No same-sex hugs allowed

[Dragoon Knight]

You poor, deranged woman.  You copy and paste your favourite excerpts from the bible (three of which seem to simply be repetitions) and then pull off another classic Hwi-ism by claiming to be "far too busy" to respond immediately.  Listen: we all know it's because you need to frantically search for more hateful dogma to throw at us.  You don't need to lie about it.  We understand that it's hard being this stupid.

Also arrogant.  You're directly comparing yourself to apostles and yet claim to not be self-righteous?  Here, let me Google that for you.  "Excessively or hypocritically pious"?  Check.  "Smug moral superiority derived from a sense that one's beliefs, actions, or affiliations are of greater virtue than those of the average person"?  Oh I think so.  "Piously self-assured and smugly moralistic"?  That's three for three.  Now go ahead and try the definitions for "bigot", "homophobe" and "idiot", then you and ErasOmnius can meet up at Hate Church and fume about how heavy your crosses are.

Wolf doesn't have the same luxury as me, or anyone else who doesn't believe in Christianity.  His job is much harder - and I applaud him for being able to defeat you at every turn - because he has to show the validity of his interpretation versus yours.  Whereas I can just denounce your entire post as being so much hateful hokum.  Your intentions are transparent, your reasons for becoming an evangelist of hatred of homosexuals are evident to anyone in the know.  "Of course, you'll deny this vehemently... demand that I produce evidence to support my assumptions".  Oh if only "I could not produce anything, because none existed".  But someone once said, "I know you.  And it is obvious to me" your entire existence is a sad attempt at compensation and self-delusion.  I would pity you if I didn't dislike you so intensely.

I would normally try to put more actual rebuttal of points right about now, but as I've previously stated, I'm not really qualified to defend Christianity against the likes of you.  I'll leave that to our resident sane and agreeable lupine fellow.  But I will add one thing:

Note that not once have I relied upon my personal opinion on the matter, I have consistently quoted scripture to reveal God

[Wolf]

First off, let me say that your lip-service to "compassion" and "forgiveness" rings hollow when your post is almost wholly concerned with hysterical repetition of messages of self-mutilation, damnation, and fear. Indeed, it is indicative that your emotions here can be none other than anger, hatred, and fear, because your quotes actually do not deal with homosexuality mainly, if at all, but rather deal with your desire to see me "rip out my own eye" or "cut off my own hand." Wow, Hwi. This is as close as you have ever come, or ever will, I think, to threatening physical violence against me. Let it be known that I saw this coming earlier: I said her sense of subtlety was making her more dangerous.

Oh well, where even to begin? You quote Leviticus' prohibition of homosexual behavior. This is meaningless since you've never actually clarified your position on Old Testament law. Your positions have been very ambiguous and self-contradictory. Really, it could mean anything, but, here's my two cents: either all the Old Covenant laws remain true in the New Covenant or not, and if they don't, you need to explain why some and not others were carried over. We don't stone people for planting different crops in the same plot anymore, so clearly they were not all carried over. Any forthright explanation on this from you is absent. But, really... I repeat myself from days ago.

If you believe that Jesus is part of the Godhead, then Jesus did, in fact, call homosexual acts an abomination.

This is another fear/anger/hate motivated attempt to lash out at me and label me, again, a "false Christian." Ignoring that for a moment, yes, Jesus is the Godhead, but it seems to me that what you're saying is that since Jesus is God, and the Old Testament God said that homosexuality was wrong, then Jesus said homosexuality was wrong. But then he also said to stone your brother for planting different crops in the same field. And numerous other laws that Jesus never said we should follow and that we--yourself included--do not. I mean, do you see the obvious internal contradictions here? And why no one else has tried the Jesus = God = Hates Gays route before? I mean, some have, but not here. You're getting closer to the source, then?

