Christians

@ gonna hear dru roar.
The Bible allows for exceptions. But, not for homosexuality. And divorce is inbetween male and female.

@ The Pies Endure
Really? Doesn't the Bible only speak about promiscuous homosexual sex? Wouldn't that leave an "exception" for those who are in committed, monogamous homosexual relationships? I never remember the Bible saying it was a sin for homosexuals to be in loving, committed relationships.

@ gonna hear dru roar.
That would depend on the interpretation of the Hebrew and Greek text as I mentioned above. Some say it is interpreted the way you state. Some would say it is referring to any homosexual act. I'm not a Greek and Hebrew scholar, so I don't know which word they meant. And, considering God created male and female to come together, as it states in Genesis, many people come to the conclusion that any other union is a sin.

@ The Pies Endure
So, basically you're saying people take leaps of faith based on words NOT FOUND in the Bible and use it to justify bigotry?

You often hear the quote "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", but God created everything so He created Adam and Steve and their love, too.

@ gonna hear dru roar.
You sound surprised by that. But, that's not what I said. I said it depends on how those passages are interpreted. I read the NIV Bible and the way those passages read would make one interpret homosexual as any homosexual act, as it doesn't say "promiscuous homosexual" acts. It says "do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, that is detestable". Now, that is a pretty ambiguous statement in English. But, many would say that means homosexual acts, loving or not, is detestable.

@ The Pies Endure
In my version it says "abomination", which simply means "against tradition" when it's translated back.

The Pies Endure:

@ gonna hear dru roar.
You sound surprised by that. But, that's not what I said. I said it depends on how those passages are interpreted. I read the NIV Bible and the way those passages read would make one interpret homosexual as any homosexual act, as it doesn't say "promiscuous homosexual" acts. It says "do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, that is detestable". Now, that is a pretty ambiguous statement in English. But, many would say that means homosexual acts, loving or not, is detestable.

And then many non-homophobic people would say that's discriminatory, rude and offensive. There is nothing detestable about gay people, unless you harbor some deep seeded prejudices.

The Bible is not the end all, be all authority on what's right and wrong among Christians. They may pretend to lead biblical lives but the parts they dislike (or the parts that are factually, historically wrong) can easily be glossed over and deemed out of date, but if they find a verse that allows them to hate on and exclude a group to exert their own superiority, welcome to mainstream Christianity.

@ gonna hear dru roar.
Yes, but it still doesn't say what kind of homosexuality it's referring to.

@ Kurtni
I consider myself part of mainstream Christianity, just saying. But my views on homosexuality isn't hardline. Also, you still didn't get my point. My point is the interpretation of the original text. Does it mean any form of homosexuality, or does it mean just promiscuous homosexuality? That would make a huge difference.

@ The Pies Endure
There is only one "kind" of homosexuality. But the Bible speaks of sex and sex acts. The Bible contains 7 admonishments toward homosexuals and over 200 toward heterosexuals. Clearly there's a lot more fucked up shit that straight people do (according to God).

---

On an unrelated note, I plan to get a copy of Chariots of the Gods and 'scratch out' the parts of the Bible attributed to extra-terrestrial activity. It will be interesting to see what's left. Leviticus is completely scratched since it was really an alien on Mt. Sinai.

@ gonna hear dru roar.
I won't banter semantics. I know there's only one kind of homosexuality. I yas referring to the act not the reality of being homosexual. As to the fact that there are more admonishment toward heterosexuals than homosexuals, it's an indictment on Christians today that they focus on the homosexual references and not on the heterosexual.

It's also interesting because that makes me think of another interpretation. That fits with the promiscuous/immoral homosexual acts view. It would make sense if God condemned homosexual acts if the person perpetrating those acts were heterosexual. So, again the verses would not be referring to loving relationships.

Though, the biggest sticking point is that it says in Genesis that God created man and woman to join together. Not man and man, or woman and woman. And the whole Bible is meant to be seen as a whole not just individual books in a collection.

