Homosexuality

[Daystar]

Italy's nominee to become the European Union's Justice and Home Affairs commissioner failed on Monday to win the backing of the European Parliament's Justice Committee, days after testifying that he considers homosexuality a sin.

The panel narrowly failed to endorse Rocco Buttiglione, who is currently Italy's European Affairs minister, said Jean-Louis Bourlanges, chairman of the Justice Committee.

Buttiglione said that he would fight for the rights of homosexuals, but would not back away from his statement that the lifestyle is sinful.

Isn't this the way it should be? Fight for the rights of homosexuals, but individuals, but define their lifestyle as sinful (Lev. 18:22).

[ENIGMA]

I've taken the liberty of creating a new topic for the Slavery sub-discussion. Perhaps it would be better to forward any further discussion on that topic to the new thread.

(Plus it gets me tokens )

[Daystar]

Ok, so then there never was anything wrong with slavery.

[Day] This was a play on Jose's comment that slavery was acceptable in the scriptures.



Ummmis that a typo?

So let me get this straight. If we practice slavery the way God wanted us to practice slaveryit would be ok?

[Day] Any slaveowner who does not treat his slaves with love, dignity and respect, is despicable. If a slave was called by God and finds himself enslaved, it shouldn't trouble him, but he would do well to gain freedom. Any slave who is a Christian, is called to submit to his master, and the master is commanded to treat him as a brother in the Lord. Both are "slaves" (bondservants) to the Lord (1 cor, 7:21)

[otseng]

So let me get this straight. If we practice slavery the way God wanted us to practice slaveryit would be ok?

This is debated at the Slavery thread.

[chrispalasz]

Homosexuality is wrong. Men having sexual relationships with men is wrong. Women having sexual relationships with women is wrong. They are both detestable.

God says it is wrong, and since He is the creator of the Universe and everything in it, what God says is.

The Bible says it is wrong in the OT and the NT.

It is plainly clear that it is wrong, without either of the two listed reasons above. Anyone that argues that it is right is only doing so for argument's sake or is only doing so to try and justify their own wrongdoing.

[adherent]

AMEN BROTHER!
Stating it plain and simple!

It is too bad people go as far as to say that the verse, Leviticus 18:22, got translated all wrong and taht it actually does allow men to have sexual relations with men?

So you ppl who say that the verse got translated wrong, well... what do you think it means if it did get translated wrong?

[ENIGMA]

Homosexuality is wrong. Men having sexual relationships with men is wrong. Women having sexual relationships with women is wrong. They are both detestable.

Unless shown on HBO, in which case it is quite profitable.

God says it is wrong, and since He is the creator of the Universe and everything in it, what God says is.

So I take it then that you are all for the stoning of disobediant children?

It is plainly clear that it is wrong, without either of the two listed reasons above. Anyone that argues that it is right is only doing so for argument's sake or is only doing so to try and justify their own wrongdoing.

It is plainly clear that the above statement is incorrect.

Gee, this is fun .

[chrispalasz]

God says it is wrong, and since He is the creator of the Universe and everything in it, what God says is.

So I take it then that you are all for the stoning of disobediant children?

I don't know why people play around with second-hand arguments. Obviously you have not looked at the Bible to find any of your own.

I know that God is good and just and righteous. He has proven this time and time again, and not just to me. If He says a child should be stoned... that child should be stoned. Got that? Let me continue.

I do not believe a child should be stoned for being disobediant. That was in the Old Testament, and God had good and just reasons for those laws. When Jesus came, He fulfilled the law. We should no longer stone disobediant children but we should love them and guide them and pray for them.

[palmera]

I don't know why people play around with second-hand arguments. Obviously you have not looked at the Bible to find any of your own.

From reading the dialogue thus far I find that the use of "second-hand arguments" as you've called them is done in an effort to point out a certain lack of acknowledgment on the part of those who use Lev. 18:22 to condemn homosexuality. By citing other laws such as the stoning of disobediant children one makes aware that what is going on in much of this debate thus far is a rendering of the Bible as a tool to proliferate one's own theological assumptions. The use of "second-hand arguments" points out that the condemnation of homosexualtiy here reflects a reading of the text which draws out from the text a set of assumption, a theology, which was already read INTO the text. In this way the text is used as a tool for theology, not used to shape, change, alter one's perceptions but to bolster prejudices.

AMEN BROTHER!
Stating it plain and simple!

This is one type of attitude which proliferates missuse of the text. There is very little, indeed nothing "plain and simple" about the OT or NT. To claim a position about the text as such is done so without acknowledging what one brings to the text in reading or the complexity of the text as that which refuses to be articulated plainly or simply.