You keep saying that Jesus never specifically mentioned homosexuality but you keep ignoring the blatant statements that Jesus said that would by default preclude homosexual acts.  I

[athanasios]

Leave them Hwi (& ErasOmnius), you are wasting your time. You have done whatever possible to reason with them but they do not want. Only thing left is to pray for them. Better use your time to preach to a receptive heart. This is what the Bible encourages us to do.

Question to s. Hwi: Since you do not belong to any denomination how do you attend church twice a week?

-

Note: There is no Old and New Testament. This division, simply does not exist. It fits many to divide the Bible but it cannot be divided. Actually even the word Bible is not appropriate. Jesus used the word Scriptures. So Christians are provided by YHWH only one book: The 'Holy Scriptures'.

[ErasOmnius]

First off, let me say that your lip-service to "compassion" and "forgiveness" rings hollow when your post is almost wholly concerned with hysterical repetition of messages of self-mutilation, damnation, and fear. Indeed, it is indicative that your emotions here can be none other than anger, hatred, and fear, because your quotes actually do not deal with homosexuality mainly, if at all, but rather deal with your desire to see me "rip out my own eye" or "cut off my own hand." Wow, Hwi. This is as close as you have ever come, or ever will, I think, to threatening physical violence against me. Let it be known that I saw this coming earlier: I said her sense of subtlety was making her more dangerous.

Oh well, where even to begin? You quote Leviticus' prohibition of homosexual behavior. This is meaningless since you've never actually clarified your position on Old Testament law. Your positions have been very ambiguous and self-contradictory. Really, it could mean anything, but, here's my two cents: either all the Old Covenant laws remain true in the New Covenant or not, and if they don't, you need to explain why some and not others were carried over. We don't stone people for planting different crops in the same plot anymore, so clearly they were not all carried over. Any forthright explanation on this from you is absent. But, really... I repeat myself from days ago.

This is another fear/anger/hate motivated attempt to lash out at me and label me, again, a "false Christian." Ignoring that for a moment, yes, Jesus is the Godhead, but it seems to me that what you're saying is that since Jesus is God, and the Old Testament God said that homosexuality was wrong, then Jesus said homosexuality was wrong. But then he also said to stone your brother for planting different crops in the same field. And numerous other laws that Jesus never said we should follow and that we--yourself included--do not. I mean, do you see the obvious internal contradictions here? And why no one else has tried the Jesus = God = Hates Gays route before? I mean, some have, but not here. You're getting closer to the source, then?

I won't reiterate my previous argument for why that one quote you posted had nothing to do with homosexuality. (Which I think was actually quite valid: it didn't even mention it. Getting back to the Greeks, I don't think ancient Hebrews conceived of homosexuality as we did, either. This would call into question any scriptural mention of homosexuality.) But, again, I will reiterate: the only "blatant," "obvious" or "explicit" prohibitions against homosexuality that you have ever quoted here are from Leviticus. See above if you think that makes you right. Stop mis-using language.

The sin that caused Satan to be cast out of Heaven was the attempt to speak for God without his authority (well, and in opposition to God's will). Don't you realize what... oh, nevermind. See, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you were relaying your personal opinion on the matter. That would be valid. That you have now confirmed that you're speaking for God now makes all of this more offensive. Also, that reminds me:

This confirms that you do not follow any higher, official, or conventional code on religion. It means that you have read the scripture and interpreted it for yourself. This is no different than what I have done. Actually, wait, it is. I do not presume to speak for God. Ultimately, not being a theologian, I only know intuitively what is right and wrong. Condemnation of homosexuality for no reason... uh, is wrong. It feels like a sin. Just saying that "God thought of homosexuality as a sin" feels like a moral wrong to me.

Your glee at the indiscriminate and wholesale slaughter of humanity in what psychologically feels to you as your own name is further evidence of the primarily Dark Side emotions that have motivated you to comment on this thread. More hate, more anger, more fear... more desire to see people suffer... it began with me above, but clearly, you salivate at the notion that God may come and slaughter the "unbelievers," eh? Tell me, how can you even begin to justify that? It isn't your place to condemn anyone, Hwi. If God comes back, he may just as easily put you to the fire as me, and shouldn't that give you pause?

