The Bible, homosexuality, and semantics

[captainbryce]

Also, I have changed back to being an orthodox Catholic and so I now believe that homosexual acts are gravely sinful and so is "gay marriage". I do not, however, believe that being a homosexual is a sin although I do believe the orientation is objectively disordered.

This sounds contradictory to me. You are saying that you believe homosexual "acts" are sinful, and that homosexual orientation is disordered, but being a homosexual is not a sin? Please explain?

 

[captainbryce]

I already did that, but in post 34 you ducked it.

I haven't ducked anything. If my intent was to duck your position I wouldn't have replied at all. I am simply dismissing your comments as being without merit, and unjustifiable because they are based on faulty premises. The proper way to address a faulty premise is to point attention to the fact that it is in fact faulty to begin with (which I've done). I am giving you the opportunity to correct your error before proceeding from a false assumption (which is what you were doing). If you're willing to address your false premises, then the debate is still open. If you choose not to amend your position by presenting an argument that has merit (because you don't want to be wrong), then you've already lost the debate! I no longer have to address anything at that point because you've failed to make a compelling argument to start with.

And when all else fails go for the name calling ploy ---but, sorry to say, that's two strikes cappy,

Well for one thing, I haven't failed. I WON, because you're clearly afraid to admit that you might be wrong. That's automatically a winning proposition for me. Secondly, I called you a dick because you're acting like a dick. I didn't attack you, you attacked me because I challenged the preconceptions in your post. That is childish and immature. Are you honestly suggesting that in your previous post towards me you were NOT trying to be a dick? :sarcastic

you are amusing, but I'm sure you can do better. We're rooting for you.

I CAN do better, but in this case I don't need to. I never denied being arrogant. This is a personal fault that I openly admit to. I am arrogant because I believe that I'm a far superior debater compared to you (and indeed many others here). :yes:

I could easily embarrass you by pointing out just how futile and ridiculous your argument really is, but that's not why I choose to come to this particular forum. I have other forums for that. I come here because I like debating religious topics with people who are a little more on my level, who can respond with maturity, and who aren't afraid to actually debate the issues like Agnostic75.

I think the reason you got on my case is because you couldn't follow where I was going with the "assumptions" thing. And because you couldn't follow, you choose to attack. So with that in mind, let me just spell out for you where you failed. Here are some of your ridiculous assumptions:

"So, it appears that the good Bible-believing Christian should condemn homosexual sex, and perhaps even those who practice it."

It only appears that way to you because you haven't taken biblical translation into consideration. You looked at a scripture as it was written in English, disregarding the Hebrew/Greek from which it was translated, and assumed you knew what it was talking about. Not only does this make you ignorant, but it makes you an ignorant, bandwagon jumper since you're only rehashing the excuses that other people (so-called believers) have used to condemn homosexuals.

"So, even though the Bible clearly condemns homosexual acts..."

It only does so "clearly" to the person who is ignorant and who can't interpret the scripture "clearly". But rest assured, in this case you happen to be in the majority. Most people are as ignorant on this point as you are (so you have the numbers advantage)!

"If you still have doubts, simply Google "the Bible and the immorality of homosexuality."

This comment is almost TOO ridiculous to even reply to. Nevertheless, since you apparently don't get it, I'll spell out why it's ridiculous. I can use GOOGLE to look up ANYTHING that will support my preconceived notions. But that in itself is not proof support of anything. Your statement is akin to someone saying "well, they said it on TV so it must be true".

"I think that pretty well fits the definition of "condemn" in the context here"

Well unfortunately, you are quite WRONG because the biblical definition of "judgment" doesn't always imply "condemnation". In fact, in this case it specifically does not! In the bible, people are often "judged" without being "condemned" (we are ALL judged), but evidently you don't realize that, so you erroneously consider the terms synonymous.

"Think you're suppose to recognize such actions without condemning them?...
I wouldn't think so."

