Passages and homosexuality

[jerickson314]

ochotseat: Be careful. In your arguments, I've seen some ad hominem and genetic fallacies (e.g. stressing his liberal background), as well as some red herring fallacies (e.g. regarding the consistency of his parent's beliefs). Intellectual honesty demands that I analyze arguments used by both sides. In fact, I have seen too many atheists reject Christianity due to fallacious reasoning on the part of some Christians. It has become a major pet peeve for me to see fallacious arguments used towards a good cause.

mdvaden: Your "compound sin" concept is partially where I have been coming from in my arguments. It is my belief that homosexuality can be shown to be a compound sin even if the specific passages can be construed not to condemn homosexuality. Your reasoning seems to imply this as well.

Shirtless:

But, to make a long story short, I slowly began to think that maybe I was wrong. Thinking that I might be wrong is something I never let go of, which is why I keep asking people to give commentary on, with jerickson being the only one to really do so.

I know how you feel, being afraid you are wrong. That's one reason I visit sites like TalkOrigins, TalkReason, and yes, even epistle.us. Plus, I find that when I digest the information from these places slowly, I can usually find flaws in the reasoning. Ironically, these places can actually strengthen my faith. I feel much better having addressed the arguments rather than ignoring them.

I would like to respond to your last post, as there are things in it that I agree with, and also things that I think are misunderstood. I'm kind of busy today, and I will get to it when I can. So for now, try to hold back the posts, I can't respond to everything

OK. There were a few more things I could touch on in my own reasoning from yesterday's post, but I will hold off until you have a chance to respond. As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, I do understand that digesting information slowly works best.

Felgar:

Just wanted to point out that I feel jerickson has hit the nail on the head in everything he's said. I always start by making his point (that homosexuality is not unlike all other sin) but then in the fervor of debating the original point can get lost under what are misconstrued as accusations and condemnations. So well done jerickson.

Thanks!

[ochotseat]

ochotseat: Be careful. In your arguments, I've seen some ad hominem and genetic fallacies (e.g. stressing his liberal background), as well as some red herring fallacies (e.g. regarding the consistency of his parent's beliefs). Intellectual honesty demands that I analyze arguments used by both sides. In fact, I have seen too many atheists reject Christianity due to fallacious reasoning on the part of some Christians. It has become a major pet peeve for me to see fallacious arguments used towards a good cause.

Jerick, just calling it as it is and basing it on what he said. Maybe you don't realize that atheists and other pagans will not accept Christianity even with or without misleading arguments as you call them unless their eyes are opened by God himself.

[Shirtless]

jerickson, again I'm glad that you took the time to look at the Epistle, and you're right: exposing yourself to other people's views IS a way to make your faith stronger (in secular subjects as well). But you really couldn't have picked worse articles to comment on. I regret ever posting the link to my essay. It's just that ochotseat was taking a lot of pleasure in hinting that I might be gay, so I decided to indulge his interest in me personally with my testimony.

The article I wrote was targeted to homosexuals for the specific purpose of convincing them to not hate those who hate them. It was NEVER meant for a person like yourself to read, because you would pick up on assumptions I make that don't have anything to back it up. If you were listening to Rush Limbaugh, you couldn't complain that he was making too many assumptions (!) on air because he's addressing specific people that already agree with him.

You address this in your own story, but in a fallacious way:

I've talked to many Christians who say that they don't hate gays themselves, they simply hate gay acts. Based on first-hand experience, I can assure you that this is simply not true. The core nature of homophobia is that gays are not committing sins, they are sin.

Here, you are making a sweeping generalization. You assume that because you have met some homophobic Christians, all Christians who reject homosexuality must be homophobic. You are using the same logic people use when they reject Christianity just because the Christians they have met are hypocrites.

Yes, I do know many people that have anti-homosexual feelings that are to a far greater degree than normal, and you or others might be totally different. However, the most important point of that article was that I MYSELF used to be a homophobe, and so I have a little more reason to say these things than others. It's like when a black comedian makes stereotypical comments about black people, and nobody minds because he's black. I used to say things like, "Oh, I like gays, I just don't like practicing homosexuals."
Whenever I talked to a homosexual person, I would force a smile and say "Nice to meet ya," when I already made up my mind that I didn't like him for who he was. So yes, I am making a generalization, but not a sweeping one.

Then in your story, you mention an injustice done towards a gay person. I agree that the actions you described were very sinful and unjust. Nonetheless, it is simply a non sequitur to say that homosexuality isn't a sin. What if they killed him because he told a big lie? Would that mean that lying is OK?

No, but again, this was between me and the homosexual readers who watch the news and are personally affected by things like this. I feel like I'm having a conversation with someone and someone elses jumps in and says "What's that supposed to mean?" It was never meant to be an argument or a way of getting sympathy, it was trying to tell these people how a full-fledged homophobe thinks.