Anyway.

No explicit mention of homosexuality, implicit mention only if the sinfulness of homosexuality is presumed (i.e. not shown); awkward implication that I should mutilate myself for what you see as "tempting" others.

No explicit mention of homosexuality, implicit mention only if the sinfulness of homosexuality is presumed (i.e. not shown); awkward implication that I should mutilate myself for what you see as "tempting" others.

No explicit mention of homosexuality, implicit mention only if the sinfulness of homosexuality is presumed (i.e. not shown); awkward implication that I should mutilate myself for what you see as "tempting" others. EDIT: Actually, there may even be implicit encouragement of some homoerotic/homosexual norms in society, if males are forbidden from "looking at females lustfully." See, I don't like having to do this, but taking everything out of context... well, takes everything out of context. I'm not going to deny that you can read the Bible and think that means homosexuality is a sin, but I will deny that that also means that God does. The Bible was written by humans: imperfect, with their own prejudices and their own way of seeing the world. There's probably tons of racism, sexism, homophobia, and other vile things in there. But I think that's in spite of the very valid message that's there--which is what Christianity really is--not because of it... anyone, come on, am I making any sense here?

More glee at the prospect of her political and theological opponents suffering mutilation.

God may very well be about both love and fear. But I would rather choose

and forget fear than choose fear and delude myself into thinking that that is the same thing as love.

That about wraps it up. There really wasn't much there that was different, and you ignored everything that I, Dante, Flibble, Dragoon and others said earlier. So... I mean, what did you expect?

But, one more thing.

Hwi, imagine that a totally neutral observer came and read everything that you and I have said. He will see me doing everything that I can to encourage each individual to interpret scripture for his or herself, to determine what God really means for themselves, and what relationship he or she wants to develop with God. He will see me saying that, above all, God is about love, and if you find yourself behaving in a way that is hateful, angry or injurious ostensibly in the name of God, you should stop--because that's not what God is about. He will see you doing everything that you can (and not all that well) to prove that God considers an entire class of people "sinful" merely for being who they are. He will see that your favorite scriptures are those that deal with self-mutilation, damnation, and suffering. He will see the word you most frequently emphasize is "fear." Now, imagine that he were told that there was a God and a devil, and he were asked to identify which of us had been swayed by the other. Who do you think he would associate with who?

But you Wolf, live a world where God doesn't provide any clues as to good behavior. Fecal matter smells like manure, and comes out of a lower colon. We are to eliminate waste sanitarily, clean up our exterior, and bury/send to a waste-water treatment plant such waste. But you condone the placing of male reproductive fluid inside said male body cavity, where it shall be eliminated with fecal matter at a later time.

Now I hate to be graphic, but it can't be all intellectual all of the time.

Since you brought up the topic pseudo-epigraphal texts earlier, which books were you going to quote from to justify homosexuality.

As an answering of questions: I think, if I glance correctly over the last few days, here are some answers:

Lesbianism is NOT as worse as male homosexuality. They are far more monogamous, although they are wrong. They also have the lowest rate of HIV in the West.

I am a non-denominational Christian, who believes in small group study of the Book. Been doing it since 2004. No church building, just Bible leaders, intently studying the texts of the approved Bible, the Apocrypha, and the Pseudo-Epigrapha. Of course, I also study 2-4 hours a week of Roman and Byzantine history.

People ask me why I do this. So that I can reach people, before they get a horrible VD or HIV/AIDS.

When I see the suffering of people who have HIV; the drugs they must take, twice a day, or they will begin to suffer and die. It's sad. It doesn't have to be this way.

[Dragoon Knight]

ErasOmnius.  Read very carefully.  Homosexuality is more than just anal sex.  You attest that lesbianism is somehow "less bad" than being a gay man, which only proves that you are quite literally scared of male-male sexual interaction.  That fear is manifesting itself as hate... at least on the surface.  I posit that you keep using "graphic" terms in an attempt to disgust yourself.  Normally, people who do this are trying to deter themselves from something.