This is absolutely what Jesus and his apostles teach. Judgment without condemnation! Because only Jesus could condemn someone else for their sins. The reason you don't "think" so is because you're an agnostic who can't interpret scripture properly.

"And I haven't said the Bible condemns homosexuality, have I? Only homosexual sex."

You didn't have to say that. You were still going to be WRONG either way unless you can actually prove that "the bible" condemns homosexual acts (which you can't). The reason you can't is because the New Living Translation is NOT "the bible". The bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The word homosexual (and its implied meaning today) doesn't appear in "the bible" as it was originally written. It has been incorporated into some English translations of the bible.

Good luck with your retort (if you can actually conjure one at this point)!

 

[Skwim]

I haven't ducked anything. If my intent was to duck your position I wouldn't have replied at all. I am simply dismissing your comments as being without merit, and unjustifiable because they are based on faulty premises. The proper way to address a faulty premise is to point attention to the fact that it is in fact faulty to begin with (which I've done). I am giving you the opportunity to correct your error before proceeding from a false assumption (which is what you were doing). If you're willing to address your false premises, then the debate is still open. If you choose not to amend your position by presenting an argument that has merit (because you don't want to be wrong), then you've already lost the debate! I no longer have to address anything at that point because you've failed to make a compelling argument to start with.

Well for one thing, I haven't failed. I WON, because you're clearly afraid to admit that you might be wrong. That's automatically a winning proposition for me. Secondly, I called you a dick because you're acting like a dick. I didn't attack you, you attacked me because I challenged the preconceptions in your post. That is childish and immature. Are you honestly suggesting that in your previous post towards me you were NOT trying to be a dick? :sarcastic

I CAN do better, but in this case I don't need to. I never denied being arrogant. This is a personal fault that I openly admit to. I am arrogant because I believe that I'm a far superior debater compared to you (and indeed many others here). :yes:

I could easily embarrass you by pointing out just how futile and ridiculous your argument really is, but that's not why I choose to come to this particular forum. I have other forums for that. I come here because I like debating religious topics with people who are a little more on my level, who can respond with maturity, and who aren't afraid to actually debate the issues like Agnostic75.

I think the reason you got on my case is because you couldn't follow where I was going with the "assumptions" thing. And because you couldn't follow, you choose to attack. So with that in mind, let me just spell out for you where you failed. Here are some of your ridiculous assumptions:

"So, it appears that the good Bible-believing Christian should condemn homosexual sex, and perhaps even those who practice it."

It only appears that way to you because you haven't taken biblical translation into consideration. You looked at a scripture as it was written in English, disregarding the Hebrew/Greek from which it was translated, and assumed you knew what it was talking about. Not only does this make you ignorant, but it makes you an ignorant, bandwagon jumper since you're only rehashing the excuses that other people (so-called believers) have used to condemn homosexuals.

"So, even though the Bible clearly condemns homosexual acts..."

It only does so "clearly" to the person who is ignorant and who can't interpret the scripture "clearly". But rest assured, in this case you happen to be in the majority. Most people are as ignorant on this point as you are (so you have the numbers advantage)!

"If you still have doubts, simply Google "the Bible and the immorality of homosexuality."

This comment is almost TOO ridiculous to even reply to. Nevertheless, since you apparently don't get it, I'll spell out why it's ridiculous. I can use GOOGLE to look up ANYTHING that will support my preconceived notions. But that in itself is not proof support of anything. Your statement is akin to someone saying "well, they said it on TV so it must be true".

"I think that pretty well fits the definition of "condemn" in the context here"

Well unfortunately, you are quite WRONG because the biblical definition of "judgment" doesn't always imply "condemnation". In fact, in this case it specifically does not! In the bible, people are often "judged" without being "condemned" (we are ALL judged), but evidently you don't realize that, so you erroneously consider the terms synonymous.

"Think you're suppose to recognize such actions without condemning them?...
I wouldn't think so."