Then I found another article that was just loaded with fallacies. Read it here.

The particular article you reviewed is actually the reason why I am familiar with the Epistle. I read it on another site, and I found things about it that I didn't like (not as extensive as your review though). I asked who wrote it and if I could contact him. I then wrote this:

Hello, I've been reading some articles on the ChristianGays site and I found some parts of 14 Responses to 14 Christian Fundamentalist Myths to have things that could be worded differently. As a former homophobe as of a year ago, I'm still in touch with how prejudice straight guys think, and some of the things on the site are more like patting yourselves on the back as opposed to really changing people's minds. I haven't read any other articles on your site, so I
don't know if that particular essay represents the views of the whole site, but I thought you might like some of my incite if you have the time

Jesus actually condemns those who condemn others and
told us NOT TO JUDGE OTHERS

Well, yeah--but those who condemn gays think they love the sinner but hate the sin. I know that you guys address that later, but it kinda misses the point.

He created all people including gay, lesbian, bisexual
& transgenders.

I heard this "God created all of us" line before and I said (this was me at the time, not now) "that's stupid! By that way of thinking, God created
psychopathic murderers!" Remember, these people believe that homosexuality is a choice, so you have to speak their language...it's a slow process.

Praise the Lord; Jesus loves us more than these
nervous folks ever will.

People who come to this site, to get a different point of view than their own, are hanging on a thin rope and could go right back to their old life quite easily. Making fun of them isn't a wise idea.

6. Gay Sex is against nature.
For us who are gay, having sex with the opposite sex
would be unnatural.

I don't think this is good logic (though I agree with it). I think it should with start something like "Well, what is natural?"

Now here's something that you never saw in the article because Edrick decided to get rid of it:

(why do straight men think all gay men want them?
Perhaps there is a gene in straight men which make
them think everyone finds them attractive, beer belly
and all)

Whoa!! Hold the phone! If I were a homophobe, who had so much as the slightest chance of changing his mind, that statement would instantly erode that already weak foundation. Saying those things are extremely
offensive, and would cause more harm than good. A straight person being uneasy about a gay guy next to him is normal and should be respected.

Jesus' advice goes way farther than you think. I don't expect you to change the article immediately, but I just think your future articles should have more empathy. I also don't want to pretend to know what it is you go through as a gay person, but take 100% of the prejudice you receive, and return it with respect and kindness and you'll change many people!

He responded:

Hi Ian,
First to say thanks for responding to the article and expressing your views!
And also to say you are RIGHT! Everything you have said is right on the mark…if I was writing a serious article about trying to change a homophobe's mind. I would write differently. Appealing more to their language and looking from their point of view.

On the other hand…I have been on Christian websites in message boards and see them blasting everything about gay people…even though people try to say something sensible…they put up the wall and ignore sensible talk, letting their own prejudice take over…so even within what is supposed to be intelligent conversation between Christians…becomes slurring, generalizations and prejudices.

This article is meant to be more on the sarcastic side.

The tone is more harsh at the same time it is meant to address a certain type of tone that we receive. When people say “[homosexuals] are going to hell”...that “God hates gays”….that is the type of person I am talking to… and yes you are right…I should not return the same with the same but I deal with many GLBT people who hate themselves, have attempted to change their sexuality with no avail, who have been beat up, who's families no longer talk to them, who get messed up in drugs and have run away from God because of what others say to them…and it makes me angry that people who say they are Christians can be so evil to another person because they are gay and USE GOD TO JUSTIFY THEMSELVES so ....you get what I mean...so it is an emotional response more than an intellectual one. The rest of the articles...besides the “Letter to Christians who don't like us”...have a different tone. More compassionate and understanding and less fiery. …but again the website is also aimed to GLBT Christian people.

the website is not the right forum for a discussion. This particular article is an emotional response to a gay hater.

And you have correctly noted that it is not an appropriate article to address to someone to really change anyone's mind. As the introduction says...it is addressed to those fundamentalists who don't love anyone else but other fundamentalists...so it is meant for people who are foaming at the mouth at us...and as you can see in the media, there are many of them out there...these are the types of people who will not really listen to us...just curse us...so it is not meant for an earnest person seeking truth.
So with that said...if you were gay and subject to harassment (all your life)...it would be easier for you to understand where it is coming from. But you are right, I should not be saying things in this way. And yes we should not return hatred with hatred in return.
That is not Jesus' way…

The things you mentioned that you said would not change anyone's mind, I agree with but at the same time that is the point. I think no matter what one says…a person who thinks he is right…will not listen to what you are saying anyway…so that is why some of the answers seems short, irrelevant and snappy. because it is with the understanding that these types of people have made up their minds.

Yes we do hate when they say they love the sinner but hate the sin, because it is very insincere, it is not backed up by action. Rarely have I seen a Christian who said this, who ventured out to befriend a gay person. They usually treat him as a person to be converted, not as a friend, but a project.

