Christian Discussion Thread V

[Salus Maior]

Protestantism is very easy to prove false. Have you never heard the saying "to study history, is to cease being Protestant"?

Considering that I continue to be Protestant despite studying history for years (and yes, including a lot of Christian history), that seems like a bit of a false statement.

[Othelos]

Then what about childless marriages? Worthy of condemnation for squandering the gift given to them?

Yes.

doesn't that seem a tad out of touch?

[Diopolis]

Yes.

doesn't that seem a tad out of touch?

That's the culture's problem, not the faith's. Culture exists to support and nourish faith, not the other way around.

[The Flutterlands]

Then what about childless marriages? Worthy of condemnation for squandering the gift given to them?

Yes.

So marriage between the infertile, the elderly and the handicapped are all condemned by God?

[Cannabis Islands]

I'm neither a Christian nor a homophobe but from what I read in the Bible, it clearly condemns homosexuality. It appears that the Christian God intended sex have a procreative purpos purpose. Anything else that deviates from that is a sin.

Without chapter and verse, that's no kind of valid theology. I've shown how the Bible, in two instances, is anything but clear in its treatment of homosexuality. If you want to make the claim that the Scriptures are unambiguous in asserting the primacy of procreation in Christian sexuality, I advise you to find some more citations.

But you assume that I take what I adhere to the Bible in some way, I don't. Here is a website that more or less refutes what you're saying. http://www.gotquestions.org/homosexuality-Bible.html

[Cannabis Islands]

Yes.

So marriage between the infertile, the elderly and the handicapped are all condemned by God?

Yes, according to the Catholic Church, if a married couple is purely having sex for lust, then it's a sin.

[Salus Maior]

On another note, do you guys know of any good sources for studying up on the Nestorians and Copts? Not a school assignment or anything, I'm just curious as to what exactly they believe and how they functioned.

The Orthodox Wiki might have something on the copts. I'll check and get right back to you.

EDIT: Found it! *Puffs out chest proudly* http://orthodoxwiki.org/Church_of_Alexandria_(Coptic)

They certainly have an entry on the Nestorians.

Though in fairness, that's an Orthodox perspective on the Copts - not a Coptic one.

Though they haven't been updated for a while, these two links might be better for gaining a Coptic perspective:

http://www.coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/

http://www.coptic.net/CopticWeb/

Thank you all, I'm sure it will be very enlightening once I have the time to read through it ^_^

Hmm, I don't suppose there's many more neutral sources for Nestorians, eh?

[Cannabis Islands]

doesn't that seem a tad out of touch?

That's the culture's problem, not the faith's. Culture exists to support and nourish faith, not the other way around.

You're right! And I choose the carnal pleasures of the world over the Faith.

[Reverend Norv]

Without chapter and verse, that's no kind of valid theology. I've shown how the Bible, in two instances, is anything but clear in its treatment of homosexuality. If you want to make the claim that the Scriptures are unambiguous in asserting the primacy of procreation in Christian sexuality, I advise you to find some more citations.

But you assume that I take what I adhere to the Bible in some way, I don't. Here is a website that more or less refutes what you're saying. http://www.gotquestions.org/homosexuality-Bible.html

Look: either you believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality, or you don't. If you don't, then we're on the same page. If you do, I'll refute your refutation.

There are, by my count, five Biblical citations on that web-page. I'll deal with each of them in turn.

One is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. We've already seen that the meaning of the word used in that passage is completely unclear, but that it almost certainly doesn't refer simply to homosexuality, since Paul coined it for this particular context rather than using a standard word for homosexuals.

Another is Genesis 19:1-13. This is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah are made out to be evil because they want to have sex with the men in Lot's house. Problem? The men are angels, and Lot is sheltering them. This has nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with the fact that it is wrong to rape angels - which seems obviously true.

Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 probably do refer to homosexuality. They are also drawn from the same book of the Bible that bans eating shellfish, touching a pig, picking up grapes that fall in your vineyard, and trimming your beard. One of the original defining features of Christianity is the idea of a New Covenant in which God's grace frees believers from the impossible minutiae of the Law. If we're going to trim our beards, and we are, then we have no right to appeal to Leviticus as a basis for Christian doctrine about homosexuality.

Finally, Romans 1:26-27. Let's look at the whole passage from which this is taken.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So while this refers to homosexuality, it only deals with homosexual acts that are connected with idol-worship (remember what I said about the importance of homosexual temple prostitution?). And it only deals with homosexual acts that spring from shameful lust (πάθη ἀτιμίας). It's worth noting that heterosexual acts that spring from shameful lust (like, say, using prostitutes) are also abominations.

In other words, homosexuality as a consequence of idolatry and lust - which is a perfect definition of temple prostitution - is a bad thing. Sure! But this has nothing to say about homosexual relationships that spring from love and respect, within the Christian church. For those kinds of relationships, I think you have to look elsewhere - to 1 John 4:7-8.

"Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

And that is why your website is baloney.

[Cannabis Islands]

But you assume that I take what I adhere to the Bible in some way, I don't. Here is a website that more or less refutes what you're saying. http://www.gotquestions.org/homosexuality-Bible.html

Look: either you believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality, or you don't. If you don't, then we're on the same page. If you do, I'll refute your refutation.

There are, by my count, five Biblical citations on that web-page. I'll deal with each of them in turn.

One is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. We've already seen that the meaning of the word used in that passage is completely unclear, but that it almost certainly doesn't refer simply to homosexuality, since Paul coined it for this particular context rather than using a standard word for homosexuals.

Another is Genesis 19:1-13. This is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah are made out to be evil because they want to have sex with the men in Lot's house. Problem? The men are angels, and Lot is sheltering them. This has nothing with homosexuality, and everything to do with the fact that it is wrong to rape angels - which seems obviously true.

Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 probably do refer to homosexuality. They are also drawn from the same book of the Bible that bans eating shellfish, touching a pig, picking up grapes that fall in your vineyard, and trimming your beard. One of the original defining features of Christianity is the idea of a New Covenant in which God's grace frees believers from the impossible minutiae of the Law. If we're going to trim our beards, and we are, then we have no right to appeal to Leviticus as a basis for Christian doctrine about homosexuality.

Finally, Romans 1:26-27. Let's look at the whole passage from which this is taken.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So while this refers to homosexuality, it only deals with homosexual acts that are connected with idol-worship (remember what I said about the importance of homosexual temple prostitution?). And it only deals with homosexual acts that spring from shameful lust (πάθη ἀτιμίας). It's worth noting that heterosexual acts that spring from shameful lust (like, say, using prostitutes) are also abominations.

In other words, homosexuality as a consequence of idolatry and lust - which is a perfect definition of temple prostitution - is a bad thing. Sure! But this has nothing to say about homosexual relationships that spring from love and respect, within the Christian church. For those kinds of relationships, I think you have to look elsewhere - to 1 John 4:7-8.

"Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

And that is why your website is baloney.

It's not my website. I'm a gay non-Christian that believes the Bible condemns homosexuality. There are loads of Christians on this that will defend the website's position.

[Reverend Norv]

Look: either you believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality, or you don't. If you don't, then we're on the same page. If you do, I'll refute your refutation.

There are, by my count, five Biblical citations on that web-page. I'll deal with each of them in turn.

One is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. We've already seen that the meaning of the word used in that passage is completely unclear, but that it almost certainly doesn't refer simply to homosexuality, since Paul coined it for this particular context rather than using a standard word for homosexuals.

Another is Genesis 19:1-13. This is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah are made out to be evil because they want to have sex with the men in Lot's house. Problem? The men are angels, and Lot is sheltering them. This has nothing with homosexuality, and everything to do with the fact that it is wrong to rape angels - which seems obviously true.

Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 probably do refer to homosexuality. They are also drawn from the same book of the Bible that bans eating shellfish, touching a pig, picking up grapes that fall in your vineyard, and trimming your beard. One of the original defining features of Christianity is the idea of a New Covenant in which God's grace frees believers from the impossible minutiae of the Law. If we're going to trim our beards, and we are, then we have no right to appeal to Leviticus as a basis for Christian doctrine about homosexuality.

Finally, Romans 1:26-27. Let's look at the whole passage from which this is taken.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So while this refers to homosexuality, it only deals with homosexual acts that are connected with idol-worship (remember what I said about the importance of homosexual temple prostitution?). And it only deals with homosexual acts that spring from shameful lust (πάθη ἀτιμίας). It's worth noting that heterosexual acts that spring from shameful lust (like, say, using prostitutes) are also abominations.

In other words, homosexuality as a consequence of idolatry and lust - which is a perfect definition of temple prostitution - is a bad thing. Sure! But this has nothing to say about homosexual relationships that spring from love and respect, within the Christian church. For those kinds of relationships, I think you have to look elsewhere - to 1 John 4:7-8.

"Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

And that is why your website is baloney.

It's not my website. I'm a gay non-Christian that believes the Bible condemns homosexuality. There are loads of Christians on this that will defend the website's position.

But this is what I'm getting at: as a gay non-Christian, given what I've just told you, why on Earth do you think that the Bible condemns homosexuality?

[Menassa]

[...]
Another is Genesis 19:1-13. This is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah are made out to be evil because they want to have sex with the men in Lot's house. Problem? The men are angels, and Lot is sheltering them. This has nothing with homosexuality, and everything to do with the fact that it is wrong to rape angels - which seems obviously true.[...]

Also, Ezekiel 16:49

"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom:
She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned;
they did not help the poor and needy."

[Reverend Norv]

[...]
Another is Genesis 19:1-13. This is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah are made out to be evil because they want to have sex with the men in Lot's house. Problem? The men are angels, and Lot is sheltering them. This has nothing with homosexuality, and everything to do with the fact that it is wrong to rape angels - which seems obviously true.[...]

Also, Ezekiel 16:49

"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom:
She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned;
they did not help the poor and needy."

Bingo.

[Menassa]

Also, Ezekiel 16:49

"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom:
She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned;
they did not help the poor and needy."

Bingo.

Although, that is easily countered with the next verse.

"'They were haughty and did abominable things before me.
Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

[Cannabis Islands]

It's not my website. I'm a gay non-Christian that believes the Bible condemns homosexuality. There are loads of Christians on this that will defend the website's position.

But this is what I'm getting at: as a gay non-Christian, given what I've just told you, why on Earth do you think that the Bible condemns homosexuality?

Because I don't take hardly any of my inspiration from the Bible. As I said before, I personally view religion from a Marxist perspective. But my approach to it is objectivist.

[Reverend Norv]

Bingo.

Although, that is easily countered with the next verse.

"'They were haughty and did abominable things before me.
Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

Trying to rape angels is pretty abominable, indeed.

[Menassa]

Although, that is easily countered with the next verse.

"'They were haughty and did abominable things before me.
Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

Trying to rape angels is pretty abominable, indeed.

You could make the argument, since it is the same Hebrew word as is used in Leviticus.

[Reverend Norv]

But this is what I'm getting at: as a gay non-Christian, given what I've just told you, why on Earth do you think that the Bible condemns homosexuality?

Because I don't take hardly any of my inspiration from the Bible. As I said before, I personally view religion from a Marxist perspective. But my approach to it is objectivist.

But look: the Bible says what it says. That doesn't change, no matter what most Christians think, or what Marx thought, or what Ayn Rand thought. It's a book: it says what it says.

What it says does not condemn homosexuality, at least not in any clear sense. Christianity as it is popularly practiced may contain such a condemnation. The Bible does not.

