Homosexuality in the Bible

[angellous_evangellous]

The saddest thing of all is that Christians find themselves scrambling to find a way around the 'authority' of Scripture so that we may Love as Christ loves us.

luna

I've been thinking about this and I don't know what you mean.

 

[lunamoth]

bump to see A_E's post (I hope)

 

[lunamoth]

I've been thinking about this and I don't know what you mean.

I mean that there is a lot in scripture that is used as an excuse to not love each other, to not treat each other as full humans, as we would wish to be treated.

 

[sojourner]

That sojourner's statement fits this definition is more than obvious.

That is such bull hockey! s2 disparages the Bible as fiction, then turns around and treats some passages as truth: "The Bible says that homosexuality is wrong." He doesn't get to have it both ways. Either he repsects it (and gets to use it) or he doesn't. Since he's not a Christian, it follows that he does not respect the authority of the Bible. Therefore, he doesn't get to claim its authority when it's to his advantage. The fallacy here is tha s2 is trying to have his cake and eat it too.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That is such bull hockey! s2 disparages the Bible as fiction, then turns around and treats some passages as truth: "The Bible says that homosexuality is wrong." He doesn't get to have it both ways. Either he repsects it (and gets to use it) or he doesn't. Since he's not a Christian, it follows that he does not respect the authority of the Bible. Therefore, he doesn't get to claim its authority when it's to his advantage. The fallacy here is tha s2 is trying to have his cake and eat it too.

But s2a is allowed to show how we can't have our cake and eat it, too.

Isn't that the goal of life?: hamster :

 

[Pah]

That is such bull hockey! s2 disparages the Bible as fiction, then turns around and treats some passages as truth: "The Bible says that homosexuality is wrong." He doesn't get to have it both ways. Either he repsects it (and gets to use it) or he doesn't. Since he's not a Christian, it follows that he does not respect the authority of the Bible. Therefore, he doesn't get to claim its authority when it's to his advantage. The fallacy here is tha s2 is trying to have his cake and eat it too.

Whoa! There is no compulsion to recognize the Bible, as most faithful do, as authority and especially so in the secular matter of homosexuality. Since the argument AGAINST homosexuality is bible based it is the authority on which arguments are made, pro and con. A perfect example is within the Christian world where the bible was the grounds for the argument both for and against slavery and used by seciular organizatrions in concert with elements of Christian organizations.

Authority is a word with two meanings here. One the authority of governence and the other the authority for argument. I don't have to have respect for Mein Kampf or any other book to use it as argument. That you invest other meanings to the Bible and recognize a different authority incoprporated in it does not give you a right to sole usage in an argument.

I happen to respect the Bible but not as you do and I'll continue to use it, as neccessary, as referential authority in arguing against it and some faithful wrongly taking it as support.

Understanding what the bible says is not confined to just those who place faith in it.

 

[sojourner]

But s2a is allowed to show how we can't have our cake and eat it, too.

I object to this word. Yes, there are many who do try to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak. I don't feel I'm one of them.

But s2a isn't allowed to set an arbitrary standard for either the Bible, or how we interpret it. He (I'm assuming he's a "he" -- apologies if he's a "she...") creates a trap, whereby we're either damned if we do, or damned if we don't. The only way we can avoid his trap is to simply not put God into the equation, which is exactly what an atheist would want us to do.

However, the truth, as the Christian understands it, is that God cannot be taken out of the equation, because God is the equation. It's this fundamental adherence to and insistence upon that truth that s2a banks on to make his arguments seem plausible. His stance with regard to the implausibility of God obfuscates any argument about homosexuality in the Bible, because the Bible itself (which is the subject of the entire argument) assumes the existence and worth of God.

The basis for his argument is predicated upon the Bible having qualities it does not have. That's why he can't argue what he's arguing. he insists that, if we're going to treat the Bible as authoritative, then we must follow blindly what it says. Problem is, following the Bible is not like following road signs, because the Bible is not only a set of baseline-interpretation law...and those parts that are law are always up for interpretation and review, just like civil law.

He insists that "the Bible is the Bible," placing an arbitrary absoluteness upon the Bible that I just don't place on it. Maybe some folks do, but I don't. And because, I don't, then, according to s2a's arbitrary criteria, I'm not a "real" Christian -- I'm a hypocrite, not following "what the Bible says."

The real trouble is that s2a is placing an arbitrary Biblical value upon a societal issue, based upon a very, very limited number of scripural passages. He doesn't weigh the anti-homosexual passages against either the social mores of the day vs. the social mores of our day, or against the great preponderance of passages that speak of love, forbearance, and mercy. Apparently (attempting to wade through pages of rhetoric) his stance is that the Bible is wrong because it summarily condemns homosexuality, and that Christians are either giving lip service to loving their neighbors, or they're hypocritical, not following what the Bible says.