This is absolutely what Jesus and his apostles teach. Judgment without condemnation! Because only Jesus could condemn someone else for their sins. The reason you don't "think" so is because you're an agnostic who can't interpret scripture properly.

"And I haven't said the Bible condemns homosexuality, have I? Only homosexual sex."

You didn't have to say that. You were still going to be WRONG either way unless you can actually prove that "the bible" condemns homosexual acts (which you can't). The reason you can't is because the New Living Translation is NOT "the bible". The bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The word homosexual (and its implied meaning today) doesn't appear in "the bible" as it was originally written. It has been incorporated into some English translations of the bible.

Good luck with your retort (if you can actually conjure one at this point)!

To be honest, and it should come as no surprise, I quickly skimmed just about all of the above; however, I did come to a full stop when I read this amusing part.

"I never denied being arrogant. This is a personal fault that I openly admit to. I am arrogant because I believe that I'm a far superior debater compared to you (and indeed many others here). :yes:"
​

Suffice it to say, I'm done with your nonsense.
​

 

[Brickjectivity]

If the Bible disapproves of same-sex behavior,...In other words, apparently the Bible only approves of sex between members of the opposite sex, and only when they are married.

That is not necessarily true, and to be clear we are talking about the Christian Bibles without the Apocrypha. To begin with, Judah son of Jacob son of Isaac son of Abraham sleeps with a prostitute; and there is no condemnation of his action. His only crime in the story had to do with with-holding marriage rights from Tamar. Prostitution is not illegal in the Tanach portion of the Bible, though there are restrictions. The writer doesn't want the land to be filled with prostitution. Moving to the NT portion of the Bible there is little bit of confusion as the writers first indicate that there is no difference between men & women in Christ, but at the same time the Christians are expected to have men in charge of women. There are women apostles, and then there aren't women apostles. Marriage is discussed barely, as if we were hearing one half of a phone conversation. We read letters from Paul to the Corinthians or to the Ephesians; but we never get to read what they wrote to him. Any explanation of 'Why' is extremely cryptic, full of symbols that few (perhaps nobody) today understands.

Ask anyone in church why "Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head."(1 Corinthians 11:4) they will look quizzically at you. Nobody knows why!

Ask anyone in church what this means: "It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels."(I Corinthians 11:10) and they will probably have to admit that they don't know why.

In general, the subject of sex is not discussed in the NT in detail. There is something about it in there, but in general nobody knows what the schmuck is talking about. Bring up any scripture that you think nails down the topic, and I'll point out something in the verse or culture that you don't understand. Go ahead!

 

[Sha'irullah]

Something I would like to add is how homosexuality occurred to even the prophets in the Bible and blessed figures.

Ham for example apparently sodomized his father Nuh while drunk.

Genesis 9:21-24 "And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent."
22 "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without."
"And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness."
"And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him."

According to some Jewish scholars on this, Nuh was either sodomized by Ham or ham slept with his wife. But regardless of the vagueness of it homosexuality was rampant in the Bible amongst Biblical characters even.

 

[captainbryce]

Suffice it to say, I'm done with your nonsense.

Thank you for conceding as I predicted.

 

[sojourner]

Concede???

 

[Brickjectivity]

Something I would like to add is how homosexuality occurred to even the prophets in the Bible and blessed figures.

Ham for example apparently sodomized his father Nuh while drunk.

Genesis 9:21-24 "And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent."
22 "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without."
"And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness."
"And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him."

I wonder why that little paragraph was included in the text? Perhaps Ham was making some sort of power play.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I wonder why that little paragraph was included in the text? Perhaps Ham was making some sort of power play.

All I can say is that some sort of funny business was going on :sarcastic.

 

[Sha'irullah]

What people must truthfully realize is that the Bible is just a book. It deserves study but it is not divine in origin, it is divine in thought. And all thoughts and assumptions can be wrong and just invalid after due time

 

[captainbryce]

What people must truthfully realize is that the Bible is just a book.

