Homosexuality Is An Indicator Of Lack Of Divine Participation In The Creation Of Scripture

Note: I was working on this in the 'drafts' and it got published by accident. I'll stop working on it now and consider it published.

My presumption about the bible is that if it is to be called divinely inspired, then there must be some quality of divinity about it. I presume that if there were a holy spirit, and it can inhabit and influence all people who believe, then that spirit would be able to provide Quality Assurance to the writings that make up the Bible. This Quality Assurance about the internal consistency of the content of the Bible would be an indicator of aspects of its divinity.

And now, at the risk of "Political Incorrectness" I present my presumptions about homosexuality. I presume that it is like my heterosexuality. I presume that they didn't have any more choice about their sexual preference than I did. I presume that since most people are heterosexual, homosexuality is a deviation from the norm.

With these presumptions I intend to show that the treatment of Homosexuality in the bible most likely does not have any divine aspects about it. The following are some important passages regarding homosexuality in the Bible.

* Leviticus 18:22 (New American Standard Bible)
22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

* Leviticus 20:13 (New American Standard Bible)
13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

* 1 Corinthians 6:9 (New American Standard Bible)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

In summary, it is an abomination, it is detestable and they shall be put to death, and they will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But research into human sexuality casts doubt on the 'Righteousness' of biblical principles regarding homosexuality. In the recent edition of Scientific American (June 2007) there is an article called "Going Beyond X and Y" by Sally Lehrman. Dr. Eric Vilain researches the phenomena of babies born with mixed sex organs. He has discovered new information that modifies traditional thinking about how developing babies sex is determined. He has discovered that it has genetic factors that are more complicated than previously thought. I am paraphrasing but he is researching the likelihood of competing genes that affect the organs, genitalia and brain development. He says that the gender effects in the brain happen before the organ effects. 1 in 4500 babies wind up with mixed sex organs. When this happens, the doctor makes a best guess on what the sex of the infant should be and performs surgery to facilitate it. Dr. Vilain has proposed that it be classified as DSD (Disorder of Sexual Development). In America, out of 300 million people, that comes out to be 66,666 people. It is a predictable rate. God is very consistent or he has nothing to do with it. Because of rushed gender assignment surgery to the infant, you will have cases where a woman is "trapped" in a mans body or vice versa.

Homosexuals shouldn't be considered an abomination, detestable or punishable by death and assignment to hell. Furthermore, we should be able to assume that some of that complex process will get mixed up to a lesser degree and result in a mans sexuality in a womans body and vice versa to include bi-sexuality.

Dr. Vilain recommends waiting on the sex assignment surgery, carrying out psychological counseling and classifying this as a clinical disorder. That seems pretty compassionate of him. He could just kill the baby in accordance with Leviticus if it weren't illegal by secular law, thank god [ ;-) ]

Does God do it on purpose or does it happen naturally? If he does it on purpose, then to what purpose? What value does it add? As a christian my justification that Homosexuality was an abomination was because logically, it would mean the end of the human race. But it doesn't happen enough to make this facet significant. As it stands, according to The Bible, it happens either naturally or divinely and then the subject should be killed or at least detested. If it happens naturally and God doesn't have anything to do with it, what is the principle by which Homosexuals are condemned? What is the principle in either case? Am I missing something? Where is the sense?

But homosexual behavior is exhibited in nature in other species. This means that it is not a specifically human trait. It spans species. This is the type of thing that is predicted by evolution. There is a museum exhibit in Norway that details the 1500 species that homosexual behavior has been observed in. I observed two camels doing something homosexual the last time I went to the zoo. One camel evidently was a cunning linguist. [ ;-) ]

I assert that the fact that there are biological determinants to human sexuality discredit the christian presumption that Homosexuality is a sin. It may be a disorder, but evil?
Is color blindness evil? Is dwarfism evil? Is a curved spine evil? Are they an abomination, detestable, punishable by death and assignment to hell?
No to all of the above. And neither is Homosexuality.

The attitude in the bible is simply an example of Bias against those that don't fit the standards for the group. It is human fear. Human Homophobia. Otherizing. It is obviously not very divine.