I think that is an unfair judgment of the Bible, and an unfair condemnation of those who follow Christ. I try very, very hard to reconcile condemnational statements with inclusionary statements. Yes, the Bible does condemn homosexuality in a limited number of places. But it also promotes love, acceptance, forbearance, mercy, and grace in many, many, many more places. In wrestling with the conundrum, I finally have to err on the side of mercy and forbearance -- and I don't think that's a hypocritical or unreasonable stance to take. No matter what s2a thinks. I don't have to justify my interpretation of the Bible to someone who neither respects its authority, or respects my beliefs. Yet, that's precisely what he's hoping to get me to do.

 

[sojourner]

Whoa! There is no compulsion to recognize the Bible, as most faithful do, as authority and especially so in the secular matter of homosexuality. Since the argument AGAINST homosexuality is bible based it is the authority on which arguments are made, pro and con. A perfect example is within the Christian world where the bible was the grounds for the argument both for and against slavery and used by seciular organizatrions in concert with elements of Christian organizations.

Authority is a word with two meanings here. One the authority of governence and the other the authority for argument. I don't have to have respect for Mein Kampf or any other book to use it as argument. That you invest other meanings to the Bible and recognize a different authority incoprporated in it does not give you a right to sole usage in an argument.

I happen to respect the Bible but not as you do and I'll continue to use it, as neccessary, as referential authority in arguing against it and some faithful wrongly taking it as support.

Understanding what the bible says is not confined to just those who place faith in it.

We're not talking about the secular matter of homosexuality. We're talking about homosexuality in the Bible.

I'm not claiming "sole usage." I'm claiming that one can't hold others to a standard of acceptance that they, themselves are not willing to hold. I'm claiming that, since s2a does not claim the Bible as authoritative, he doesn't get to hold that authority over our heads.

But understanding what we understand the Bible to say is confined to those who place faith in it.

 

[Pah]

We're not talking about the secular matter of homosexuality. We're talking about homosexuality in the Bible.

I'm not claiming "sole usage." I'm claiming that one can't hold others to a standard of acceptance that they, themselves are not willing to hold. I'm claiming that, since s2a does not claim the Bible as authoritative, he doesn't get to hold that authority over our heads.

But understanding what we understand the Bible to say is confined to those who place faith in it.

What you have is a personal standard of acceptance based upon a personal interpretation (I'll include congragational as personal but even that is not truely personal nor is it the denominational dogma). I can easily say personal becuase there is no external, unanimous, eternal interpretation on which to base a standard. One need only witness the plethora of denominations and dogmas to understand that it is not standard.There is no guarantee that, even with relevelation, that your version is correct for there are many contradictory revealed truths. A fairly recent internet pool (self-initiated and a small number not to statistical standard), showed that when a person praying about homosexuality was predesposed to God accepting homosexuality, the answer from God, if there was an answer, matched whatever was presupposed. All religious truth would thus seem to be subjective. Being subjective, that truth is always open to argument whether you choose to debate it or not.

So.... even a non-believer has the human right to challange whatever is within your standard.

 

[sojourner]

What you have is a personal standard of acceptance based upon a personal interpretation (I'll include congragational as personal but even that is not truely personal nor is it the denominational dogma). I can easily say personal becuase there is no external, unanimous, eternal interpretation on which to base a standard. One need only witness the plethora of denominations and dogmas to understand that it is not standard.There is no guarantee that, even with relevelation, that your version is correct for there are many contradictory revealed truths. A fairly recent internet pool (self-initiated and a small number not to statistical standard), showed that when a person praying about homosexuality was predesposed to God accepting homosexuality, the answer from God, if there was an answer, matched whatever was presupposed. All religious truth would thus seem to be subjective. Being subjective, that truth is always open to argument whether you choose to debate it or not.

So.... even a non-believer has the human right to challange whatever is within your standard.

I understand all that. What I'm saying is that s2a is holding all Christians captive to the standards that he thinks we either 1) say we adhere to, or 2) he thinks we should adhere to. Plus, he's taking something that, admittedly, is a largely personal and individual thing, and twisting into something systemic. Since he's not one of us, he has no idea what we either say, or should adhere to. Since he's not me, he's made it very clear in his posts that he has no idea where I'm coming from. he just keeps insisting, basically, that I'm a fundy hypocrite. And having no idea, how can he mount a reasonable challenge? That's why I said a long time ago that his efforts are largely Quixotic.

 

[lunamoth]

I might not have caught all of the posts by both Soj and s2A, but a couple of times it did strike me that s2A was saying that because some other Christians interpret the Bible one way, then Soj needs to defend why he does not understand it that way. That's also not a fair way to debate. But I also don't think there is any productive way to debate this issue based upon Biblical authority.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

that I'm a fundy hypocrite.

Surely you mean a homophobic Bible-thumping conservative evangelical fundie wacko.