And yes I do know that people really hate the act and not the people…but for most people…being gay is the only thing that is real for them. To hate homosexuality IS to hate them. So that is how gay people see it…as an easy way of insulting us in a back handed way.

Either way…after expressing myself in this article and “A Letter to Christians Who Don't like us”…I got it out of my system and made a decision a while back to not allow myself to write articles with this tone again. Or at least not this sarcastically. But let me tell you...when see laws are being made to make gay people into criminals...can you understand how we can become angry?

I know this article will not change anyone's mind. But the real purpose of the article is to get people to wake up and think about what they are doing to us. So because of that…I can stand by the article as a way of jolting gay haters who use those myths against us. It may not succeed but it is what it is.

So I appreciate your thoughts about this. If you are ever interested in writing an article about being a former homophobe (your words) it might be rather interesting. And I may consider putting it in. Think about it.

God bless you

Edrick
http://www.epistle.us

So basically, though I apprieciate you looking at these articles, they're not the ones you should be looking at. There's not the ones you should be focusing on, because they have quick sound bytes and aren't meant to make a case. I would suggest giving the others a shot--like the ones under Homosexuality and the Bible. BTW if I sounded sloppy today it's 'cause I only got and hour of sleep last night and it's starting to break me down...I've been seeing some crazy word mix-ups on my part.

[jerickson314]

Most of the articles in the "Homosexuality and the Bible" section are about Greek and Hebrew wording and cultural references, areas in which I have little knowledge.

However, I did see another article that looks like it was intended to make a case: "A Letter To Christians Who Don't Like Us".

There are many Christians today who will try to take Jesus away from us.
(It still amazes me that we are talking about Christian people involved in this sort of stuff). So to all you Christians who don’t have room in your heart for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people…I will remind you of the story of the Pharisees…the upright religious leaders of the day:

“While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and “sinners” came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?” On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”- Matt 9:10-13

Oh and a reminder…we are all sinners. You and me.
“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” - Romans 3:23

And remember Jesus’ woe to the Pharisees:
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.” – Matthew 23:13

So because of people like this, we have seen countless GLBT people who once loved the Lord who now feel separated from God because of the voices drummed into their heads by “Christians". Christians who send the message of hate and hopelessness:

“God hates you. You are going to hell. You can’t be gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender AND Christian at the same time. You're an abomination to God.”etc.

Hmmm. A real sweet bunch of folks, huh?

By telling us that we are going to hell...you are saying more about yourself than about us.

No problem as yet. Seems to be speaking more to the homophobic crowd.

When Jesus was asked by a mob to condemn a woman caught in the very act of adultery (John 8: 3-11) Jesus said, "He who is without sin among you, may cast the first stone" and one by one...the men starting from the oldest...disappeared. So before you decide to cast the first stone at us....you better examine the lack of love in your heart. Some people will say that the story is about the adulteress. But the story is also about the judgmental majority who were ready to prove how she was such a sinful person and execute punishment on her. Sound familiar? Jesus showed that their sin of unforgiveness and lack of compassion was no different from her sin. Jesus did not condemn her.

Mostly right, although soon the letter implies that all pointing out of sin is judgmental. Stay tuned...

Ah...but you say" Yea, but see, Jesus told her '...From now on sin no more' and you GLBT people are still sinning."

Right, if properly understood! If someone is pointing this out so that they feel superior, they are sinning. But if they are simply trying to help their brother who is stumbling, they are not.

Now look at what you just did! The whole idea of "He who is without sin among you, may cast the first stone" is that Jesus is saying...STOP POINTING THE FINGER AT SOMEONE ELSE! And there you go pointing the finger AGAIN at us...after hearing this story!

Red herring. They do not address the "sin no more" part but rather change the subject. They also make a hasty generalization that everyone who points this out is being judgmental. Some will point out the sins in contexts where they are honestly trying to improve spiritual walks rather than judging.

The authors of the article also seem to be pointing fingers at the reader of the article, judging him/her and "throwing stones"! (Though now I'm the one who is doing the finger pointing - don't you just love recursion!)

"Do not judge lest you be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." - Matthew 7:1-5

And what will happen when you take the log out of your own eye? You will see the humanity of all of us and realize that we are no different than you and that it isn't about trying to take specks out of each other's eyes...but about forgiveness, compassion and love for your brothers and sisters. You see our salvation is between us and God. Not us, God and you.

Their entire second paragraph is refuting the latter part of the Bible passage: "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." In their second paragraph they attempt to refute the claims of Jesus himself! They also attempt to refute James 5:16, it seems. Way to interpret scripture!

They also exaggerate the meaning of "do not judge", as I will point out later.

Consider Jesus' parable of the landowner. Some laborers complained because the landowner treated all his workers equally by paying them all the same wage. (Matthew 20: 1-16). The landowner said to them..."Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous? Thus the last shall be first, and the first last."

