Homosexuality in the Bible

[John Dibble]

Thank you, after reading that I know Homosexuality is a sin. I know I am saved and going to heaven, but the sin of Homosexuality is still there. The thing is, females don't "turn me on" so to speak. I want to live right and do the right things for God, but if females don't turn me on, how can I marriage one and have sex with one?

As others have said, you can't change your sexual orientation. You will always have an attraction to men, and you will always lack an attraction to women. If you believe that homosexual sex is a sin and thus not worth pursuing, my advice to you is to not pursue any romantic relationships. You can't have one with a man because of the whole sin thing, and you can't have one with a woman because it would just be a big fat lie that would in all probability make both you and the woman miserable.

Going by afleitch's interpretation of Matthew 19:1-12 is valid, then homosexuals are exempt from marriage. Logically speaking the reasons above would be a sufficient explanation of that exception. However, I would stipulate that this exemption doesn't necessarily condone homosexual acts in the Bible, just exempt homosexuals from having to get married. Whether you think the interpretation is valid or not is up to you - I advise you study the issue and listen to all sides before making a decision.

Both afleitch and jmfcst are good people to ask about the Bible, and they both have different approaches that lead them to their different conclusions. Listen to their reasons and the reasons of others, but ultimately draw your own conclusions - you may very well end up in the middle ground somewhere.

[John Dibble]

Going by afleitch's interpretation of Matthew 19:1-12 is valid, then homosexuals are exempt from marriage.

TRAITOR:

Well, Dibble, you can't have both ways:  you can't agree with my interpretation of the bible on the one hand and then turn around and blame me for turning you off to Christianity.

Sure I can - I had a different interpretation before that I rather liked, and you convinced me of an intepretation that I like much less, thus turning me off to Christianity. It's a rather simple series of events.

I'm not allowed to consider new arguments? Besides, I said "if" - his interpretation is possibly valid, it's possibly not. It's only a small detail in the Bible - I still largely agree with your interpretation on much of it, just not all of it. For example, remember that whole argument about the seventh day we had?

[John Dibble]

ok, I "misread" your typo regarding his interpretation with Mat 19:1-12...you said "is valid", not "if valid"

Well, not a typo so much as a poorly constructed sentence - I think I should have said "Assuming" instead of "Going by".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If by that you mean you tend to construct your arguments in a consistent manner and back them up well, then yeah. Again, I agree with most of your interpretations for that reason, but it doesn't mean I can't be swayed to change my mind if someone else has good arguments that I think trump yours.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's stay on topic, shall we? I'm not trying to get into another argument on dogma here, simply trying to give some advice to someone who seems to be asking for it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hate to be a grammar Nazi (ok, that's a lie, I love being a grammar Nazi ), but for future reference the word you're looking for is moot.

[John Dibble]

simply trying to give some advice to someone who seems to be asking for it.

Duke faces the same choices we all have: 
a) accept scripture for face value and seek God's help to conform to it, or
b) reject it by twisting it in order suit his own desires, or
c) reject it outright

notice there is not much difference between b and c

The problem with accepting it at "face value" is that what appears to be face value may differ from person to person. You have to remember that people have varying personality types, and thus varying ways they process and think about information. Given identical information people can and do arrive at different conclusions. This applies to the Bible as well. That's why I advised him to study it - so he can arrive at conclusions that are well thought out rather than ones that are made with only shallow thought, not so he can arrive at conclusions that simply suit his own desires. (you'll also note that the particular advice I gave him did not involve abandoning his religious faith, nor did it involve commiting homosexual acts while maintaining said faith)

Just take the 7th day thing as an example - through study and discussion you had a thought you hadn't had before from just looking at "face value". Ultimately that thought led to a new conclusion that you hadn't thought of before because you then understood a deeper meaning in that particular passage that you didn't see in the "face value" of those passages. Simply taking things at "face value" can make you miss or misinterpret important details, and often people will put their own desires and expectations into their conclusions if they simply take things at face value. That's the opposite of what you want, so I don't see what's wrong with suggesting study and forethought.

[John Dibble]

Without knowing it, you just hit the nail on the head:

I had never realized the 7th day in Genesis did not have an evening. BUT, the conclusion I drew from my realization of the fact that it did not have a evening, dove-tailed perfectly with the rest of scripture.  It meshed perfectly.