Or the little spawn of Satan hisself:

 

[Pah]

I might not have caught all of the posts by both Soj and s2A, but a couple of times it did strike me that s2A was saying that because some other Christians interpret the Bible one way, then Soj needs to defend why he does not understand it that way. That's also not a fair way to debate. But I also don't think there is any productive way to debate this issue based upon Biblical authority.

Sorry, I seem to "misplaced" this thread.

Debate can take place around two conflicting opinions by either challanging the others position or by justifing their own. I think that shows there are four basic avenues of debate.

Doesn't, then, s2a ask for a justification of sojourner's position vis a vis another standard. It would be the same if sojourner had stated a position first and then was challanged by another position.

Hope that's not too convoluted.

 

[sojourner]

Doesn't, then, s2a ask for a justification of sojourner's position vis a vis another standard.

It seems to me that s2a states what he thinks my position and impetus are, and then asks me to justify myself based upon those mistaken presuppositions. One cannot mount a reasonable argument from a faulty presupposition.

 

[s2a]

Oh my...leave the the room for a few days, and then everybody wants to talk about you. ;-)

Time to clarify and answer a few allegations lent here...

When I said:
Odd thing is, and virtually to the individual man and mind of the most quotable and saliently introspective philosophers of ages both historical and contemporary, none [and that's a small number] have ever chosen to declare their expositions/ruminations as enforceable law, or some ultimate dispensation of unequivocal "truth". Funny how the Christian religion never really condones that "path"...

Sojourner answered:

That's a fine observation, but philosophy and theology are two different disciplines. While philosophy wrestles with questions about humanity, theology wrestles with issues of the divine. I'm not really sure why some treat theology as an engine for answering questions as opposed to an engine for generating questions.

Well gee whiz. I can't answer as to why some folks substitute superstition as superior to reason and introspection either. Maybe one option is easier than the other to follow?

Sojourner continued:

I do know that some, repeat, some books of the Bible contain Law. It follows, then, that some do not. I'm not convinced, though, that the Law should be treated as immutable or unchageable.

Can you provide, submit, or point towards some authoritative "legal" source that you feel--as a self-professed Christian--readily or circumstantially questions, or sufficiently invalidates Scriptural "Law"? You say that you are "unconvinced" as to...what? The "authority" of the Bible itself, or the Bible as inerrant testament of God's Word? If interpretation of Scripture is/was "designed" to be an utterly subjective (ie., a uniquely personal revelation) derivation of revealed faith, then why bother with putting any of IT in written word? Couldn't the Holy Ghost deliver personal revelation (to anyone) absent any dogmatic text or "set of rules for living"? Or is it just because the printers of those "Read the Bible" bumper stickers would have to look for other work instead?

God knows, mortal man puts established laws to print, so that all may know and appreciate exactly what is "legal", and what is not. Man-made (or established) laws are not readily subject to personal interpretations of acceptance or convenience purely upon how one "feels" about a given law.

We certainly fiddle around with civil law a lot in this country! (While the Levitican Law certainly condemns homosexual behavior, I'm not sure that law is paricularly applicable in this time and place, just as the law concerning garments of mixed cloth is not applicable in this time and place.)

Special pleading for non sequitur exception.

I offer no case in either support or in defense of Levitican Law. US law is not predicated upon, nor does it reference, Biblical edict or commandment as foundation. Hence, the resultant idea (and ideal) of a pluralistically secular government and system of likewise enforceable justice.

When I said:
The Bible (in OT and NT) seems to be of the position that "God's Word" is the only authority that can lend discernible truth or answer to those niggling existentialist questions of "Why am I here?"; "What am I supposed to do while I'm here?"; and, "What happens when I die?".

You offered:

While the Bible certainly takes the position that God's word is final, it can be reasonably argued that the Bible is only part of God's word. God's word also comes to us through Tradition and through revelation.

Interesting.
[Most Pagan rituals are predicated upon "tradition". So are most justified and rationalized biases and prejudices.]
How is a just and moral society to then accurately determine what "percentage" of the Bible is "final", and which parts are "partial" (or oblique), and which remaining bits are "open" to some claimed and specifically personalized "interpretation" and "revelation"?
10%? 30%? 60%?
Is there any passage, anywhere in the Bible itself, that suggests such a concept, or supports such an open path? Just where in Scripture does the Holy Ghost whisper into the ear of the newly delivered that "God's Word" is purely subjective and open to personalized interpretation?

I think we make a mistake when we treat the printed words of the Bible as the absolute word of God, and the only word of God.

I'd like to introduce you to a few Baptists I know (and a few million more I have yet to meet)...who might just quibble with your conclusion. As to whom is more greatly "mistaken" in this conflict of interpretation, is not of my interest or concern to resolve.

We must remember that the Bible is largely a matter of "somebody said that God said this." Many reputable (and the great preponderance of liberal scholars) treat the Bible as "second-hand information" in this regard.