Note: Otherizing is
"(s)tereotyping…is part of the maintenance of social and symbolic order. It sets up a symbolic frontier between the ‘normal’ and the ‘deviant’, the ‘normal’ and the ‘pathological’, the ‘acceptable’ and the ‘unacceptable’, what ‘belongs’ and what does not or is “Other”, between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’, Us and Them. It facilitates the ‘binding’ or bonding together of all of Us who are ‘normal’ into one ‘imagined community’; and it sends into symbolic exile all of Them —“the Others’—who are in some way different--- ‘beyond the pale” (Hall, 1997, 258).

Since Alfred C. Kinsey published his seminal research, Research into Human Sexuality has suffered setbacks due to the influence of the religious right. "Kinsey's research polarized a segment of society. Many in the Christian Right found their religious and socially conservative views in conflict with Kinsey's methods and underlying principles. They saw his supporters as dissolute libertines and his work as morally corrupting. Even today, Kinsey's name can elicit partisan rancor." Many of Kinseys general conclusions have been verified by other research and are now considered valid by the scientific community. (Wikipedia, Alfred Kinsey)

Further Reading/References:

This paper discusses problems in Education regarding "Otherizing".

Hall, Stuart. ed.(1997). Representation : Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London: Open University.

Here is a link to a story of one families effort to force a son to be a girl after a circumcision tragedy. It didn't turn out too well. He didn't seem to be able to willfully change his sexuality.

Here is a link to more information on Homosexuality
Alfred C. Kinsey
Some other DC articles that discuss Homosexuality:
Was Jesus Left Handed?
Homosexuality Bible vs Nature
Homosexuality and the Christian


21 comments:

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

I have my own theory on this, one which seems to make more sense of a number of factors than do some of the ones I have seen. It's in three parts, and I'll lay them out, then discuss them.

I: All -- or the vast majority, ignoring true and rare genetic anomalies perhaps -- people are 'born bisexual.' That is, all of us have nervous systems capable of responding to any sexual stimulus; there is no way of testing, for example, a corpse and telling his 'sexual orientation' barring certain evidence of recent sexuality; and for some sexual stimuli the 'sheet test' proves that we can respond equally well to men or women.

II: When we define ourselves as 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual' what we are actually doing is defining ourselves as 'not homosexual' or 'not heterosexual,' and the belief that we must make such a choice is not physiological but created by society.

III: Our choice of, or preference for, certain sexual activities or certain types and appearances of partner -- even disregarding gender here -- is so complex, and so influenced by cultural norms, early experiences -- both sexual and non-sexual -- and other factors that if there is a genetic factor involved at all, it is too minor to be important.

I think each of these is worthy of a comment in itself.

tiny tim said...

The Bible doesn't condemn homosexuals. The Bible condemns homosexual acts in the same way it condemns (heterosexual) sex before marriage.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Jim,
I am not qualified to debate human sexuality.
- But I think it can be demonstrated that some people are born bi-sexual.
- I think it can be shown that there are neurological differences between the sexes in the brain that could be revealed in an autopsy.
- your second point presumes that your first point is a valid premiss but I don't see it as valid.
- I totally disagree with your third point because (without getting into details about my own sexuality) as a child moving into puberty, I seemed to be naturally aroused by some friends that I had as girls, and got that 'tingling' feeling and arousal when wrestling around with them. That didn't happen when I wrestled around with boys.
- you seem to be neglecting the role of pheromones in sexuality

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Tiny Tim,
I can show you where your view conflicts with some other christian views.
I see you are drawing a distinction between Homosexuality as a personality type and Homosexuality as and act. While I think that is fair, I think that it is an equivocation intended to get the Bible off the Hook for an obviously errant principle.
In any case, are you suggesting that a person who has a homosexual personality can never act on those desires because they will go to hell?
What is the principle behind sending a man to hell for giving a blow job to another man and not sending a woman to hell for it?
Research has shown that sexual frustration is unhealthy. Therefore, from your statement we can presume that god wants homosexual personalities to resist their natural urges, and suffer sexual frustration which has been shown to be unhealthy.
I wouldn't wish that on anyone and I'm surprised if anyone, including god, would.

ReligiousTolerance.org says that the greek version of the Bible was ambivalent on this subject but that the english translations are not. Sounds like the holy spirit wasn't involved with the english translations to me.

If religionstolerance.org is wrong, then it still sounds like the holy spirit wasn't involved in, at least, that part of scripture.

Anonymous said...