And because of the silence of the church…we have suffered ridicule, condemnation and verbal and physical bashing. There are thousands who have committed suicide because of this message of hate and because of the fear of the church to stand up and say, “No…God hates no one. God loves everyone and the salvation of Jesus is open to all”. (John 3:16)
How is it that a Christian could tell someone that God hates them?
You may think God is backing you up…but He is not.

Of course. I don't complain when saved homosexuals receive an equal place in heaven. God is of course not backing up hate. But he does back up honest recognition of sin as sin.

We are here to say that Jesus is our King and Lord.
Now in the new millennium, I have come to believe that our presence has a purpose in God’s plan. We are the thorn in the church’s side. We are here to teach about Christ’s inclusive love that has no bounds.
Christ’s love and compassion is open to all, not just you and your friends.
In the past, the church has used the Bible to justify slaughtering Indians, Black slavery, keeping women from having basic rights, the persecution of the Jews, upholding racial segregation, pushing down Black rights, etc. It wasn’t until a new generation realized that their elders in fact committed sin by their lack of compassion and active persecution of their brothers and sisters in the name of Christ, did things change. No wonder the world is cold to Christianity.

It is Christians who have turned off the world to Christ.

And of course now they are trying to prevent us from having rights to live, love and even to worship the Lord. Basic human rights.

More sound reasoning. Unless they're trying to back up the "gay marriage" thing.

“We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.” – 1 John 4:19-21.

So I guess that means you HAVE TO love us just like we HAVE TO love you.

Naturally. We just don't have to love the sin that is actually harming our brother whether he realizes it or not.

You don’t think we are your brothers and sisters? Oh yes we are!
Ahhh, but you think we are not saved because we haven’t “changed our ways”…because we are still gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender.

OK…then you tell me how people are saved?

Bingo. Yep you win. By GRACE!
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast."– Ephesians 2: 8,9
By grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Not by works.
Do you hear that? Works cannot save us.
There is nothing humanly possible that I can do that will save me.
Only by the grace of Jesus Christ are any of us saved.
So, we are saved whether you like it or not.

I don't question that they are saved, and I am in fact happy that they are saved. I just don't like their inability to see their own sin that is harming them.

But you say…
“Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”- James 2:17
But our faith is alive. We follow the Lord’s great commandments that Jesus gave us.
“Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
- Matthew 22:36-40

Their faith isn't always dead, but it is sick. This is just the "physics" of sin.

But you still think we are not saved because we are living in sin by still actively being gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender. We do not consider our orientation a sin. This is who we are. We do consider some things like promiscuity or being lustful a sin. But we are no more guilty of that than heterosexual Christians who battle those same issues. Everyone lives in sin and you and I are guilty... yet Christ has accepted us and is working with us on each of our issues through His grace and forgiveness...this is the message of the gospel:

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." - Romans 5:8

No, I didn't say they weren't saved. Nonetheless, there is equivocation here, because they say that their orientation, defined as "who we are" is not a sin. This would seem to refer only to attractions, which aren't the sin part. However, the question was whether their active homosexuality was a sin. This is not addressed. The "But we are no more guilty..." sentence begs the question due to this failure.

Yes, everyone lives in sin. Nonetheless, Christianity does not teach that we should just accept our particular sins and keep on sinning. See 1 Corinthians 15:34 and Romans 6:1-2.

And we believe that though we are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender, we are still called to a moral and ethical life of integrity. A life worthy of the name of Jesus Christ.

Yes. That's why a lifestyle change would help! I say this because a lifestyle change is what is best for them; it has no direct effect on me.

But many Christians think we are somehow more sinful than they are. On the "Sin Scale"...homosexuality somehow rates up there in the top ten "unpardonable sins", next to murder. (PS...all sin is pardonable: "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men: but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven."- Matthew 12:31.)

I never said it was unpardonable, just that it was sinful. So this isn't an attack on my position. Oh, and they try to refute Jesus again. The verse says "but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven". But we will forgive them this time, since Jesus wasn't talking about homosexuality here.

Perhaps your sin is the sin of thinking you are better than us. You better look at the Jesus parable of the Pharisee and the Publican."Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee, and the other a tax-gatherer. The Pharisee stood and was praying thus to himself, 'God, I thank Thee that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax-gatherer. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.' But the tax-gatherer, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!" I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled, but he who humbles himself shall be exalted."-Luke 18: 10-14

I pray that this is not the case with me. Nonetheless, this is sometimes a struggle for many people including myself. Nonetheless, rebuking sin != thinking you are better.

Yes, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. But He said much about people judging each other, thinking they are better than others and yes He was angry...but He was angry at the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes..who did everything correctly, who lived perfect religious lives...but couldn't have love and compassion in their hearts for anyone but themselves.