I know. I'm just a tad more skeptical than they are...;-)

We do rely on the Bible to help us wrestle with these questions. We also rely on our religious leadership, as well as personal revelation in the matter.

How convenient. If your personal sensibilities do not align with Scripture, you can righteously justify them as a personally revealed (and admittedly) individualized truth. May I say, um...how atheistic of you. ;-)
The only comparative difference between you and I, is that you factor supernaturalistic cause/effect explanations into your cognitive equations, and I don't.

I said:
Noted philosophers since the dawn of recorded history have sought to provide concrete (or suggestive) answer to such direct, yet such complex inquiries remain extant today, with multitudinous profound "answers".

You said:

There are probably not definitive answers to these questions. To make theology an absolute in these matters is a salve for the burning questions, at best. To blanket these questions with God is, in a certain sense, applying a panacaea, if one does not then go further to ponder the same questions again from a divine angle. The "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" approach doesn't wash with me.

Funny. That rationale doesn't work for me either. Brother atheist! ;-)

You quoted me...
I appreciate your derivative evaluation and conclusion as offered "interpretation" (regarding the faithful acceptability of homosexual practices and behavior), but for many Christians (and self-professed skeptics alike), even faith-based rationalizations must eventually be predicated upon some "final word", or compelling presented and referenced evidence(s) that utterly dispel the most prevailing notions of reasonable doubt. For Christians, the "final word" is always sourced from [dogmatic] Biblical Scripture. If the NT suggests that "being gay is OK with God", then where is the definitive C&V that testifies as much? After all, consider the intended audience of the day of the NT...still overwhelmingly illiterate, unschooled, and prone to motivations/actions borne of fear and ignorance. Wouldn't it have been just as easy for Jesus to say "being gay is OK", and therefore forever removed the bias, prejudice, fear, and hatred focused upon homosexuals for over two thousand years running now?

I mean, c'mon. Either God changed His mind about homosexuality, and sent Jesus to clear things up (plainly) for the rest of humanity to accept and understand...or He didn't...and all you shellfish-eatin', workin' on the Sabbath, tampon-wearin', idol-bearing adherent faithful are just deluding yourselves into an eternal weenie roast in Hellfire and damnation.

You then replied:

Not always, and certainly not all Christians. Only those who insist upon 1) infallibility of scripture and 2) a literalistic reading of the same use the "final word" paradigm. Some of us aren't so sure the "word" is so final.

I'm of the position that NONE of "the word" is final. Would you care to share--specifically--WHICH parts (in cited C&V) of Scripture you're not so sure about? If you're going to beg exception from strict or literal adherence to "God's Word" as put forth in the Bible, at least then I would know which parts of which you might claim personal exemption (or especial revealed enlightenment)...and would not bother to make question of further in your regard.

Except that God never said, "Homosexuality is wrong."

God never said, "Don't invest in Enron" either.
God never said, "Don't build nukes".
There's plenty of things that "God never said" in the Bible...but what He did say would tend to cover/obviate the oft-quoted exceptions that prospective "interpreters" choose to cite for themselves.

 

[s2a]

(continuing...)
sojourner said:

Somebody -- some human being -- said that homosexuality is abominable in God's sight.

Leviticus 18:22 (21st Century King James Version):
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination."

Yer right...somebody said that...

But then, of course, it also depends upon which translation/interpretation you care to employ as, um, most likely(?) to be God's Word:

Leviticus 18:22:

KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination" (wow...deju vu!).
NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination .
NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.
LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"
ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."
Net Bible: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act."

Shall I go on...? Do any of these interpretations even hint or leave open the idea that "Homosexuality is OK" with God?

Now, just to exemplify my utter "misunderstanding" of what these translations/interpretations suggest (being, after all, the product of "some human being"), I'll note that some Biblical liturgists/scholars have the audacity to suggest that this passage [actually means to] prohibits "believers" from engaging in certain (popular) Pagan fertility rituals, which included that icky guy-guy sex, as well as same-sex male prostitution.

To enhance this more "liberal" perspective of Leviticus 18:22, it has been observed that:
"Many would regard "abomination," "enormous sin", etc. as particularly poor translations of the original Hebrew word which really means "ritually unclean" within an ancient Israelite era. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BCE) translated "to'ebah " into Greek as "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity. If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word "zimah."
Source

Why this more likely explanation (err, interpretation/revelation, whatever) is not more widely held by the overwhelming majority of Christians today, I will not presume to offer any particular definitive rationale as to why this may be so, beyond the fact that believers tend to (as you suggest) "rely on our [their] religious leadership, as well as [their own] personal revelation".

Maybe the issue of homosexuality is 1) more of a gray area to modern, Western humanity than it was to ancient, Eastern humanity, and 2) being given way too much importance by fundamental Christians than it should be. Neither Jesus (nor the gospel writers) appear to be too concerned about the issue.