To move on to the larger question at hand. Lev. 18:22 is not simply about homosexuality. In fact the term "homosexuality" as we render it today did not exist even as a transferrable concept to the Hebrew people of the OT. Rather this excerpt refers to what a man does with his "seed." One must look beyond the confines of this one phrase stripped from its context and understand it as it relates to the passage at hand, to Leviticus and the Torah. One must seek to understand the Bible as a cultural construct: the word of God to be sure, but written, edited and redacted by humankind.
Leviticus, according to Biblical scholars and the archaeological record was written after the Babylonian Exile of the Hebrew people. It thus reflects a post-exilic experience. In a close reading of the text keeping in mind it's historical and cultural shaping one begins to understand the passage surrounding 18:22 as one about what a man does with his "seed." During the time of Leviticus's writing, the Hebrew people were a dying people... to protect the serious nature of repopulation, taboos against anything which did not help to reproduce (i.e. incest, bestiality, masturbation, male/male relations) were instituted through the religious doctrine of the Hebrew peoples; by much the same process as the taboo against pork- it's not that pigs are unfit to eat, but that for a agricultural/pastoral people pigs were simply to expensive to keep- solution, religious taboo.
Lev. 18:22 is not about what's morally wrong in the eyes of God but what's best for the community seeking to rebuild and repopulate post-exile. There is a history and culture behind the scripture, to ignore this is to turn a blind eye to the thick reality behind the Bible and to IMPOSE one's own assumptions, prejudices, and theology onto the text.

[chrispalasz]

Secon-Hand Arguments

Alright. What I meant specifically by using this term was "an argument that is taken by one and used at leisure with a lack of understanding of the subject matter." I was using it in my own slang sense instead of the literal definition, I suppose. But now I've clarified.

AMEN BROTHER!
Stating it plain and simple!

This is one type of attitude which proliferates missuse of the text. There is very little, indeed nothing "plain and simple" about the OT or NT. To claim a position about the text as such is done so without acknowledging what one brings to the text in reading or the complexity of the text as that which refuses to be articulated plainly or simply.

This is obviously not what he was referring to. He was sayin that I had made my point plain and simple by stating the facts and using short sentences.

Leviticus, according to Biblical scholars and the archaeological record was written after the Babylonian Exile of the Hebrew people. It thus reflects a post-exilic experience. In a close reading of the text keeping in mind it's historical and cultural shaping one begins to understand the passage surrounding 18:22 as one about what a man does with his "seed." During the time of Leviticus's writing, the Hebrew people were a dying people... to protect the serious nature of repopulation, taboos against anything which did not help to reproduce (i.e. incest, bestiality, masturbation, male/male relations) were instituted through the religious doctrine of the Hebrew peoples; by much the same process as the taboo against pork- it's not that pigs are unfit to eat, but that for a agricultural/pastoral people pigs were simply to expensive to keep- solution, religious taboo.
Lev. 18:22 is not about what's morally wrong in the eyes of God but what's best for the community seeking to rebuild and repopulate post-exile. There is a history and culture behind the scripture, to ignore this is to turn a blind eye to the thick reality behind the Bible and to IMPOSE one's own assumptions, prejudices, and theology onto the text.

I'm glad to see you're well researched, because that means you've looked into it. I'm sad to see that you can't look past what you were told to see the greater picture.

There is a thick reality behind the Bible, but the only person turning a blind eye to anything are well researched non-believers. Christian Bible Scholars see all of that thick reality AND they see the big picture that God instituted it all. God told the Hebrew people what to do - not why to do it. God told the Hebre people what not to do - not why not to do it. They learned the hard way by disobeying God.

You don't think God knows that homosexuality does not advance reproduction? Of course it doesn't. Sex wasn't created for the purpose of selfish pleasure. The pleasure that comes from sex was created to help create a desire to reproduce and glorify God. As for the pork... I'm not too sure about that. Is that in the Bible?

[palmera]

There is a thick reality behind the Bible, but the only person turning a blind eye to anything are well researched non-believers.

From what basis do you make this claim?

Christian Bible Scholars see all of that thick reality AND they see the big picture that God instituted it all.

Do you refer to ALL Christian Biblical Scholars? The ones you've read and agree with?

I'm not too sure about that. Is that in the Bible?

Yes. It's there. Leviticus 11:2-7 outlines what animals one may and may not eat. The Hebrew (actually more generally speaking it's a Middle Eastern taboo) taboo on pork is the most well known of several food taboos found in the Old Testament.

I think perhaps where we will continuously disagree is in our perception of the Bible as a written document. Based on my studies, I understand the Bible to be the result of centuries of editing and compilation. I understand from the way you refer to the Torah, that from your own experiences you understand it as transcribed by Moses as told to him by God. If this indeed is the case, this difference alone is much to wrestle with together as we continue discourse