The first sentence is an appeal to ignorance. Just because Jesus didn't mention homosexuality doesn't mean that the Bible is silent in the topic. Though I did find out through a search that Jesus condemned theft when he recited part of the ten commandments, he doesn't condemn wife beating or incest. Just because Jesus didn't condemn something doesn't mean it is right.

The second part is talking about unrighteous judging. Oh, if you want proof that recognizing sin isn't always judging, see Jude 1:23 and 1 John 5:16. To classify all opposition to homosexuality as judging is to caricature scripture.

Therefore this paragraph provides no argument against condemning homosexual behavior, as long as it is done lovingly with the right motives.

"Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins." - 1 Peter 4:8

We are Christians who love our Lord Jesus Christ. We are your brothers and sisters.
In the words of Jesus…“for whoever is not against us is for us” - Mark 9:40
We’re all in it together.
Our mission is to spread the word of God to all. The message of love, compassion, forgiveness and salvation offered only through Jesus Christ to all people.

Right. They are brothers and sisters! That's why I find it frustrating if they don't let their own brothers and sisters help them with their walk. It is possible to condemn sin with the right motives, for the purpose of building up the sinners rather than tearing them down. Just because some people don't do so doesn't mean it is impossible.

(End of paragraph by paragraph commentary on this letter.)

A conclusion I have come to: There are many false views of scripture and Christianity in this letter mixed with true ones. For instance, see James 5:16. Christians can and should talk to each other about sins. It is not a private matter, and it is not always judging to lovingly point out the sins of a brother. It is said that the easiest lie to fall for is the one closest to the truth. And that's what I see here.

I do have to question whether someone who can't interpret the "not judging" verse properly and who envisions a weak, almost useless fellowship among believers can really analyze the "clobber passages" properly.

Here's what I did see in your story, Shirtless. It looks like you came into Christianity with a false homophobic view. You saw the error in your ways and had legitimate feelings towards those who were oppressed. But those who believe that homosexuality isn't a sin at all took advantage of your feelings and manipulated you into trading one false view for another. I think God may be guiding you to understand the truth. It seems clear He has given you a heart for these people, and I hope you learn how to love them in the most godly way.

I encourage you to find someone with the proper background in Greek and Hebrew to look at the articles in the "Homosexuality and the Bible" section. You might even want to contact James Patrick Holding, who maintains the Tektonics website. His e-mail address is available from the tektonics.org homepage. He seems quite knowledgeable in the subject from his articles. He's probably busy but does take requests for things to analyze.

[jerickson314]

Oops, I didn't see that Edrick mentioned that one as well. Does this article look like a good one for analysis? Or perhaps you'd prefer to find someone who can address the passages rather than having me analyze these. Either way, I don't have time today for the analysis.

Oh, and yes I can see the old article :
http://web.archive.org/web/200410110055 ... onses.html

[jerickson314]

Umm.... Compare:

The commonly held assumption that the Bible presents a single, straightforward sexual ethic that can be universally applied is not true.

(http://epistle.us/hbarticles/clobber2.html)

For the time will come when they will not listen to the sound doctrine, but, having itching ears, will heap up for themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside to fables.

This should set off some flashing red lights in your head.

I looked at "The Clobber Passages" a bit, and what I saw is something we have a name for: Moral Relativism. And the author even manages to contradict himself during the process!

He says,

This passage is about heterosexuals – and therefore has nothing to do with those with a homosexual orientation.

and

Applying Paul's usual concept of "natural", one could argue that gay people should respect (and do not need to change) their true, fundamental sexual orientation, which is natural for them.

He also says,

Nowhere in the Bible is there expressed any awareness of homosexual or transgender orientation.

How can you reasonably expect that Paul is making a distinction he supposedly doesn't know exists?

There are some obvious non-sequiturs as well:

This passage, in its larger context, is about God-rejecters – and therefore has nothing to do with GLBTs who have been Christian their whole lives but still also have always known that they are "different."

Quite a few descriptions of sins refer to pagans. It certainly does NOT follow that being a Christian suddenly makes the sin OK. This case is no different. I find that "The Clobber Passages" quite frequently overemphasizes the contextual details, implying that they are more important than they need to be.

In other cases they ignore context. Surrounding the Leviticus passage are commands against incest and bestiality - hardly activities that are only bad as part of cult practices.

Oh, and back to:

Applying Paul's usual concept of "natural", one could argue that gay people should respect (and do not need to change) their true, fundamental sexual orientation, which is natural for them.

This is 100% relativism. Also, we need to examine what is "natural". By definition, our nature is "natural". And what do we know about our human nature? It is FALLEN. It causes us to SIN and STUMBLE all the time. So therefore, should we always sin since it's natural? Of course not!

Sin is natural for everyone. But it is wrong for everyone!

Oh, and those alleged homosexual relationships - Tektonics has refutations for some of those. See for example http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gaydavid.html.