Who knows? Maybe Jesus was gay, and didn't want to press the issue. Maybe religion at it's very core is inherently divisive, and seeks to define the entirety of humanity as being "us" and (or vs.) "them". Maybe blaming or fearing others--that look different, act different, behave different, or believe (something) different--for your own ills, doubts, and daily travails, is the easiest and most expedient way of exercising and maintaining control over the most ignorant and disenfranchised amongst us.

I don't think it's that God has "changed God's mind." I think that it's a simple issue of modern humanity holding a different world view and relating to God in a different way than our ancestors did.

We can still hope so...since superstition is a poor foundation for critical decision making.

Holding the very human document of the Bible to a different standard of infallibility and immutability than any other human document is a big mistake.

According to...you? About those Baptists I mentioned...

And just for the record, could you outline a universal standard of infallibility and immutability to fairly test any/all human documents? ;-)

For some of us, the Bible does not define the absolute extent of human righteous behavior, as it is read literalistically. Like the Constitution, we interpret its truths based upon the perspective of our own day.

The Constitution does not presume to speak for God, or His intentions, nor declare any "self-evident truths" (see the Declaration of Independence for those).
The Constitution provides for a Supreme Court...to evaluate, and either codify or invalidate, man-made law as it may apply to constitutional principles themselves. The Bible neither speaks to, nor suggests of, any similar mechanism. Period. The two "documents" are not comparable, in any salient way whatsoever.

That is such bull hockey! s2 disparages the Bible as fiction, then turns around and treats some passages as truth: "The Bible says that homosexuality is wrong." He doesn't get to have it both ways.

Yes...I do. I am not required to substantiate Biblical claims. I can cite Biblical claims of "truth", without holding any of them personally dear or universally inviolate.

Either he repsects it (and gets to use it) or he doesn't. Since he's not a Christian, it follows that he does not respect the authority of the Bible. Therefore, he doesn't get to claim its authority when it's to his advantage. The fallacy here is tha s2 is trying to have his cake and eat it too.

Nope. Your rationale is one borne of special pleading. Either the Bible IS the authoritative "word of God", or it's not. I can not testify for, nor do I seek to substantiate, the validity/veracity/authority of any claims of Biblical Scripture. The burden of proof rests solely upon the claimant.

I respect ascertainable and independently verifiable fact. Superstition, hocus-pocus, invisible (yet supposedly omnipresently veritable) deities--unverifiable, untestable, and unmeasurable claims--proffered as immutable truths or undeniable facts...absent any valid and repeatable independent validation; is so much...bunk.

Some one else observed that...

But s2a is allowed to show how we can't have our cake and eat it, too.

Sojourner said:

I object to this word. Yes, there are many who do try to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak. I don't feel I'm one of them.

And I would never join a club that wouldn't admit me as a member. I revel in such a reassuring self-fulfillment. Can I offer therefore you some lovely cake? It's delicious...

But s2a isn't allowed to set an arbitrary standard for either the Bible, or how we interpret it. He (I'm assuming he's a "he" -- apologies if he's a "she...") creates a trap, whereby we're either damned if we do, or damned if we don't. The only way we can avoid his trap is to simply not put God into the equation, which is exactly what an atheist would want us to do.

Again, special pleading.

[PS. I'm a "he"].

The only "standard" I employ is one one of reasonable doubt, against any claims made. It's the argument presented (even if, or especially of, the Bible) that submits itself to such a standard.

However, the truth, as the Christian understands it, is that God cannot be taken out of the equation, because God is the equation. It's this fundamental adherence to and insistence upon that truth that s2a banks on to make his arguments seem plausible. His stance with regard to the implausibility of God obfuscates any argument about homosexuality in the Bible, because the Bible itself (which is the subject of the entire argument) assumes the existence and worth of God.

Bull. I have presented neither premise nor argument as to the validity (or value) of a claimed Biblical God. I have said that I believe the Biblical claims attributed to such an entity to be bunk. My unbelief no more invalidates your personal faith than it serves to support any claims of the Bible.

 

[s2a]

The basis for his argument is predicated upon the Bible having qualities it does not have.

Such as...? Have I presented any views that are not held or professed by a large number of self-professed Christians regarding interpretation of Scripture?

That's why he can't argue what he's arguing. he insists that, if we're going to treat the Bible as authoritative, then we must follow blindly what it says. Problem is, following the Bible is not like following road signs, because the Bible is not only a set of baseline-interpretation law...and those parts that are law are always up for interpretation and review, just like civil law.

"Interpretation and review" by whom, and under what circumstances? Personal revelation alone? Is this a viable and applicable standard to follow in either civil or criminal (you know, "man-made") law? Should defenses of "God told me to do it", or "Satan made me do it" be admissible as evidenced fact in a court of law today? If so, what means/measures could be employed to impeach such defensive claims? Would the prosecution be borne with the burden of disproving a contemporary and existent deity?

He insists that "the Bible is the Bible," placing an arbitrary absoluteness upon the Bible that I just don't place on it. Maybe some folks do, but I don't.