I think what you need to realize is that it is NOT just a book. It is in fact a collection of 66 books (canonical), written by over 40 different authors, over a period of 1600 years!

It deserves study but it is not divine in origin, it is divine in thought. And all thoughts and assumptions can be wrong and just invalid after due time

If the thoughts contained within the bible can be wrong or become invalided after time, then how could they be considered "divine in thought"? That doesn't make any sense! Anything that is divine wouldn't be wrong or ever become invalid.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If the thoughts contained within the bible can be wrong or become invalided after time, then how could they be considered "divine in thought"?

That is a good question, but at the same time and using an example from the Bible how can God make a perfect garden and forget that there is a serpent in it? (rhetorical) Man was made in God's image according to Genesis, so man is inspired by God yet man has become wrong over time. You seem to be begging the existence of evil. Evil exists. If everything was originally good and God is good, then obviously good things can become evil though even if they come from God.

 

[captainbryce]

That is a good question, but at the same time and using an example from the Bible how can God make a perfect garden and forget that there is a serpent in it? (rhetorical)

Where in the bible does it say that the Garden was "perfect"? Obviously, the serpent was allowed in the garden intentionally to test Adam and Eve. The bible describes creation (including man and the garden as very good, but not necessarily perfect). I think the perfect creation was always meant to replace the first creation (ie: the new heavens and the new earth) where evil will not exist.

Man was made in God's image according to Genesis, so man is inspired by God yet man has become wrong over time. You seem to be begging the existence of evil. Evil exists. If everything was originally good and God is good, then obviously good things can become evil though even if they come from God.

That is true. God gave humans (and the angels free will) and with free will comes the potential to sin. Man wasn't the first sinner, Satan was. And God allowed Satan to tempt man (thus leading to the fall of mankind through sin).

 

[Sha'irullah]

I think what you need to realize is that it is NOT just a book. It is in fact a collection of 66 books (canonical), written by over 40 different authors, over a period of 1600 years!

EVEN BETTER! It is an anthology and a beautiful

If the thoughts contained within the bible can be wrong or become invalided after time, then how could they be considered "divine in thought"? That doesn't make any sense! Anything that is divine wouldn't be wrong or ever become invalid.

The Bible is not divine though. In contains mainly topics in relation to the divine. The Bible is NOT the word of God and NOT perfect or valid for all time.

The Bible is a book and it is a beautiful book I should mention. I am studying it right now as a matter of fact. It contains many insightful things and offers many beautiful myths that give revelation about God and praise his greatness.

But these are not the words of God regardless

 

[Brickjectivity]

Where in the bible does it say that the Garden was "perfect"?

True. That was the imposition of a fallen human being thinking that something imperfect was perfect.

 

[sojourner]

That is a good question, but at the same time and using an example from the Bible how can God make a perfect garden and forget that there is a serpent in it? (rhetorical) Man was made in God's image according to Genesis, so man is inspired by God yet man has become wrong over time. You seem to be begging the existence of evil. Evil exists. If everything was originally good and God is good, then obviously good things can become evil though even if they come from God.

Is the serpent "evil?" Or a trickster? isn't the serpent a symbol of wisdom? Is wisdom "evil?"

 

[sojourner]

Where in the bible does it say that the Garden was "perfect"? Obviously, the serpent was allowed in the garden intentionally to test Adam and Eve. The bible describes creation (including man and the garden as very good, but not necessarily perfect). I think the perfect creation was always meant to replace the first creation (ie: the new heavens and the new earth) where evil will not exist.

That is true. God gave humans (and the angels free will) and with free will comes the potential to sin. Man wasn't the first sinner, Satan was. And God allowed Satan to tempt man (thus leading to the fall of mankind through sin).

How is Satan the "first sinner?" Satan doesn't even appear in the creation narratives.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Is the serpent "evil?" Or a trickster? isn't the serpent a symbol of wisdom? Is wisdom "evil?"