But I digress, and I'm sure you'll find out what I mean in good time.  Back to the whole anal sex =/= homosexuality thing.  There are a great many straight men who have "earned their brown wings" with women.  It's somewhat commonplace as sexual activities go.  As is masturbation, or even normal sex where the male deposits in places other than the vagina.  In fact, there's a lot more of these straight people than there are gay people who engage in anal sex.  Are you sure you have your priorities straight here?  Shouldn't you be going out and preaching hate towards every guy who's ever pulled out?

You can't have it both ways, you know.  Either you detest homosexuality as a whole (which is bad enough) and you act like Hwi, frantically scanning quotes from the Bible to try and back up your ridiculous claims.  Or you take your current stance, and have degrees of homosexuality, males who engage in anal sex being at the top of the proverbial pile... which is even more nonsensical, and quite evidently based around your own fears and insecurities.

Finally: athanasios, I see you have the good graces to admit defeat, even though you still delude yourself into believing that you're right.  I have to say that I'm disappointed that you've not kept up with your fellow idiots, but do try again next thread.

[Dante]

Leave them Hwi (& ErasOmnius), you are wasting your time. You have done whatever possible to reason with them but they do not want. Only thing left is to pray for them.

Try it. For every prayer you utter, I will commit a sin. Hell, I'll start right now. *dons a cotton-polyester t-shirt*

Damn, this itches. Oh well, totally worth it.

But you Wolf, live a world where God doesn't provide any clues as to good behavior. Fecal matter smells like manure, and comes out of a lower colon. We are to eliminate waste sanitarily, clean up our exterior, and bury/send to a waste-water treatment plant such waste. But you condone the placing of male reproductive fluid inside said male body cavity, where it shall be eliminated with fecal matter at a later time.

Now I hate to be graphic, but it can't be all intellectual all of the time.

Oh, if you weren't frankly embarassingly moronic that would have been a good joke. Graphic, that? Surely you jest. Dragoon has already dealt with this point, but I'd like to add that "Fecal matter smells like manure" is something of a tautology, y'know?

I am a non-denominational Christian, who believes in small group study of the Book. Been doing it since 2004. No church building, just Bible leaders, intently studying the texts of the approved Bible, the Apocrypha, and the Pseudo-Epigrapha. Of course, I also study 2-4 hours a week of Roman and Byzantine history.

Approved by whom?

When I see the suffering of people who have HIV; the drugs they must take, twice a day, or they will begin to suffer and die. It's sad. It doesn't have to be this way.

So preach safe sex. Even anal sex is safe if you wear a condom. The Pope might get upset though. He likes STDs more than safe sex.

Also, what is with you people? Eras, athanthingy and of course Hwi, for pages and pages you retards have been selectively replying to arguments and completely ignoring points that disprove your ridiculous credo. Here's an idea: if you can't find a convincing retort to a point, it's a good indication that you're wrong.

"Now in addition to my being forced to endure your inattentiveness toward the project, going weeks and months without producing anything substantial, and frequently forgetting it

[ErasOmnius]

As for me, this will probably be my last post on this thread. It's not really me to be-labor this topic.

My son and I will be off to the center soon, to help where we can. Hundreds of people will come in -- all types of concerns. Some young men will come in, maybe tonight, who knows, but definitely in the next few weeks, who will be homosexuals, for help.

When I see that over-riding, over-whelming, desire with-in them to want to change...I have to know I'm right. When they cry and they weep, and they have simply had enough, and change, some permanently; I have to believe that they are happy, and that's a good thing.

[Eliyyahu]

Note: There is no Old and New Testament. This division, simply does not exist. It fits many to divide the Bible but it cannot be divided. Actually even the word Bible is not appropriate. Jesus used the word Scriptures. So Christians are provided by YHWH only one book: The 'Holy Scriptures'.

The division does exist, even if it does not exist for you as a Christian.