Another obvious problem:

When we turn to Israel's history, we find no case where any man (or woman) was tried, condemned and put to death for simple same-sex activity.

Appeal to ignorance, plain and simple.

I don't have time to get into a more complete analysis right now, though.

[Shirtless]

Umm.... Compare:

The commonly held assumption that the Bible presents a single, straightforward sexual ethic that can be universally applied is not true.

(http://epistle.us/hbarticles/clobber2.html)

For the time will come when they will not listen to the sound doctrine, but, having itching ears, will heap up for themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside to fables.

This should set off some flashing red lights in your head.

Sort of. Not in the sense of there being such a huge difference between the two, but that I see no difference at all, and I wonder how you could come to a conclusion that the two are contradictory! Paul is writing to Timothy about a certain people, who we know nothing about. Apparently, these people were gullible with "itching ears", tempted to "their own lusts". What(or who) is Paul referring to? Cultic prostitution or secular prostitution? Pre-marital sex or polygamy? homosexuality or masturbation? He doesn't say...this is certainly not a "single, straightforward" sexual ethic. This is an example of social/moral relativism at it's peak, especially when you look at other translations that seem to give no indication that he is talking about anything sexual at all:

2 Timothy 4:3 (NIV)
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

Here's another (amplified for your pleasure):

(AB)For the time is coming when [people] will not tolerate (endure) sound and wholesome instruction, but, having ears itching [for something pleasing and gratifying], they will gather to themselves one teacher after another to a considerable number, chosen to satisfy their own liking and to foster the errors they hold,
So what does this passage conclude about sexual ethics? Well...nothing really.

He says,

This passage is about heterosexuals — and therefore has nothing to do with those with a homosexual orientation.

and

Applying Paul's usual concept of "natural", one could argue that gay people should respect (and do not need to change) their true, fundamental sexual orientation, which is natural for them.

I would like to take this as an opportunity to say that just because I read articles on that web site, it doesn't mean I agree with all of it. When I was reading both of those quotes, I thought Oh, come on man! We don't know that! What are you saying that for?! So, I say that even though you're right, I don't feel that these off-hand comments included in those articles diminish their case.

In other cases they ignore context. Surrounding the Leviticus passage are commands against incest and bestiality - hardly activities that are only bad as part of cult practices.

To an extent I agree. I always felt that connecting the Leviticus passage to cultic prostitution had a case, but a weak one. It's not relevant anyway.

Oh, and back to:

Applying Paul's usual concept of "natural", one could argue that gay people should respect (and do not need to change) their true, fundamental sexual orientation, which is natural for them.

This is 100% relativism. Also, we need to examine what is "natural". By definition, our nature is "natural". And what do we know about our human nature? It is FALLEN. It causes us to SIN and STUMBLE all the time. So therefore, should we always sin since it's natural? Of course not!

Agreed.

Oh, and those alleged homosexual relationships - Tektonics has refutations for some of those. See for example http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gaydavid.html.

I never bother with alleged homosexual relationships of the Bible, they don't usually have much substance (BTW the David and Jonathon thing was allegedly a bisexual one, not homosexual).

Another obvious problem:

When we turn to Israel's history, we find no case where any man (or woman) was tried, condemned and put to death for simple same-sex activity.

Appeal to ignorance, plain and simple.

Agreed.

I don't have time to get into a more complete analysis right now, though.

Don't quit now, we're just getting started! Actually, take all the time you want; I keep wanting address on another thread the articles that keep being given to me.

[Prodigal Son]

shirtless,

first of all, pedophiles don't "have sex" like you or i, they fondle.

that's not true. they have sex like everyone else. they have vaginal/anal/oral intercourse (penetration) with children.

[Shirtless]

If you say so. I read that a pedophile's mind is more like that of a child in nature (eg. sex is more like a form of play with no real goals). I can only guess that the people your thinking of are child rapists, but not necessarily authentic pedophiles.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

If you say so. I read that a pedophile's mind is more like that of a child in nature (eg. sex is more like a form of play with no real goals). I can only guess that the people your thinking of are child rapists, but not necessarily authentic pedophiles.

Darn, half the world goes "awwww" because they've just been kicked out of an elite group.

[Shirtless]

LOL

[jerickson314]

Sort of. Not in the sense of there being such a huge difference between the two, but that I see no difference at all, and I wonder how you could come to a conclusion that the two are contradictory!

I didn't mean that they were contradictory. Take out the word "sexual" and you see what I mean:

The commonly held assumption that the Bible presents a single, straightforward * ethic that can be universally applied is not true.

Hence, close to the definition of "moral relativism". NOT a biblical view. This isn't "sound doctrine". I mean that this is just like what the author of the Bible passage was talking about.