Sojourner, I think you are what I'd call an advanced Bible student, more-so than me. Most people don't think about the serpent being symbolic for wisdom, and I will tell you what I think. The serpent is ouroboros, the infinite cycle of life & death although back in the day serpents may have had more than one symbolism going on. Bast (the cat goddess) was a symbol for wisdom in Egypt, and she is seen stepping on the heads of serpents in their ancient murals. She would be our Eve in Eden. The Egyptian serpent (and therefore the Edenic serpent) may just as easily have represented the perpetual cycle of reproduction that dooms us all to death. You may have seen images of the ouroboros (in which a serpent swallows its own tail). Symbolically imagine that Eve is Bast of Egypt since in the Bible particularly in Proverbs woman represents Wisdom, while the serpent represents our Enemy whose sting is death. He is the power of reproduction, the killer; while she is the nurturer. Infinitely he kills and infinitely she nurtures again. Apostle John calls the serpent in the garden 'the ancient serpent' and the 'dragon' and the 'accuser'. These can be fuzzily connected with the reproduction-death cycle if you squint very hard. Death, the sting of the serpent, is one of the enemies of Christ and the last enemy to be defeated. It is to be defeated not by the wisdom of men but by the spirit of God (the wisdom of the woman in other words). Immortality represents equally the end of reproduction and of the reproductive cycle which must end when the world has no more room to contain all of the people. Symbolically the woman is cast out of the garden and suffers in childbearing, but one day her suffering will end. The wisdom of God will overcome the wisdom of man. I suspect the serpent might represent the wisdom of humanity versus God's wisdom, but it is a guess.

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner, I think you are what I'd call an advanced Bible student, more-so than me. Most people don't think about the serpent being symbolic for wisdom, and I will tell you what I think. The serpent is ouroboros, the infinite cycle of life & death although back in the day serpents may have had more than one symbolism going on. Bast (the cat goddess) was a symbol for wisdom in Egypt, and she is seen stepping on the heads of serpents in their ancient murals. She would be our Eve in Eden. The Egyptian serpent (and therefore the Edenic serpent) may just as easily have represented the perpetual cycle of reproduction that dooms us all to death. You may have seen images of the ouroboros (in which a serpent swallows its own tail). Symbolically imagine that Eve is Bast of Egypt since in the Bible particularly in Proverbs woman represents Wisdom, while the serpent represents our Enemy whose sting is death. He is the power of reproduction, the killer; while she is the nurturer. Infinitely he kills and infinitely she nurtures again. Apostle John calls the serpent in the garden 'the ancient serpent' and the 'dragon' and the 'accuser'. These can be fuzzily connected with the reproduction-death cycle if you squint very hard. Death, the sting of the serpent, is one of the enemies of Christ and the last enemy to be defeated. It is to be defeated not by the wisdom of men but by the spirit of God (the wisdom of the woman in other words). Immortality represents equally the end of reproduction and of the reproductive cycle which must end when the world has no more room to contain all of the people. Symbolically the woman is cast out of the garden and suffers in childbearing, but one day her suffering will end. The wisdom of God will overcome the wisdom of man. I suspect the serpent might represent the wisdom of humanity versus God's wisdom, but it is a guess.

Very well put. As you may know, the creation accounts are "reproductions," or "rewrites" of much earlier stories with Sumerian roots (very likely with flavors of other cultures thrown into the pot -- the traditions are neither terse nor culture-specific). In Sumerian mythology, the serpent was wisdom -- which was why I wrote what I did. I don't think the stories are primarily Egyptian in origin.

However, we just don't know, which is why there are quite a few possible interpretations -- one just has to pick a school of thought and play it out.

That being said, even if the symbolism is as you posit here, what is inherently "evil" about death? It's part of the natural order.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Is the serpent "evil?" Or a trickster? isn't the serpent a symbol of wisdom? Is wisdom "evil?"

According to Paul, and many following theologians wisdom (mans wisdom) is useless. Though correct me if im wrong