So it doesn't matter whether you take inspiration from the Bible: the Bible doesn't clearly condemn homosexuality. Now, here's what I want to know: why do you think it does?

[Reverend Norv]

Trying to rape angels is pretty abominable, indeed.

You could make the argument, since it is the same Hebrew word as is used in Leviticus.

תּוֹעֵבָה, right?

It's used 117 times in the Old Testament. I think it's safe to assume that it doesn't refer specifically to homosexuality.

[Menassa]

You could make the argument, since it is the same Hebrew word as is used in Leviticus.

תּוֹעֵבָה, right?

It's used 117 times in the Old Testament. I think it's safe to assume that it doesn't refer specifically to homosexuality.

IIRC it's only referred to by a handful of sins... Homosexuality, Murder.

And to respond to its usage my shellfish, their it is not the sin, but the creature.

[Cannabis Islands]

Because I don't take hardly any of my inspiration from the Bible. As I said before, I personally view religion from a Marxist perspective. But my approach to it is objectivist.

But look: the Bible says what it says. That doesn't change, no matter what most Christians think, or what Marx thought, or what Ayn Rand thought. It's a book: it says what it says.

What it says does not condemn homosexuality, at least not in any clear sense. Christianity as it is popularly practiced may contain such a condemnation. The Bible does not.

So it doesn't matter whether you take inspiration from the Bible: the Bible doesn't clearly condemn homosexuality. Now, here's what I want to know: why do you think it does?

Because when I read those verses, I see condemnation of homosexuality. And also, the Catholics in this thread will point to what the Church has already said on this subject.

[Reverend Norv]

תּוֹעֵבָה, right?

It's used 117 times in the Old Testament. I think it's safe to assume that it doesn't refer specifically to homosexuality.

IIRC it's only referred to by a handful of sins... Homosexuality, Murder.

And to respond to its usage my shellfish, their it is not the sin, but the creature.

A glance at my concordance suggests otherwise. It's used: several times in Exodus to refer to things that the Egyptians despise (shepherds are an abomination, breaking bread with Hebrews is an abominations), many times in Deuteronomy to refer to dietary rules, a few times in Ezra to refer to Hittite and Ammonite religious practices, and - most interestingly - once in Psalm 88, in which the poet says that he has been made an abomination (תוֹעֵב֣וֹת) to his friends or acquaintances.

[The Flutterlands]

Rape in general is abominable. In fact there's a story similar to Sodom and Gomorrah but with different conclusion in Judges 19

[Reverend Norv]

But look: the Bible says what it says. That doesn't change, no matter what most Christians think, or what Marx thought, or what Ayn Rand thought. It's a book: it says what it says.

What it says does not condemn homosexuality, at least not in any clear sense. Christianity as it is popularly practiced may contain such a condemnation. The Bible does not.

So it doesn't matter whether you take inspiration from the Bible: the Bible doesn't clearly condemn homosexuality. Now, here's what I want to know: why do you think it does?

Because when I read those verses, I see condemnation of homosexuality. And also, the Catholics in this thread will point to what the Church has already said on this subject.

We're not talking about what the Church has said on the subject. We're talking about what the Bible has said. And what I'm asking is this: why, even after I've explained the ambiguity and misinterpretation of those verses, do you still see condemnation of homosexuality?

[Menassa]

IIRC it's only referred to by a handful of sins... Homosexuality, Murder.

And to respond to its usage my shellfish, their it is not the sin, but the creature.

A glance at my concordance suggests otherwise. It's used: several times in Exodus to refer to things that the Egyptians despise (shepherds are an abomination, breaking bread with Hebrews is an abominations), many times in Deuteronomy to refer to dietary rules, a few times in Ezra to refer to Hittite and Ammonite religious practices, and - most interestingly - once in Psalm 88, in which the poet says that he has been made an abomination (תוֹעֵב֣וֹת) to his friends or acquaintances.

But the express times its used to refer to the Mitzvot or commandments.