Indirect mischaracterization. I do not claim as much, but there are millions of Christians that would...and do...

And because, I don't, then, according to s2a's arbitrary criteria, I'm not a "real" Christian -- I'm a hypocrite, not following "what the Bible says."

I have yet to characterize or question either your personal piety, or categorize your hypocrisy. You need only answer to what Scripture says. It's you that claims and protests of special exemption to mandates of Scripture. I beg of none.

The real trouble is that s2a is placing an arbitrary Biblical value upon a societal issue, based upon a very, very limited number of scripural passages. He doesn't weigh the anti-homosexual passages against either the social mores of the day vs. the social mores of our day, or against the great preponderance of passages that speak of love, forbearance, and mercy.

Silly me. I should have invited you to specifically cite the "pro-homosexual passages" that claim exception to Leviticus 18:22.

I can readily cite numerous passages, both Chapter and Verse, that speak to "love, forbearance, and mercy".
I can think of none that validate or excuse homosexuality as being either acceptable or excusable in God's eyes. NONE. All I have asked is for you to cite [from] God's Word that specifically suggests otherwise. Barring personal claim (interpretaion/revelation) alone, either you can not or will not.

Apparently (attempting to wade through pages of rhetoric) his stance is that the Bible is wrong because it summarily condemns homosexuality, and that Christians are either giving lip service to loving their neighbors, or they're hypocritical, not following what the Bible says.

"rhetoric,
noun:

1. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
2. Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.
3.
a). A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
b). Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous. Verbal communication; discourse."
--The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Well gee whiz, what am I to think of your praise? Either I am presenting argument that is both "effective and persusive"...or I am "elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous".

If I look up "hypocrite" in the dictionary, will I feel vindicated or appropriately vilified?

I think that is an unfair judgment of the Bible, and an unfair condemnation of those who follow Christ.

If I were offering "condemnation" of "believers", this might be a fair observation. But, I haven't, so...it isn't.

I try very, very hard to reconcile condemnational statements with inclusionary statements.

Bully for you. I do not suffer such encumbrances or conflicts of conscience.

Yes, the Bible does condemn homosexuality in a limited number of places.

Thus my question. How many Biblical "condemnations" does a particular suspect "commandment" require before it can be universally regarded by all similarly faith-based adherents as unquestionably being both immutable fact and truth? One? Five? Ten? More?

But it also promotes love, acceptance, forbearance, mercy, and grace in many, many, many more places.

It does...though I would submit that an atheistic perspective lacks none of these qualities (absent the amorphous aspects of "grace").

I neither utilize, rationalize, advocate, nor seek to justify homosexual behavior, or same-sex proclivities; but then, I am not bound by any particular superstition or faith-based belief/system that dictates or demands that I must (or should) "feel" otherwise towards homosexuals. I no more "advocate" homosexuality than I would abortion, or eating Twinkies. But neither am I of the mind to interfere or impose my personal opinion (or religious dogma) as a matter of enforceable law or state-sanction bias/prejudice upon either gays, or women who experience unintended/unwanted pregnancy (or eating spongecake with a half-life of 4000 years).

In wrestling with the conundrum, I finally have to err on the side of mercy and forbearance -- and I don't think that's a hypocritical or unreasonable stance to take.

Indeed. Unless you were to conclude that my stance reflected an abdication of mercy and forbearance towards others. Then, yours would be both hypocritical and unreasonable.
Hey. I just think you're wrong...but there's no sin in that. ;-)

No matter what s2a thinks. I don't have to justify my interpretation of the Bible to someone who neither respects its authority, or respects my beliefs. Yet, that's precisely what he's hoping to get me to do.

Why should (or would) any "respect" I lend towards your faith-based beliefs have ANY bearing or merit upon the provided substantiation of whatever you profess to believe? Do you need or seek "respect" from unbelievers in order to substantiate/validate your own personalized faith-based beliefs? I know I most certainly don't require your "respect" to rest confidently assured in my own regard and conclusions.

Why is it that so many people of faith demand that they be lent respect for their religious views? Respect of/for personal opinion is not a right that can be demanded upon call. It is either earned, or it is not. I can respect a person, without any retaining any "respect" for either their opinions or personal religious beliefs. I have the privilege of many friends of religious faith (yes, even Christians) that respect both my given word and my often innocuous deeds, despite the fact that they strongly disagree with my atheistic perspective. Not once, EVER, have I insisted that they must (in some way) "respect" my views before I effort to provide justification/substantiation of same to them. Ain't it odd that you never hear an atheist say [to a person of faith], "You have to be an atheist in order to understand/appreciate what I'm saying/consider [as fact or truth]."?