How come so many atheists are preoccupied with homosexuality?

zilch said...

I would say, that many atheists are preoccupied with the Christian preoccupation with homosexuality, and the resulting prejudices and laws against it that have resulted.

Lee Randolph said...

I agree with zilch,
adding that the bibles view on slavery and homosexuality are obviously unjustifiable and in error. This weakens the claim that the bible was divinely inspired.

tiny tim said...

Slavery was an important part of society 4000 years ago. Just because we outlaw this practice today doesn't make the Bible incorrect for not condemning it back then.

Lee,

My views may or may not conflict with some Christian views but that's not really the point. The Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, it condemns the ACT. This isn't a matter of getting the Bible "off the hook", this is about understanding what is actually said about the matter.

Since the Bible says these sorts of acts of wrong, then the logical extension of this is that homosexual believers would be expected to remain celibate. Where did I say anyone's going to hell?

Sexual frustration is unhealthy? lol And that's what, justification for allowing gay sex? Come on... There are many, many things people naturally desire to do but a part of the responsibility of being a believer is not giving into those desires. That same responsibility also exists in modern culture but just not to the same extent.

The Holy Spirit may or may not have been involved in the English translations...what difference does that make? Everyone has access to the original Greek text.

zilch said...

tiny tim- the New Testament condones slavery as well. Doesn't that mean that we should accept it too, for instance as still practiced in Sudan and (in the news recently) China? Or are there upgrades I don't know about? How dare we condemn a practice that God favored?

tiny tim said...

Where in the NT do you read that God encouraged people to pay their servants low wages or beat them or keep them in shackles or force them to work?

I see verses commanding how a master should treat his servants and in none of them do I read anything about God allowing these sorts of things to occur.

In the OT, a master was obliged, under the law, to release his servant after a set period of them. There were also harsh punishments for people who abused their servants.

Which part of this do you struggle with?

zilch said...

tiny tim: what the Bible says about how nicely slaves should be treated is not my point. My point is that slavery was condoned in both the Old and the New Testaments- not one word was spoken against the practice, although slavery was mentioned several times. For instance:

Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."

Lee Randolph said...

HI Tiny Tim,

Slavery was an important part of society 4000 years ago. Just because we outlaw this practice today doesn't make the Bible incorrect for not condemning it back then.

If that is your defense against Jesus not condemning it, just come out and say Jesus was not god, because it infers that either he condoned it or he was powerful enough to deal with the repercussions of saying something like that.

My views may or may not conflict with some Christian views but that's not really the point. The Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, it condemns the ACT. This isn't a matter of getting the Bible "off the hook", this is about understanding what is actually said about the matter.

What it actually said is a matter of dispute, when your statement depends on one interpretation than another, then it is the point. Your claim depends on a disputed premise

Since the Bible says these sorts of acts of wrong, then the logical extension of this is that homosexual believers would be expected to remain celibate. Where did I say anyone's going to hell?

You didn't say anyone was going to hell explicitly but Corinthians infers that because of the dichotomy of the kingdom of god. Leviticsu says they should put to death. That means in Christian terms, their soul goes somewhere, if Corinthians prevents them from inheriting the kingdom of god, then that exclude heaven and that only leaves on other aspect of the dichotomy as a option. Hell.

So now, what is the principle that makes homosexual believers have to give up sex and not heterosexual believers? How would you feel if you had to give up sex or something that was part of your nature which research shows in unhealthy to get your reward, or get into the church? Look at the word 'effiminate' in Corinthians, in the new king james version it is translated as homosexuals.

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

int the NIV it says
" 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders"

How can you be so sure of your position when the bibles don't agree?

And I don't know how you feel about catholic priests, but the fact that they keep getting busted for 'perversion' supports the research that celibacy causes problems. It is asking too much.

But what does a heterosexual care? Doesn't affect them, unless they are not married, right?

Sexual frustration is unhealthy? lol And that's what, justification for allowing gay sex? Come on... There are many, many things people naturally desire to do but a part of the responsibility of being a believer is not giving into those desires. That same responsibility also exists in modern culture but just not to the same extent.

Google celibacy health and you will find things like the following.
Celibacy can cause depression

The Holy Spirit may or may not have been involved in the English translations...what difference does that make? Everyone has access to the original Greek text.