You claim that Jesus used the word Scriptures indicating the OT and NT are one, but you are ignoring the fact that Jesus did not have or use Paul's letters.  Paul never met him.  Jesus didn't use the Gospels.  He didn't use any of the letters or books in the NT.

He used the Torah, the Prophets, the Writings, and he was obviously well acquainted with the Oral Law, and with Midrash in the mold of the Pharisees and Rabbis.  But he did not have or use a "NT" in his learning or teaching.

[Acriku]

As for me, this will probably be my last post on this thread. It's not really me to be-labor this topic.

My son and I will be off to the center soon, to help where we can. Hundreds of people will come in -- all types of concerns. Some young men will come in, maybe tonight, who knows, but definitely in the next few weeks, who will be homosexuals, for help.

When I see that over-riding, over-whelming, desire with-in them to want to change...I have to know I'm right. When they cry and they weep, and they have simply had enough, and change, some permanently; I have to believe that they are happy, and that's a good thing.

I'm glad you're doing what you can in the context of what you believe to be right. That's why I can't really be mad at you (also because I haven't been insulted like wolf and dante have). But I have to ask, have you met a homosexual person outside of these clinics, one that is in a stable environment and accepts who he is? You'd be surprised how many people go by who don't follow the Gay Parade stereotypes.

[Wolf]

Dragoon: not even. Athanasios is perfectly entitled to think that he's right about religion. Hey, it's religion, after all--we all are entitled to interpret the scriptures for ourselves and develop our own relationships with God. Personally, his willingness to drop the issue and back out and leave it at "whatever, you guys are wrong, but I'm not interested" says a lot to me about his maturity. That's not the kind of person that... you know, goes on Crusades trying to convert people. I'll be honest, there's a part of me that really respects him for it. Kudus to you, Athanasios.

EDIT: And if I may point out... this topic has drifted quite a lot, and I think it's interesting to note how & why that drift has occurred. We started talking about a ban on same-sex hugs in Africa, which led to a discussion on a jailed Thai couple, which led to a discussion on the acceptance of homosexuality in the classical world, which has now led to a discussion on the acceptance of homosexuality within Christianity. You know, it's interesting. I don't think the people who are tolerant of homosexuals have brought any of these issues up... indeed, it was the people who sought to condemn homosexuality and subjugate homosexuals. But, they couldn't! Not rationally via these issues, at least. And they have been falling back on "the next best point." This is interesting, isn't it? Note the path of the discussion: we have gotten closer and closer to the "real" reasons why certain posters have homophobic views! Despite Eras' insistence on focusing on anal sodomy (not that this is exclusive to homosexuals... at all) we are now engaged in a fierce debate about the role of homosexuality in Christianity. Well, I'll have to ask the gay Episcopal pastor I know if homosexuality is congruent with Christian faith. Or, maybe I should write to the first openly gay American Lutheran pastor and solicit his views? Gee, I wonder what they'll say...

No, my point is that "Christianity" isn't a valid reason for anyone here to think that homosexuality is an evil to be condemned, and despite being the last thing for all of you to fall back on, there is nothing left. You have reached the end and must now face the truth about yourselves. Think about it logically: if it were only because of doctrine, you would all say, "shoot, man, I'm sorry, but those are the rules--God knows I'd agree with you if I could!" But that's not what you're saying. What you're saying is, basically, "it's filthy and evil and anyone who helps you thinks it isn't is a sinner and is going to hell!" That's pretty hysterical and defensive. No, Christianity isn't your excuse, and we have now finally traced your "views" back to their source, which we knew all along: rank prejudice. Whether that prejudice arises from your own discomfort with your own feelings, and your subconscious intuition as to who you really are, or whether it arises from a personal conflict or other bad experience is your own business. But at some point you've gotta be an adult, grow up, and live and let live. The intolerant are the only people I cannot tolerate.

EDIT 2: And the for the love of Pete, ErasOmnius, if you are going to quote someone's entire post, at least reference it... don't just follow it with repetitive nonsense from your previous posts. Otherwise, why bother quoting it? Did you even read a word?

