrugs*

(Uh, oh, he called my bluff, I'll have to come up with something)

she

(Not pretending to have concrete answers to all these, but here's a few ideas.
Creation: The two sequential accounts are not contradictory, but complementary.

If you go back to original texts and translate directly, they are not. Also, theological scholars agree that they are not - this isn't just me talking out of my rear end here.

(Genocide: God gets to determine if a society has slid too far to continue (child sacrifice and all kinds of incest, bestiality etc. were common in Canaan at the time of the Exodus).

Infants and young children have nothing to do with "how far society has slid." Women at the time had no choice in the matter.

On top of that, God didn't kill them. God supposedly told the Israelites, also flawed human beings, to do so. I don't think that God condones human beings committing genocide on other human beings. It is an evil act. Period.

(Helper: God brought the animals to Adam for him to name, not as potential "helpers".

Haven't read much of Genesis, have you?

Genesis 2:18-20
"18 Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’ 19So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. "

This clearly states that God expected one of the animals to work as a partner or helper.

(Flood: Can I have the verse where God "regretted" the flood? If you mean Gen. 6:6, my version has "The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart", which is about the creation, not the flood, and it doesn't quite imply error, more sadness.

You are right, that is what I was thinking of. And regret always implies error. If you are sorry that you created man, you wish you hadn't done it - you think you were in error to do so.

(For the other stuff (all OT as far as I can see), all I have to suggest is that God was speaking to a Late-Bronze-age, tribally-based society in the Ancient Near East, and that context does matter. God was calling a people to be his own, and giving them a law code centered around Him, but He didn't pretend they were in the 21st century, just as He doesn't pretend that we're 1st century Greeks or Jews, living under the Roman empire. I believe that the Sinai law code improved the rights of women and slaves significantly over the cultural norms of the day, but to judge a child by adult standards is wrong, and to judge Bronze-agers by modern standards is also wrong.

Judging ancient human beings by current standards would be silly. However, an all-good God cannot condone evil, regardless of what society is like. Your statement implies that society controls God, thus taking away the omnipotence of God.

Personally, I do not believe that God is controlled by human society. A more correct idea might be that the people of the time believed slavery, genocide, and the denigration of women was just fine. Since they believed this, they thought it came from God. They were wrong.

As a christian I and my church love people even if they are homosexual. However we do not love or agree with the homosexuality which is an abomination to the bible - what our faith is based upon. How can someone be homosexual and a christian... it just is not possible, they are clearly disobeying what God has commande of them and therefore are being completely hypocritical.

How can someone force themselves to do something that is unnatural to them? That is what you ask when you say someone should "stop being homosexual." It would be like pointing at me and saying "stop having your period, right now!" or telling a child in puberty "stop growing pubic hair!"

How would you feel about your faith if therein, homosexuality was recognised as a valid sexual orientation afforded all the trappings of "morality" including a divinely ordained same sex 'union' and condemned the name calling, pontifficating and exclusivity seen as prevalent within Christian culture with respect to this particular minority group?

If the Bible said clearly that homosexaulity is endorcable and good then I personally would have no problem with it. A lot of people make the mistake in the current climate that the seemingly homophobic attitude of the church is a very significent part of the Christian faith. Its not.

I am a worshipper of an extremely small denomination of christianity, we do not believe in the inherent evil of Homosexuality. Unfortunately there are tons of bible thumpers out there who want to judge people and not actually forgive like Jesus Christ taught us to and thus christians as a whole seem hypocritical.

Actually it isn't hypothetical at all as this is the direction some denominations are moving and it's sending shockwaves through the respective churches. Not only with respect to gay rights issues but an overall liberalization of church doctrine. Lastly, and this is a bit away from my original point, the usage of homophobe as a noun I myself find imprecise and somewhat offensive. Behaviorally speaking, on a very fundamental level, most people are homophobic not excluding homosexuals. Having gay friends or even being gay does not necessarily make one not homophobic though I'd personally never use 'homophobe' to label them. IMHO it's part of the human condition and how it factors into religion and society is what I find most interesting.

Homophobe would be someone who is afraid of gay people. Arachnaphobes aren't friends with spiders and claustraphobes don't like closets and acrophobes don't actively spend time in high places. A lot of people say they are homophobes when they're not. Similarly, a lot of people say they are Christians when they're not.
Many terms are used far too loosely nowadays.

Homophobe would be someone who is afraid of gay people.

Yes, and hydrophobic materials are afraid of water.

Get over it, phobic can refer to fear or extreme dislike.