So can I infer from this that you think everyone has the obligation to get their information from the Greek text instead of the text of their mother tongue? Is that how you reconcile the problems in the various bible versions?

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Tiny Tim,
typo in my last post,
it should have said
"or he was NOT powerful enough to deal with the repercussions of saying something like that."

Jason said...

If that is your defense against Jesus not condemning it, just come out and say Jesus was not god, because it infers that either he condoned it or he was powerful enough to deal with the repercussions of saying something like that.

Alright: Jesus was/is not god. I don’t see how this has anything to do with the topic though…? My question to you in return is: was slavery morally, culturally or socially wrong in the Middle East 4000 years ago?

What it actually said is a matter of dispute, when your statement depends on one interpretation than another, then it is the point. Your claim depends on a disputed premise.

If it’s disputed, then show me verses where God condemns people for being attracted to people of the same sex without mentioning homosexual acts.

You didn't say anyone was going to hell explicitly but Corinthians infers that because of the dichotomy of the kingdom of god. Leviticus says they should put to death. That means in Christian terms, their soul goes somewhere, if Corinthians prevents them from inheriting the kingdom of god, then that exclude heaven and that only leaves on other aspect of the dichotomy as a option. Hell.

You obviously don’t understand the kingdom of God. Firstly, the kingdom is to be established here, on earth, not in heaven. It's the whole “…thy kingdom come, thy will be done…” bit. Secondly, when someone dies, they cease to exist. They go to the ground, good and bad people alike (Job 3:13-19), and their thoughts cease (Psa 146:4). In death, men and animals are no different (Ecc 3:20). Thirdly, the opposite of being granted eternal life is being condemned to eternal death. These are always the two options presented in the bible: life and death (Deut 30:19). Fourthly, when Leviticus says people were to be put to death for breaking the law, what was the punishment: Death or burning in hellfire for eternity?

So now, what is the principle that makes homosexual believers have to give up sex and not heterosexual believers? How would you feel if you had to give up sex or something that was part of your nature which research shows in unhealthy to get your reward, or get into the church?

What an odd question. Which is more important, sex or eternal life...

How can you be so sure of your position when the bibles don't agree?

What don’t they agree about? If there’s difficulty in trying to figure out which English word is the better translation, then logically speaking, why wouldn't you just go to the original Greek word itself?

And I don't know how you feel about catholic priests, but the fact that they keep getting busted for 'perversion' supports the research that celibacy causes problems. It is asking too much.

So if we allowed grown men to have gay sex with children whenever they wanted, we’d be all better off? Hardly. The real issue here is giving men absolute authority, turning them into sex-crazed animals, and then surrounding them with individuals who trust implicitly.

Google celibacy health and you will find things like the following. Celibacy can cause depression

Do you know what else causes depression? Realizing you’re running the risk of not inheriting eternal life.

So can I infer from this that you think everyone has the obligation to get their information from the Greek text instead of the text of their mother tongue? Is that how you reconcile the problems in the various bible versions?

I don’t need to reconcile the problems in the various Bible versions because I don’t have an issue with them. If a Christian is serious about learning about God and His requirements for salvation, then digging deeper beyond the fluffy words of their pastor isn’t an ‘obligation’, it’s a necessity. For example, the immortal soul - a doctrine which blatantly contradicts the Biblical teaching of the death state. The solution? Going to the original text. The Hebrew word translated “soul” in Genesis 2:7 is ‘nephesh’. Does it mean “immortal soul”? No, it means “living being”. The same word is used in Genesis 1:21 (living creature), 1:24 (living creature), 2:19 (living creature), 9:4 (life), 14:21 (persons), etc. etc. It's amazing what a 5 minute word study will uncover.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Jason,

Alright: Jesus was/is not god. I don’t see how this has anything to do with the topic though…? My question to you in return is: was slavery morally, culturally or socially wrong in the Middle East 4000 years ago?
OK, you're right, it is off topic so I'll drop it, but we have some great articles on slavery. here is a link to some of them. Here is a link to all the articles that have the word 'slavery' in them.

If it’s disputed, then show me verses where God condemns people for being attracted to people of the same sex without mentioning homosexual acts.
Instead of doing that, here is link to a sample of a ministry that says that homosexuals are going to hell if they don't repent, and as i pointed out, some English versions of the bible use the word homosexual seemingly as a category of people. So I'll give on the homosexual person versus acts, but usually homosexuals are most likely to commit homosexual acts.