[Dragoon Knight]

Oh I agree, Wolf.  athanasios is entitled to be stupid and delude himself, just as I'm entitled to say that he's stupid and he's deluding himself.  But it's the responsibility of every sensible person - whether they believe in Christianity or not - to call out those who try to use their faith as obfuscation for their own petty views.  Personally, if I thought that his withdrawal had anything to do with being mature, I would have commended him.  As it stands, it's the equivalent of saying "Pff, whatever" when one doesn't have an answer.

But yes, at least he's intelligent enough to see that he can't win.  Let him stew in his own ignorance; just as long as he doesn't spread it around like some foul treacle.

[vota dc]

Welcome to sunny Uganda! There are a few things about soon-to-be-passed legislation that you should know...

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1946645,00.html

Are you a doctor willing to treat gay people? That's "aiding and abetting homosexuality," and you're going to prison.

Are you failing to report your gay friends to the proper authorities? Prison again.

Are you writing an article in a newspaper about any of this? That's "promoting homosexuality" - 5 to 7 years in jail.

And don't even ask what might happen if, heaven forbid, you're actually gay.

These measures are proudly sponsored by several factions within the American Religious Right, in the hope that, one day, the Land of the Free

[ErasOmnius]

which interpretation of the Bible should we believe in, hm? The Catholic one? The Lutheran? The Unitarian? The King James? The Arian? Which epistles should we read? Matthew? John? Judas?

Which of the above 'Bible' versions or books condones homosexuality? You sir, strike me as someone who is 'student' of Christian-oriented texts. You know there is no approval of homosexuality in any Christian-oriented text before the 1850s, but you brought up this sub-topic to do what? Try to imply that any Christian text before 1850 condones homosexuality in any way. There are NONE.

As far as what you should read, and I know you are not really asking me -- read them all! Then find out which ones correspond BEST to the universe around you. Which ones prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS the most. Which ones cause the least amount of rampant VD. Which one promotes the lowest suicide rate.

You can come to only one conclusion -- The New Testament of 311 AD.

[Wolf]

Ears: you totally missed the point. The text can mean anything. I was asking which interpretation do you prefer--because, it's a choice, you know. The very same text can be used to support or oppose homosexual relationships. Lutheranism, for example, runs the gamut:

"Some denominations of the same Christian school of thought state opposing positions. Various parts of the Lutheran Church hold stances on the issue ranging from declaring homosexual acts as sin to acceptance of homosexual relationships. For example, the Lutheran Church

[Acriku]

Perhaps we should all watch West Wing for a powerful piece on just this topic..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI&feature=player_embedded

[ErasOmnius]

Eras: you totally missed the point. The text can mean anything. I was asking which interpretation do you prefer--because, it's a choice, you know. The very same text can be used to support or oppose homosexual relationships.

I suppose if you want the text to mean anything, I suppose it could mean anything. But there are NO texts saying, for example, "Mark and Jonas had intercourse, and God blessed it"; or "Lysander, Comanes, and Priscilla had a three-way marriage, and the Son looked down favorably on them."

There is no validity to any denomination wanting to OK homosexuality, and probably would not do so, except they are terrified of the state closing them down.

But really, the underground church, is usually the strongest, and the most Christ-like in nature.

[Wolf]

Wow, ErasOmnius, you really have no idea how anything works in this country, do you? I mean, that's fair, up until a week ago, you thought white people were going extinct! Glad I'm here to set you right with the truth,

Churches, quite generally, are not afraid of "the state coming down on them." The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights affords religious institutions significant legal protections and special exemptions. However, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights affords the individual important rights, civil and otherwise. A church can do quite a lot, but like any organization, if it breaks the law, it will be subject to judicial remedy. I have to do some research on the history of racial discrimination in American churches, but my sense of it is that there is no outright law that prevents them from doing so. However, the reality is that most churches do not discriminate, and there may be non-Constitutional bases for that phenomenon.