Actually I was going to make mention of said lack of contradiction, but I decided not to because I would have had to go off on a tangent. It appears I'll need to do so anyways. If you find a contradiction it means one of three things - your previous conclusions are wrong, your current conclusion is wrong, or all your conclusions are wrong. A wise man considers all three possibilities. An even wiser man considers the possibility he is wrong even when he hasn't found a contradiction and continues to study and scrutinize his own beliefs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't disagree with that strategy - looking for consistency is a good idea. However, even in doing so there's the risk of putting your own spin on things. People can make things consistent in their minds so that their expectations are met. (Note - expectations and desires are not necessarily the same thing, one can expect the opposite of their desire just as easily as expecting what one desires) That's why it's valuable to get outside opinions and consider them objectively.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I don't think you've been dishonest. But I don't think afleitch or anyone else here is being dishonest either. Afleitch has gone through the effort to study the Bible in an areas you have not - history, culture, and translation. That's not to say your study hasn't been in earnest or that it is less valid, just that he has taken a different approach. It's not unusual that he'd have different thoughts on the matter.

That's why I want Duke to examine each and every argument.  For if his heart can't be honest and distinquish between who is distorting scripture on this subject, then it really doesn't matter what he believes.  No honest person can read Mat ch 19 and come away with the conclusion that it gives a neutral reference to homosexuality.  No honest person.

And I don't really care how much of a friend he is to all of you, because he is lying to you and everyone here on this forum knows his interpretation Matthew ch 19 is a lie.

And why the hell not? Afleitch has given a very compelling argument based on the original language and historical culture of the time in which it was written down. Knowing something of another language myself, I can tell you that it's very easy to lose things in translation of even the most common literature. A word in one language can have a very broad meaning that can't be accurately translated into a word or even a few words without losing a great deal of significance. Unless you can show that his translations are in themselves dishonest and wrong, then to call him dishonest about them is intellectual dishonesty in and of itself.

And by the way, I believe you're interpreting things that afleitch has said about Matthew 19 to conform to your own expectations about him. You seem to have it in your head that he thinks Matthew 19 approves of homosexuality or something - as far as I can tell he doesn't. As I see it he simply believes that the passage refers to homosexuals themselves and exempts them from heterosexual marriage, not that it says it's okay for them to have homosexual relations. But hey, if I'm wrong on that he can tell me otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Inside I know? The degree of arrogance and self-righteousness you're displaying here is appalling to say the least.

I'm going to make this crystal clear to you - if I think someone's being dishonest, I'm going to say it. It doesn't matter whether that person is my friend or not. I do not think afleitch is being dishonest, and don't you dare say I think otherwise. He has stated his position in what I would consider a reasonable and consistent manner, and as such I have no reason to believe he thinks his position is anything but the correct one.

[John Dibble]

Now, if you actually believe that he is being honest and has given a “reasonable” interpretation, then explain to me, in your own words, which portion of this passage allows for the delinking of sex and marriage:

As afleitch points out in his own interpretation above, none of it does. Again, his interpretation doesn't tell anyone that sex outside of marriage is okay, just that homosexuals don't have to get married. The interpretation does NOT say that homosexuals can engage in homosexual activity, just that they don't have to engage in heterosexual activity. All that could mean is that Jesus is saying that homosexuals should just refrain from sex altogether - that in itself does not contradict the notion that homosexual acts are condemned elsewhere in the Bible, it just recognizes that heterosexual marriage will not work out for homosexuals and thus exempts them from it. In no way does it state that it's okay for them to go fornicating around with other unwed homosexuals, or even heterosexual women, so as far as I can tell there's no contradiction in this interpretation with the other parts of the Bible that I'm familiar with.

[John Dibble]

Ok, since afleitch has made roughly the same arguments I would in regards to this interpretation, I'm not going to bother writing a whole long rant. I'm just going to summarize this as simply as I can, and if you continue to lack understanding of what I'm saying I'm just not going to bother anymore.

1. IF afleitch's interpretation is correct, it exempts homosexuals from marrying. I say "if" because I do not necessarily believe it correct, but he has valid reasons to argue for his interpretation just as you do. Neither of your interpretations are unreasonable.

2. Whether the person's referenced in any of the three categories were sexually active outside of marriage is not relevant to this exemption. This interpretation does not exempt them from the notion that sex outside of marriage, be it heterosexual or homosexual, is sinful.

3. It's my understanding that in those days men were expected to marry and have children - this was a cultural and sometimes a religious expectation. ("Go forth and multiply" is sometimes interpreted that way) Hence there was a need to exempt some people from that expectation. Given that homosexuals would tend to have a dysfunctional relationship in heterosexual marriage, it's not entirely ludicrous to include them in such an exemption.

[John Dibble]

Dibble,

I can’t believe you continue to waver between the two opinions.

Why shouldn't I "waver"? If neither of you can conclusively prove your opinion as fact in my eyes should I just choose blindly? Only an idiot would do that.

As I stated, I'm not even going to bother anymore - it's quite clear you either are incapable of understanding what is being argued to you in plain English or you just don't want to understand because it might threaten your fragile little ego to even consider you might be wrong. Given your attitude I'm going to suppose the latter.