[jerickson314]

Analysis of "The Clobber Passages" by Bruce Gerig, Part One (Sodom and Gomorrah)
(see http://epistle.us/hbarticles/clobber1.html)

As I promised and now that I have time, I am sending you a summary of thoughts on those passages in the Bible that are commonly used by (homophobic) conservatives to condemn homosexuals.

It's not just homophobes who use them, and they aren't always used to condemn people! Sometimes they are used to condemn sin rather than people!

As you know, a fierce war now rages in the Christian church and American society over homosexuality, which makes it all the more essential that Christian GLBT people do their own study of the Bible and of related material, so that they can come to a peaceful confidence in themselves (as many have already) that the Bible does not condemn the homosexual or transgender condition

Almost equivocation again. I believe the bible does condemn homosexual/transgender activity. It just doesn't condemn the attractions.

– but that God accepts all as he has created them.

The real equivocation is here. God accepts people as he has created them, which might include homosexual attractions. But this does not mean that He accepts homosexual behavior.

In the past, the Church has used four main sometimes-called "clobber passages" in the Bible to condemn homosexuals: the Sodom story in Genesis 19:1-29, a law in Leviticus 18:22/20:13, and two brief references in Paul's letters, in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:26-27.

OK, this is the meat that is examined here.

When I was young, I remember struggling with the guilt that I felt over being gay – and trying prayer and fasting, visiting a faith healer, and undergoing psychoanalysis to try to change myself into a heterosexual – none of which worked. I also fought severe depression and attempted suicide (not uncommon among gays because of the social pressures faced), until one day the Lord gave me the blessed assurance that he loves me as a gay person just as I am.

Just a personal story. But God loves him despite his attractions - this does not mean He loves his behavior!

Today we benefit from the fact that the Bible passages related to homosexuality have been revisited and vigorously reexamined by scholars – who in general have come to the conclusion that many things have been read into the Bible in the past, related to homosexuality, that the text really does not sustain.

UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION! It is unlikely that the scholars have "in general" come to this conclusion - most translations still contain clear condemnations of homosexual behavior. Thus those scholars who believe otherwise seem to be in the minority. The majority of scholars could be wrong, but nonetheless they seem misrepresented here.

Our purpose here, then, is to take a fresh look at these texts, to see what they really do say. So, please get out your Bible, so you can read the suggested verses for yourself. We'll quote from the King James Version since it is still widely used – but refer also to other translations and commentary, where helpful. The modern translations that I prefer – that have tried to remain as literal to the ancient texts as possible – are the New American Standard Bible, Updated (1999) and the New Revised Standard Version (1989).

OK...

GANG-RAPE AT SODOM

This we will see...

Read Genesis 18:16–19:29. When the two angels came to Sodom to pass final judgment, all the males of the city, from old to young, gathered and encircled Lot's house, ordering him to hand over the two strangers so that they could "know them [NIV: 'have sex with them']" (19:4-5).

Plot summary, seems correct.

Lot does everything he can to dissuade the mob, including offering even his two daughters to the men for sexual abuse – which suggests that he viewed them as bisexuals.

Not necessarily. How was he to know? It's a red herring anyway.

Indeed, there were young people running around (v. 4) and the city appears to have prospered. The fact that all of the men gathered so quickly reveals that they were waiting for a signal (a call) and indicates that by now an established tradition had developed in Sodom. Apparently whenever travelers came into the city seeking lodging for the night, all the males would gather to take the strangers captive and then abuse and gang-bang them. Gen 13:13 shows that Sodom had had a notorious reputation for many years, and Gen 18:20-21 shows that the "cry of Sodom and Gomorrah" (the screams of the victims) disturbed God a great deal – in fact, to the extent that he sent two angels (in the form of men) to Sodom to verify the cruel intent and perhaps to give the residents one final test.

Maybe... This does raise the question of whether it was only because it was gang rape.

Obviously, sexual abuse and gang rape are wrong and wicked, whether heterosexual or homosexual

Yes...

and so this passage cannot be used to condemn all forms of homosexual activity, from loving and caring to vicious and violent.

It does offer a condemnation of a homosexual act. Nonetheless, it cannot necessarily condemn all such acts, assuming they have interpreted the scripture properly.

Nowhere in the text does Lot mention homosexuality; instead, he pleads urgently with the mob not to violate his hospitality (a moral duty in the ancient Near East) extended to these visitors (19:8).

Well, he does offer women and they will only accept men... It does seem possible that the hospitality could be why Lot is protecting them, but not why what the Sodomites were doing was wrong.

Likewise, in the NT, when Jesus condemns Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt 10:12-15, Luke 10:8-12), he judges them for inhospitality, not homosexuality.

With the Matthew 10 passage - NOPE! He simply says that Sodom and Gomorrah will be better off on judgment day. This doesn't necessitate any sort of connection with the topic at hand. Either homosexuality or inhospitality could be the case.

With the Luke 10 passage - NOPE! It's the same thing recorded by a different person.

