I was being a smartass up above. I can see the arguements made by Irondork, but I still have a quesrtion. I think the bible does talk about what sort of marriage the middle eastern 'God' wanted and I dont remember same sex marriage as being and option. So, even if homosexuality is not condemend by 'God' wouldnt homosexuals always be fornicators in a sex before marriage sense?
Trinity, Immortality of the soul, Hell fire... Homosexuality
by irondork 42 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Phizzy
I guess we need to discuss that over on the other thread about marriage Deist ?
However ,it seems the threads are merging subject and conclusion-wise.
Lost said " Both the OT and the NT, do comment on same sex relations as being immoral ? sinful ? against God's natural laws? Am I correct on this ? "
That really is what this thread is about I suppose. I would answer that the O.T condemns it within the context of a lot of things that are extra-marital or with any connection to idolatry and pagan worship. The N.T follows the same pattern.
Both are really more concerned with property rights, who does this woman belong to etc, and who does the nation of Israel belong to, not so much with sexual acts per se. So, the sin of Adultery is seen as taking someone elses property, not merely the sexual act.
So ,my bold statement in other posts should really be that the Bible does not condemn same sex "marriage" it never mentions it, and it does not condemn homosexual relations within such a "marriage", for the same reason, no mention.
Edited to add : Just looked at the thread on marriage and that has got a bit sidelined, so maybe we should discuss here ?
-
EntirelyPossible
Great thread. Phizzy, I am going to steal that line about the Bible not noew meaning what it didn't mean then. IronDork, thanks for putting up the other links.
-
Phizzy
I think that is a great line E.P, it is from one of the articles Iron linked to, but it is a great point, so many wish to read into the text (eisegesis) something that suits their agenda.
It is a great rule for understanding any ancient text, it cannot mean now what the writer did not mean then.
I don't happen to believe that using an ancient text like the Bible or the Quran to base your life decisions on in the 21st Century makes any kind of sense, but if you happen to be a believer as some on here are, then for goodness sake base it on what the writer was actually saying, if you really must.
-
EntirelyPossible
I don't happen to believe that using an ancient text like the Bible or the Quran to base your life decisions on in the 21st Century makes any kind of sense, but if you happen to be a believer as some on here are, then for goodness sake base it on what the writer was actually saying, if you really must.
Agreed. I am non-theist, so that into account when I say this. The problem with trying to do as your last sentence suggests is time. Culture, nuance and meaning change over time and it's impossible to go back and know exactly what the writer meant exactly. It would be like trying to take my notebook 1000 years from now and figure out what I meant. Some is straightforward, like "Pay internet bill". Other statements, like "Go beat up Doug" might mean something entirely different from a literal interpretation.
It's obviously more complex that that, this is just a "for example".
-
irondork
I'm glad you enjoyed the threads. Thanks for your comments.
Lost: Both the OT and the NT, do comment on same sex relations as being immoral ? sinful ? against God's natural laws? Am I correct on this ?
Yes... but in very specific context. It does not say homosexuality is a sin in a broad sweeping way that it says "Thou shalt not kill, or lie." In both the Leviticus passages and again in Romans 1, the condemnation of same-sex sex is directed at otherwise heterosexual people who engage in sexual activity that is not natural for themselves as part of pagan worship. They are talking about same-sex sex by heterosexuals - NOT homosexual sex by homosexuals.
The bible also condemns same-sex sex in the context of prostitution. The same condemnation could be made of heterosexual prostitution and I doubt anyone would have concluded it was a broad condemnation of heterosexuality.
-
Phizzy
E.P makes the point that it is impossible to know exactly what a writer meant when he wrote 2 or 3 thousand years ago. True, but we really should make the effort, i.e Textual Criticism or the texts have no meaning of value.
I think Irondork has pointed us to where this efort has been made, and so we can see that the Bible writers never condemn Homosexuality per se, just the practice of homosexual sex as part of Idolatry. Without this careful consideration of the texts we may be in the same position as the Westboro baptist Fascists, sorry, Church, and say that "God hates fags ".
Now we can confidently say: The Bible nowhere condemns Homosexual people or their relationships.
Hence homosexual marriage is O.K for Jews and for Chrisitians.
-
*lost*
Do you think maybe you are splitting hairs a bit ?
How is it relevent what the scenario or settin is ? If it spoken against, well, it is spoken against and unfortunately there is no other way around it. To say that it is not condemned or spoken against because the word wasn't in use, or hadn't been invented, is splitting hairs. Ultimately it is the act itself that is spoken against. Men who lie with men ?
Leviticus: prohibits lying with mankind as with womankind.
18v22 - do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman;that is detestable.
20v13 - if a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.
The same as sex outside of marriage - fornication - is spoken against.
I understand how difficult it must be for you. The conflict.
We cannot pick and choose and twist the word of God and his commands to suit our own basic human needs. We are instructed - works of the flesh- what to abstain from. whether we do or not is entirely up to us as individuals, and it affects our personal relationship with God. We become sinful. I can see no way around it.
reagrds
lost
-
EntirelyPossible
How is it relevent what the scenario or settin is ?
Very.
Ultimately it is the act itself that is spoken against. Men who lie with men ?
They don't say anything about a relationship. What exactly does that mean, have sex with a man as with a woman? That actually makes me think there is a specific way they were talking about having sex, meaning other ways would be O.K. And it certainly doesn't condemn lebianism, just male homosexuality.
We cannot pick and choose and twist the word of God and his commands to suit our own basic human needs.
Exactly, so why do Christians keep doing it?
-
problemaddict
Hey guys,
So let me start by saying I have read two of the threads provided, but I have also heard reasoning on some other sites regarding this subject. Since I am fairly evolving into an agnostic (wether I realize it or not), let me start by saying that even if I was not, I would not consider "gay marriage" an issue. "Marriage filing jointly" is just a legal tern on your IRS form. It affords rights to people that I think all should have. But just because the government sanctions something, doesn't mean that the "church" has to bless it. It shouldn't matter anyways considering the desire for separation of church and state.
That being said, I would not consider the links provided as "evidence" of homosexuality being a-ok with the God of the bible. In fact, I think the evidence falls contrary to it. Regardless, the sexual act outside of marriage would be forbidden and be fornication, and the bible sets marriage in a non-secular setting to being limited to a man and woman when it was instituted. One could decide that anything outside of that, is considered "fornication", and therefore not cool.
The recent attempts to grasp at straws biblically speaking to say its all good to be gay from the bibles perspective, I think are born more out of a desire for the Christian right to want to win an election or two, and less about actual veracity of claim.
I'm down to tussle over it, but honestly I have no real dog in the fight one way or the other. Sometimes in looking at the atoms of an arguement, you can forget those atoms make up a greater item. I think the greater item and overview of the scriptures you have already mentioned, is that the bible never intended for men to be with men.
I could always be wrong, and I'm willing to revisit this later when I have a few more minutes if you like.
Peace!