You obviously don’t understand the kingdom of God. .... Death or burning in hellfire for eternity?
I think I do understand the kingdom of god, sorry for not expressing myself better, but where does hell fit into your description? I was sure it should be in there somewhere. I was sure it would be in there as a euphemism for 'eternal death'.

What an odd question. Which is more important, sex or eternal life...
stipulating that eternal life exists for a moment, then obviously it is more important, however, what possible reason could god have for condemning a sex act if it is performed by the same gender to the same gender? I repeat, what is the principle other than 'because god said it, i believe it and that settles it?'

What don’t they agree about? If there’s difficulty in trying to figure out which English word is the better translation, then logically speaking, why wouldn't you just go to the original Greek word itself?
I agree, I spent a lot of time with my nose in lexicons. That is one of the things that got me over the 'divine inspiration' thing.

So if we allowed grown men to have gay sex with children whenever they wanted, we’d be all better off? Hardly. The real issue here is giving men absolute authority, turning them into sex-crazed animals, and then surrounding them with individuals who trust implicitly.
now, now, now, you grossly misrepresented me. I don't see how you could get that out of what I wrote. So evidently you don't think that their celibacy had much to do with their sex problems. Not all of them molested children, a few of them have sexually assaulted women and have even had consensual sex.

It's amazing what a 5 minute word study will uncover.
You are right about that. But a fact that you are overlooking is that you can choose any number of words for the Greek or Hebrew that fit in a certain context and in some cases, an English word doesn't fit the original meaning at all. And in some cases the meaning of a word is non-standard across cultures of people that speak the same language. This is one of the things I point to as an indicator that there was no participation by god in the creation of scripture. Divinely inspired means motivated by the idea of god, not 'breathed' by god.

Jason said...

Instead of doing that, here is link to a sample of a ministry that says that homosexuals are going to hell if they don't repent, and as i pointed out, some English versions of the bible use the word homosexual seemingly as a category of people. So I'll give on the homosexual person versus acts, but usually homosexuals are most likely to commit homosexual acts.

So if there are no versus in Scripture where God condemns individuals for being attracted to the opposite gender, then I fail to see on what grounds anyone can condemn homosexuals to ‘eternal suffering in hellfire’. Secondly, where does this bizarre concept come from that certain sins are worse then others? The ONLY sin that seems to outweigh others is blaspheming the Holy Spirit. It therefore begs the question: Where is this mystical verse that claims a homosexual act is a worse sin then, say, stealing?

Fundamentally, the argument breaks down like this:

A Christian who commits a homosexual act has sinned. An unbeliever who commits a homosexual act hasn’t sinned since the basic requirements for salvation haven’t even been met yet (faith, baptism, etc.). Quite frankly, Christians are wasting their time condemning unbelievers to hell for a specific sin.

I think I do understand the kingdom of god, sorry for not expressing myself better, but where does hell fit into your description? I was sure it should be in there somewhere. I was sure it would be in there as a euphemism for 'eternal death'.

Hell is nothing more then the grave. It's the place where people go when they die.

Stipulating that eternal life exists for a moment, then obviously it is more important, however, what possible reason could god have for condemning a sex act if it is performed by the same gender to the same gender? I repeat, what is the principle other than 'because god said it, i believe it and that settles it?'

It’s a good question. The issue of WHY same-sex marriages (and by extension homosexual acts) aren’t considered appropriate by God certainly does goes deeper then the typical “He said so so that’s the way it is…”

The issue has to do with the symbolism of marriage. Christ is often referred to as the bridegroom (Mat 9:15, Mat 25:5, etc.) and the act of marriage is symbolic of the ‘marriage’ between Christ and the church (the bride). Ephesians 5:23 further states that Christ, as the husband, is head over the church, the wife. Now whether or not it’s accepted today, the Bible model for the relationship between man and woman places the man as the ‘head’, keeping in line with the hierarchy of Christ as head of the church. Therefore, there is no model that accounts for homosexual partnerships as the pre-defined hierarchy cannot exist in these instances (man cannot be the head of man, woman cannot be the head of woman) Therefore, when the Biblical symbolism of marriage and the relationship within that marriage is considered, same-sex marriages don’t follow the accepted model established by God (and later, Christ). While this explanation may not be satisfactory for most Bible critics, the issue of what marriage symbolizes cannot be ignored in this sort of discussion.