Surveying later references to Sodom and Gomorrah in Scripture (in 12 OT and 8 NT passages), one finds the cities' destruction used as a vivid example of how God punishes wickedness, with the latter defined by the various prophets in terms of current sins that they wished to condemn. Only one OT prophet (Ezekiel) addresses specifically the sin of Sodom. An overall reading of Ezek 16:23-52 reveals God's anger toward the people of the southern kingdom of Judah, who have forsaken the Lord to build pagan shrines everywhere, worship abominable idols, offer child sacrifices to the god Molech, and engage in spiritual and physical prostitution (visiting the cult prostitutes attached to the Canaanite shrines). Judah is declared even worse than Sodom and her neighboring towns (vv. 46-48) who although they had enjoyed many advantages did not "strengthen the hand of the poor and needy [NASB: 'help' them]"

There is a lot of reference to sexual immorality in the surrounding passages. Therefore we cannot rule out that the passage is condemning sexual sins rather than just inhospitality.

but "were haughty and committed abomination [NIV: 'did detestable things']." (16:49-50) "Detestable" certainly describes the raping of helpless strangers that went on, night after night, in Sodom and the other nearby towns.

Yes, but homosexuality itself is described with the same language in Leviticus. Therefore it could have possibly been homosexuality.

Only one other passage speaks specifically about Sodom's sin – and in a different way – Jude verses 6-7 (read the whole short letter). Here Jude writes to a church where some new arrivals have introduced sexual activity (KJV: "feeding themselves"; RSV2: "boldly carouse") into church gatherings (v. 12), even the "feasts of charity [NIV: 'love feasts']", the communal meals where the Lord's Supper was shared. They also reject the lordship of Christ (v. 4), so are spreading dangerous false doctrine as well.

It is talking about sexual immorality - not inhospitality!

Obviously concerned, the author warns the church how God destroys wickedness, in the past including the angels of Gen 6:1-4 for leaving their heavenly home to mate with human women (Jude v. 6), as well as the men at Sodom and Gomorrah for their "fornication [GNB: 'sexual immorality'], and going after strange flesh" (v. 7). "Strange [or 'different'] flesh" is a good, literal translation of the Greek sarkos heteras, while "unnatural lust" (NRSV) and "perversion" (NIV) load onto the text meaning that is not in the original Greek. Heteras is the same adjective that is used elsewhere to describe "other [heavenly or foreign] tongues" that the disciples spoke in at Pentecost (Acts 2:4-6) and any "different Gospel" that was preached from what Paul proclaimed by divine revelation (Gal 1:6; both quotes NASB, with italics added). If we look at Jude v. 7, we note that "Even as" and "in like manner" what was going on at Sodom was like what was going on in v. 6 – namely, the focus is on actual and attempted angel-human sexual union.

WAIT - the visitors with Lot were probably not angels! It seems just as likely that it could be referring to homosexuality as sex with angelic beings - but IANAGS (I Am Not A Greek Scholar). Ask someone with more knowledge on this one.

If this text in its larger context teaches anything, it is that the church is no place for carousing and other sexual activity (see a similar passage in 2 Peter 2:13-14). In Scripture, then, what is condemned at Sodom is not homosexuality, but gross inhospitality, sexual violence and rape, and (attempted) sex with angelic beings.

"Inhospitality" isn't really supported, "sexual violence and rape" maybe, and "sex with angelic beings" might be unsupported. There seems still a possible case to be made that homosexuality was condemned here.

[Shirtless]

Well, jerickson, it's seems you've made the case for the jury being still out on S&G. But my mind kind of works in the opposite way: I took a lot of law classes in high school, and I'm a big fan of Law and Order, so if I were in a court of law, the S&G story to the best of my knowledge would be thrown out quickly because it's entirely speculation. I'm actually surprised you used S&G because it's generally agreed that that story is a lost cause as far as homosexuality goes:

I'm against homosexuality and I agree that Sodom and Gomorrah are completely worthless as far as this issue is concerned.

As far as S&G goes (which, to be blunt, is the most watered down case against anything I've ever seen), we need to remember that God had already condemned S&G for their sins, so the attempted rape at Lot's house isn't relevant at all. Though Ezekiel does mention sexual promiscuity, it doesn't mention homosexuality. If it was truly homosexuality, one wonders why it isn't mentioned. When you look at the Koran, it is mentioned, and very bluntly too.

[jerickson314]

I'm actually surprised you used S&G because it's generally agreed that that story is a lost cause as far as homosexuality goes

My attempt is to go through the entire article, both to see how strong the logic in general is and to examine the particular arguments.

It does definitely look like S&G isn't the best case against homosexuality. But already I have seen some rather odd interpretation of passages such as the Matthew and Luke passages, as well as the Jude passage.

When there are obvious errors in part of an argument, it does cast doubt on the rest of the argument even though it doesn't prove its falsehood.