Anyway, you've ignored, yet again, the key point I've been trying to make. I will boil it down to bullet-points to allow your brain the best chance to absorb it.

(1) Scriptural support for condemnation of homosexuality is ambiguous at best, and there is much disagreement as to the true meaning of those passages. Only with significant assumptions can they be construed as an outright disapproval of homosexuality. (Doubt me? See: Wiki's succinct summary. The truth is that that handful of passages are highly disputable.)

(2) All texts--including scripture--must necessarily be interpreted by their readers. That is, indeed, exactly what happens when you read any book. The film My Cousin Vinny has a great example of interpretative hijinx: "I shot the clerk!" vs. "I shot the clerk?"

(3) If there is significant ambiguity (as there is here), we are forced to make an interpretative choice. We have many tools that we may use to advise us in making this choice: abstract reason, policy, and precedent.

(3)(A) Here, I think abstract reason indicates that since scriptures were made by fallable, prejudiced humans, it is likely that they are the source of any homophobic passages in the Bible. Indeed, neither Hwi nor Wiki have found any passage where Jesus Christ states his disapproval: only Paul in the New Testament, and Leviticus in the Old.

(3)(B) Public policy indicates that a recognition of homosexuality as a sin-to-be-condemned would subjugate an entire class of people for their inherent status, as opposed to their behavior, and therefore deny them significant social and civil rights without any just or even reasonable cause. Furthermore, health policy fails to identify homosexuals as significant spreaders of disease: indeed, anal intercourse is far more frequently practiced by heterosexuals--and even then, anal intercourse is only very marginally more risky behavior than vaginal or oral intercourse. Oral intercourse, actually, is in some sense more risky behavior. But I digest.

(3)© I will acknowledge that the majority of the precedent is against homosexuality. However, just because we have been doing a thing is not a good reason to continue doing that thing. Furthermore, much of this precedent is highly debatable: for example, we cannot even agree as to how homosexuality was received in ancient Greece, and popular opinion today indicates that it was received quite well. (No pun intended.) In the face of conflicting precedent, and precedent that would seek to do severe social ills if not checked, I believe it is appropriate to overturn it in favor of a more just, more consistent, and more humane doctrine--especially where there is no other reason for the continuation of precedent besides the continuation itself.

So... in conclusion: ErasOmnius, you have once again ignored every salient point brought to this table, you have merely re-iterated vague, prejudicial assumptions and avoided difficult, biting questions. The reality today is that a majority of the public does not have any problem with homosexuality, and many churches, in many parts of the world have reconciled homosexuality with the handful of scriptural elements that might be argued to indicate otherwise. They do not believe that it conflicts with text or doctrine. Therefore, I believe... well, that you are wrong. And that you are the very, very last person who should be allowed to administer any form of aid or service to a homosexual person in need. Well, okay, not the last. I suppose you're not herding them into death camps. Too bad though that it came to this, right? Am I right? Good old Godwin...

EDIT: I thought that I should support that. ErasOmnius, this is why I think that what you profess to do "for" homosexual men will soon be looked back on with the same revulsion as a war crime:

""Ex-gay" groups contend that conversion therapy is both possible and helpful for those who voluntarily seek to change their sexual orientation. The mainstream mental health consensus in the United States, however, is that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."[112] The American Psychological Association states that conversion therapy "is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions".[113] The American Psychiatric Association states, "The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient."[113] Alan Chambers, president of Exodus, does not promote conversion therapy, but states that LGB people can leave homosexuality through Christianity.[114] There is disagreement among evangelical therapists over the use of sexual orientation change efforts.[115]"

Also from the Wiki. You can reject that, or you can read the footnotes and do research for yourself. Or you can be like athanasios and reject Wiki only when it disagrees with you, but cite it for support elsewhere. Let it never be said that I never offered my opponents choices!

[chatfsh]

Leave them Hwi (& ErasOmnius), you are wasting your time. You have done whatever possible to reason with them but they do not want. Only thing left is to pray for them. Better use your time to preach to a receptive heart. This is what the Bible encourages us to do.