But, I prefer to believe that God wouldn't condemn anyone who is in a loving relationship. And I believe only God knows an individual's heart. Regardless.

@ The Pies Endure
Just because we didn't get a story of God creating two men to fall in love with each other, doesn't mean God didn't bless those in loving homosexual relationships, like David, King of the Jews (and Jonathan).

gonna hear dru roar.:

@ The Pies Endure
Just because we didn't get a story of God creating two men to fall in love with each other, doesn't mean God didn't bless those in loving homosexual relationships, like David, King of the Jews (and Jonathan).

Jonathan wasn't gay. Nor was David. That's reading too much into that text. They loved each other, yes. But, it wasn't sexual. Their love may have been homorelational, though. (I know that's not a word)

@ The Pies Endure
Homoromantic is the word you are looking for.

And I feel if we are to condemn the homosexual, we must be condemning homosexual , even if it be chaste. Certainly the homosexual is not only a sinner if they have sex? Certainly the act of simply being homosexual must be a sin.

@ gonna hear dru roar.
No considering I believe it's true that homosexuality is biologically determined it comes down to what's in the heart and mind. If they are committed to putting God first in their lives and abstain from homosexual relations then they have not committed a sin. Also, we are all sinners anyway. So, whether you're homosexual or not doesn't change that.

@ The Pies Endure
Yes, but somehow society has brought homosexuality to the height of "sinful", almost equivalent of blasphemy.

I don't believe God has an issues with homosexuals or transgender individuals or people who have sex before marriage.

But whether or not someone believes it is a sin, they are committing a sin when they judge others for theirs.

@ gonna hear dru roar.
Actually, that's based on an erroneous interpretation of that verse where it says we should not judge others. There is a time and place for justice. Otherwise if it were sinful to judge, period, then it would be a sin to have police and the court system. And there are countries where it is considered an actual crime punishable by law to be actively homosexual. So, that's a tough one to...judge.

The Pies Endure:

@ gonna hear dru roar.
Yes, but it still doesn't say what kind of homosexuality it's referring to.

Seeing as homosexuality wasn't recognised as an actual sexual orientation until the 1800s, it's safe to say that same-sex sexual behaviour was understood in Biblical times only to be something of promiscuity and deviation. Many, in fact, thought that it was an overflow of lust, so to speak, whereby a man would begin to feel unfulfilled by sex with women, and would therefore turn their attention to males. This is demonstrably not true (and quite laughable) now, but in the Middle East a couple of millennia ago, that was how some rationalised the idea of same-sex lust, because they didn't realise that one can actually be romantically and/or sexually attracted to members of the same sex just as most are to members of the opposite sex. Today we recognise that sexual orientation is an integral part of who we are; something we cannot choose, and usually something that does not change. It strikes me that verses condemning male/male sexual activity aren't very helpful as a source of moral guidance when homosexuality wasn't recognised as a concept until much later.

@ The Pies Endure
The laws of men are not above the laws of God. In some countries it's still punishable by death to be raped, but I'm sure God isn't all "cool" with that.

---

There are several passages in the Bible which state we should not judge those until the sins of our own lives are not great, otherwise we are hypocrites. What verse do you think I'm misinterpreting?

@ alex; periphery.
That does help the perspective for me. As I mentioned earlier I'm not against homosexuality, I'm still trying to figure how it fits with my faith views as I have some very close friends who are homosexual.

@ gonna hear dru roar.
I agree that the law of man is not above the law of God, but it should be based on it.

As to the verse? That verse is in particular context and I totally agree with it. But, if it were a sin to judge period, it would be sinful to have a justice system.

@ The Pies Endure
In a lot of countries the justice system is sinful, but I see your point and agree with it. However, the individual judging is not the same as a jury of your peers or a judge in the court of law. (And I'm guilty of judging. I will admit it before I get asked. I, for example, agree with the verdict of the Delhi rapists and that is judging.)