So evidently you don't think that their celibacy had much to do with their sex problems. Not all of them molested children, a few of them have sexually assaulted women and have even had consensual sex.

I didn’t say celibacy had much to do with the problems in the priesthood. What I don’t see is how priests molesting little boys is associated with celibate homosexual men. As I said before, the issue is in giving these men absolutely authority, turning them into sex-crazed animals, and surrounding them with minors who trust implicitly. If altar boys were suddenly replaced by altar girls, it’s not as if instances of molestation would suddenly disappear.

But a fact that you are overlooking is that you can choose any number of words for the Greek or Hebrew that fit in a certain context and in some cases, an English word doesn't fit the original meaning at all. And in some cases the meaning of a word is non-standard across cultures of people that speak the same language. This is one of the things I point to as an indicator that there was no participation by god in the creation of scripture. Divinely inspired means motivated by the idea of god, not 'breathed' by god.

I don’t know what you’re saying. Provide examples of the scenario you’re suggesting.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Jason, you said

....Where is this mystical verse that claims a homosexual act is a worse sin then, say, stealing?....Quite frankly, Christians are wasting their time condemning unbelievers to hell for a specific sin.

well, you guys need to have a pow wow and work this out because here is the CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS RESEARCH MINISTRY saying homosexuals are condemned. It says "you should pray for the salvation of the homosexual". Somebody is missing some holy spirit (discernment of truth) around here besides me.

Hell is nothing more then the grave. It's the place where people go when they die.
What kind of christian are you? This is from CARM again. They say its a real place of torment. You should be ashamed that I'm using christian apologetics against you.

It’s a good question. The issue of WHY same-sex marriages (and by extension homosexual acts) aren’t considered appropriate by God certainly does goes deeper then the typical “He said so so that’s the way it is…”
The issue has to do with the symbolism of marriage. Christ is often referred to as the bridegroom (Mat 9:15, Mat 25:5, etc.) and the act of marriage is symbolic of the ‘marriage’ between Christ and the church (the bride). ...Therefore, when the Biblical symbolism of marriage and the relationship within that marriage is considered, same-sex marriages don’t follow the accepted model established by God (and later, Christ)....

I'm a little rusty, but I remember Paul saying that marriage was supposed to be for those that couldn't resist lust to serve god. If the hierarchy is not accepted today, where is the holy spirit in sorting this out? You should all be on the same page unless some of you are resisting its counseling, then how do you all figure out who is listening and who is not? Does the fact that homosexuality doesn't fit the hierarchy therefore is detestable and punishable by death sound reasonable to you? And anyway, gays don't have to be married in the church, they can be financially obligated in a 'marriage' agreement at city hall. There doesn't need to be any 'marriage' template for gays since it would appear to be comparing apples and oranges. On the other hand, saying that a man is married to jesus sounds homosexual to me. ;-) There is so much wrong with this, it just flies in the face of reason.

...What I don’t see is how priests molesting little boys is associated with celibate homosexual men. As I said before, the issue is in giving these men absolutely authority, turning them into sex-crazed animals, and surrounding them with minors who trust implicitly. If altar boys were suddenly replaced by altar girls, it’s not as if instances of molestation would suddenly disappear.
Jason, that is my point. involuntary celibacy, or forced celibacy causes problems. Some of them will seek an outlet, and if its boys, girls or secretaries, they will be breaking thier vows or at least depressed as research indicates. But your argument is
- giving these men absolute authority,
- turns them into sex crazed animals
- and then someone surrounds them with minors who trust implicitly.
That doesn't follow. They don't have absolute authority. The authority they have doesn't turn them all into sex-crazed animals, and surrounding any of them with minors who trust implicity is not relevant, and I'm sure that not all minors who surround them trust implicity.

I don’t know what you’re saying. Provide examples of the scenario you’re suggesting.
with respect to lexicons, translations and versions...
Here's a example from you in one of your comments.
For example, the immortal soul - a doctrine which blatantly contradicts the Biblical teaching of the death state. The solution? Going to the original text. The Hebrew word translated “soul” in Genesis 2:7 is ‘nephesh’. Does it mean “immortal soul”? No, it means “living being”. The same word is used in Genesis 1:21 (living creature), 1:24 (living creature), 2:19 (living creature), 9:4 (life), 14:21 (persons), etc. etc. It's amazing what a 5 minute word study will uncover.