My primary "hope" is in understanding the "why", of "what" people believe or proclaim as "ultimate" (or immutable) TRUTH.
I know, as an atheist, I claim knowledge of no "truth", beyond that of which I conclude as being so for myself.
I also know that "believers" either claim or source many of their most earnestly held "truths" to Biblical Scripture.
I don't accept claims borne of faith as matters of fact.
Many do.
If a faith-based claim is to be offered as fact, all I require is the same burden of proof that I apply to any other claim.
I do not presume to either support, nor invalidate, the claims of Biblical Scripture. What I "believe" regarding the claims of the Bible, or of provisional disclaimers of contrarian evidential fact, is moot. Reason and critical evaluation are left to prevail as ultimate determination...whether or not I may personally insist (or claim) that, say..."the Easter Bunny is real".

Whether or not you believe that either the Easter Bunny, or (the Biblically accounted) Jesus Christ, are "real"...is of no particular concern or interest to me. If you want to believe in Zeus, faeries, Santa, or the Great Pumpkin, that's fine with me. If you want to insist [as TRUTH] that such entities are veritably existent, then your provided evidence as proof beyond reasonable doubt should overwhelm my skeptical nature...and not be predicate upon some vapid defense of a notion that my unbelief of such claims renders my observations as being therefore unreasoned or disingenuous.

 

[s2a]

When Pah said:
What you have is a personal standard of acceptance based upon a personal interpretation (I'll include congragational as personal but even that is not truely personal nor is it the denominational dogma). I can easily say personal becuase there is no external, unanimous, eternal interpretation on which to base a standard. One need only witness the plethora of denominations and dogmas to understand that it is not standard.There is no guarantee that, even with relevelation, that your version is correct for there are many contradictory revealed truths. A fairly recent internet pool (self-initiated and a small number not to statistical standard), showed that when a person praying about homosexuality was predesposed to God accepting homosexuality, the answer from God, if there was an answer, matched whatever was presupposed. All religious truth would thus seem to be subjective. Being subjective, that truth is always open to argument whether you choose to debate it or not.

So.... even a non-believer has the human right to challange whatever is within your standard.


You (sojourner) replied:

I understand all that. What I'm saying is that s2a is holding all Christians captive to the standards that he thinks we either 1) say we adhere to, or 2) he thinks we should adhere to.

Even if my inquiries were put forth as openly inviting of reply (as they are), you'd still be welcome to put forward your own "understanding". I do not offer myself as either guardian or enforcer of anyone's personalized piety, nor estimator of personalized faith-based adherence towards any personally claimed deity/force. I am but an advocate of rational skepticism, reason, and empirical conclusion.

Plus, he's taking something that, admittedly, is a largely personal and individual thing, and twisting into something systemic. Since he's not one of us, he has no idea what we either say, or should adhere to. Since he's not me, he's made it very clear in his posts that he has no idea where I'm coming from. he just keeps insisting, basically, that I'm a fundy hypocrite. And having no idea, how can he mount a reasonable challenge? That's why I said a long time ago that his efforts are largely Quixotic.

[I'll get to this...]

Pah put forward:
Doesn't, then, s2a ask for a justification of sojourner's position vis a vis another standard.

Sojourner replied:

It seems to me that s2a states what he thinks my position and impetus are, and then asks me to justify myself based upon those mistaken presuppositions. One cannot mount a reasonable argument from a faulty presupposition.

If a faulty presupposition is tendered (on my part), then it should present no exceptional challenge to expose it as being such, with illustrative provided examples . Abject dismissal (or blithe categorization) absent any concordantly inviting counter-argument is just "preaching to the converted"...and "truth" is but a consortium conclusion derived of similarly bent faithful adherents.

When Pah said:
What you have is a personal standard of acceptance based upon a personal interpretation (I'll include congragational as personal but even that is not truely personal nor is it the denominational dogma). I can easily say personal becuase there is no external, unanimous, eternal interpretation on which to base a standard. One need only witness the plethora of denominations and dogmas to understand that it is not standard.There is no guarantee that, even with relevelation, that your version is correct for there are many contradictory revealed truths. A fairly recent internet pool (self-initiated and a small number not to statistical standard), showed that when a person praying about homosexuality was predesposed to God accepting homosexuality, the answer from God, if there was an answer, matched whatever was presupposed. All religious truth would thus seem to be subjective. Being subjective, that truth is always open to argument whether you choose to debate it or not.

So.... even a non-believer has the human right to challange whatever is within your standard.

Sojourner replied:

I understand all that. What I'm saying is that s2a is holding all Christians captive to the standards that he thinks we either 1) say we adhere to, or 2) he thinks we should adhere to.

Which is, of course, a false representation of my own position. (Hello, Scarecrow). I have yet to inquire of only the "standards" to which you ascribe to/of/for yourself. Do such "standards" have any ascribable or notably quotable foundation? If so, what? If not, then why not?

Plus, he's taking something that, admittedly, is a largely personal and individual thing, and twisting into something systemic.