- Here's a famous one, "Pierced" in psalm 22:17, "Like a lion"
- the interpretation of "divinely inspired", "Theopneustos is rendered in the Vulgate with the Latin divinitus inspirata ("divinely breathed into"), but some modern English translations opt for "God-breathed" (NIV) or "breathed out by God" (ESV) and avoid inspiration altogether, since its connotation, unlike its Latin root, leans toward breathing in instead of breathing out." (wikipedia, Biblical Inspiration
- and in english, you sew with thread and you respond to a thread in a blog,
- alaska is cool so is it cold or intersting?,
- my engine was blown and so was my hair.
- and last but not least, the meaning of "homosexuals" in the bible.

Jason said...

Well, you guys need to have a pow wow and work this out because here is the CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS RESEARCH MINISTRY saying homosexuals are condemned. It says "you should pray for the salvation of the homosexual". Somebody is missing some holy spirit (discernment of truth) around here besides me.

The topic isn’t CARM. I’m asking for the verse that states a homosexual act is a worse sin then others.

What kind of christian are you? This is from CARM again. They say its a real place of torment. You should be ashamed that I'm using christian apologetics against you.

I’m prepared to discuss what the Bible says about hell.

I'm a little rusty, but I remember Paul saying that marriage was supposed to be for those that couldn't resist lust to serve god. If the hierarchy is not accepted today, where is the holy spirit in sorting this out? You should all be on the same page unless some of you are resisting its counseling, then how do you all figure out who is listening and who is not? Does the fact that homosexuality doesn't fit the hierarchy therefore is detestable and punishable by death sound reasonable to you?...

What Paul said about marriage and lust really has nothing to do with the conversation. Marriage, as defined in Scripture, is between a man and a woman. As for the hierarchy and the Holy Spirit, again, I again fail to see what this has to do with the conversation. Marriage between man and a woman is symbolic of the marriage between Christ and the Church. Christ is the bridegroom, the church is the bridge. Man and woman. Same-sex marriages don’t fit the established Biblical model as laid out by God.

On the other hand, saying that a man is married to jesus sounds homosexual to me.

Where did I say a man is married to Jesus?

Jason, that is my point. involuntary celibacy, or forced celibacy causes problems. Some of them will seek an outlet, and if its boys, girls or secretaries, they will be breaking their vows or at least depressed as research indicates...They don't have absolute authority. The authority they have doesn't turn them all into sex-crazed animals, and surrounding any of them with minors who trust implicity is not relevant, and I'm sure that not all minors who surround them trust implicity.

Firstly, priests most definitely have absolute authority. Secondly, I’ve never disagreed that forced celibacy is wrong. Your original comment stated that the fact priests have been busted for perversion is proof that celibacy is wrong from the point of view that God forbidding people to engage in homosexual sex results in this perversion. What I’m saying is that homosexuality has nothing to do with it, celibacy in general is the problem. Switch the altar boys into altar girls and you’ll still have the same number, possibly more, cases of molestation, etc.

with respect to lexicons, translations and versions...Here's a example from you in one of your comments.

What’s the example? ‘Nephesh’ means ‘living being’.

1. What is Psalm 22:16 an example of?
2. What’s the difference between “inspired” and “breathed out by God”?
3. You’re using 21st century language styles to refute the divinity of Scripture…?
4. What about the meaning of homosexuals in the Bible? What is it about the Greek or Hebrew word that’s causing confusion?

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Jason,
thanks for the awesome dialoge but I am going to have close my case and move on to other topics. I have accepted a commitment to provide articles and defend them, but after a while I have to move on to something else. I feel like the answers to your questions are in my previous comments and if they aren't clear enough, my apologies, I'll work to do better in the future.
see you on other topics.
take care.

Michael Ejercito said...

The only thing that matters is that God decides who receives eternal pleasure in Heaven or eternal torment in Hell.

Jason said...

Close, but not quite. 'Eternal pleasure' will be given only after Christ has returned and judged the nations. No one's ever been to heaven (John 3:13), and hell is simply the grave.