I am? I don't recall any efforts to define either Christianity as a whole (ie, singular identity), or qualify your beliefs in any systemic way (you are invited to validate your claim with referenced source rebuttal).

Since he's not one of us, he has no idea what we either say, or should adhere to.

This fallacious rationale suggests that only lawyers can understand law, or abide by it's tenants. One need not be a lawyer to understand what laws SAYS, any more than one must be a believer to comprehend what Scripture SAYS (or means to impart).

Let's look at this another way. Let's say that every resident of a particular city must pass a driver's examination in order to qualify for a state-recognized license. So, anyone that wants to have a state-recognized ID, must pass the mandatory imposed test. Such a hopeful, yet uncertified resident should look to what reference or source for both study and ultimately validating fact? Huzzah! The State provides such a resource (a State Driver's Test Manual), for any and all to read and understand! How cool is that? Jeez...with enough study and practical application, virtually anyone can qualify for a passing acceptance!

Now, it's the day of my driving test, and I yield the right-of-way to a passing emergency response vehicle (as proscribed by law and common decency). The State driver's handbook says that I must maintain a distance of 500 feet in order to be compliant with established driving rules and State law. Perhaps I decide instead that such a law is subject to my own personal determination and interpretation, and that a 50 foot distance is reasonable enough (after all, "things have changed" since that standard was enacted 60 years ago. Cars are safer, roads are better, and emergency medicine has advanced dramatically. With that foreknowledge, surely such antiquated standards shouldn't apply to my enlightened understanding!).

So...
If I subsequently fail the test based upon utilization of my own personalized "interpretations" of the law, should I be passed in the test anyway?
If I pass the test in strict adherence to what the State Law mandates as outlined, yet fail to implement my own "interpretation" of what I think or feel what the law "really means" (ie, not following my conscience), should I expect especial consideration (and subsequent legal implementation) from the State in deference to how I personally feel about what "should" qualify as a "safe distance"?

Since he's not me, he's made it very clear in his posts that he has no idea where I'm coming from. he just keeps insisting, basically, that I'm a fundy hypocrite.

On the contrary. I have consistently demonstrated an informed perspective of your religion's precepts and foundations, and merely highlighted the inherent dichotomies resident within.

 

[s2a]

And having no idea, how can he mount a reasonable challenge?

This is the best you got?. You think that simplistic characterizations of my commentaries are some compelling argument as defense? I present no characterizations of your virtual personality, behavior, or "true" person.

As you like, and I'll readily concede, I "don't know you"--personally--which is why I don't bother or offer any estimations in that regard. But if your lone defense is along the likes of "He doesn't know me, therefore everything he says is wrong (or can't be right), so why bother?"; then you have adroitly applied an unusually rare and new fallacious rationale of interest. In essence, because I can't (or choose not to) "understand" your perspective on a strictly personal level, my commentary is therefore invalid, vapid, or specious. If your position is personalized as to be utterly unique, it is therefore unassailable and unquestionable beyond all fault, or qualitative estimation of applicably deliberative reason or merit by anyone lacking the requiste faith. Kudos to you then for exemplifying the very circuitous irrationality of faith-based beliefs. "If you don't have faith, you can't understand. If you don't understand, it's because you don't have faith."

What you fail to grasp is...I have seen the "super-secret handshake" of the special club members of your religion, and I know how and why being a part of the club is so important to it's adherents, and why they feel that "membership has it's privileges (like AMEX card holders)". Sorry to burst your cloistered bubble, but I too have an AMEX card, and I can drive circles around any driver's test course or upon open road. I've been driving life's highway for more than a few decades now, and from invaluable experience I can confidently conclude that, 1) Christians don't own the road, and 2) Christians are not especially courteous or proficient drivers (but at least they are "forgiven").

That's why I said a long time ago that his efforts are largely Quixotic.

I know...it's almost as if you believed that a continued repetition and recital of the same mantra would effect either change or a different outcome. Politicians call that "staying on message". Shrinks deem it a quality of insanity.

But hey, even I enjoy riding my horse whilst poking holes in lilting windmills...grinding out the same grist for centuries on end. And I confess that I find these lyrics from "Man of La Mancha" most inspiring and dear:

"To dream the impossible dream,
to fight the unbeatable foe,
to bear with unbearable sorrow,
to run where the brave dare not go.

To right the unrightable wrong,
to love pure and chaste from afar,
to try when your arms are too weary,
to reach the unreachable star.

This is my quest,
to follow that star --
no matter how hopeless,
no matter how far.

To fight for the right
without question or pause,
to be willing to march into hell for a
heavenly cause.

And I know if I'll only be true to this
glorious quest
that my heart will be peaceful and calm
when I'm laid to my rest.

And the world will be better for this,
that one man scorned and covered with scars
still strove with his last ounce of courage.
To reach the unreachable stars."

I can live with that...Sancho.

 

[Pardus]

Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 21:19-21

Why is only one of these two relevent Mr Falwell???