Agreed.  Any rational and unbiased observer would logically conclude that our position [that God

[Dragoon Knight]

Hwi, you don't get to talk about being rational and unbiased.  Or logic, for that matter.  Nothing you have said has been founded in anything but hate and wooly interpretation of various scraps of scripture.  You say that homosexuality is a sin, and then quote the OT to prove it.  Then you say, in almost the same breath, that Jesus re-affirmed the OT and fulfilled it and made a new covenant.  Yet in the NT, you have not been able to come up with one single passage from Jesus (who, by your own arguments, is the only one who is qualified to make such statements) that condemns homosexuality.

Now some may disagree with what God

[Wolf]

Response to Hwi:

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!

Yeah, it was right the last time I heard it too.

EDIT: Also, Hwi. Don't speak for Caid and others. You really threw a fit the last time someone did exactly what you just did to them to you, so, out of pure respect for the others on this board, don't characterize the seemingly-neutral posts of others as "pure agreement" when it suits your purposes. It's disrespectful, and given that you've complained, it makes you look (somehow) like even more of a hypocrite.

Response to General Community:

There's one thing, beyond all the other dozens of points that have been ignored, that I really, really need to point out. Because it isn't a matter of theological doctrine, it's a matter of pure reason.

In order to be a "shameless deceiver," I need to knowingly inform others as to a situation that is not the truth, and do so in a "shameless" manner. Shame's an issue of subjective impression, so I'm going to ignore that. But if I actually think that what I'm saying is right (I mean, I'm pretty certain), then I can't--by definition--be deceiving anyone. Even if I don't know the truth and am operating on a hunch, it still can't qualify as deception. I've pointed this out to Hwi like three times already, but she doesn't get it. Oh well. Number four!

As for the theological issues... there is no doubt in my mind that we will look back on the passages that Hwi & co. quote with such love with the same reverence we look on those passages that American and European racists use to justify the enslavement of human beings from Africa. Maybe people back then thought that if you were black, you weren't a human being and deserved only to be beaten and forced into labor for eternity because that's what the Bible said about Ham and his descendants. You know, I'm not a theologian, but as someone who parses and dissects language for a living, I have to say that there doesn't seem to be much less ambiguity between Hwi's homophobic posts and the Bible's racist ones. Just a thought. God didn't write the Bible; prejudiced humans and humans with agendas did. To quote yet again from popular culture, this has all happened before, and it will happen again...

...now, looking forward to Hwi skipping some stones.

[Eliyyahu]

Wolf,

Just a note, the notion of Ham being a slave is a deception, and a twist of the text.

Genesis 9:25 (KJV)

25. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

Canaan does not represent black Africans, nor Egyptians, who are represented by different sons of Ham (Kush, Mitzrayim).  

Furthermore, the nations of Canaan have long ceased to be distinct and recognizable, and that was true long before the Europeans tried to use this to justify their feelings toward blacks.

To use this to justify enslavement of or looking down on blacks is a total twisting of the text.

[Wolf]

Yes, precisely, Eliyyahu. That's why it's wrong. My point is that the whole concept isn't too dissimilar from what Hwi's doing with homosexuality right now--a bunch of people have disputed what the Bible says there, calling it precisely what you've called the Ham passge. Which is Dragoon's point. Which was Dante's point. See what I mean?

(*EDIT: But, did you read that article I linked to? The Bible seems to be replete with passages that justify human slavery... in general. Surely no one here would contemplate justifying their ownership over another human being? He or she doesn't necessarily have to be black.)

And... EDIT 2: Eliyyahu, this reminds me that I need to admonish the participants in this debate about language... again. Everyone has been using the word "twisting the words of X" to signal their disagreement with someone else's interpretation regarding a particular piece of textual language. Let me make this clear:

If someone has an interpretation that could reasonably be believed from the text, then it is not "twisting" the text, by any means, whatsoever. You can disagree on what you think is reasonable or not, but "to twist" connotes intentional deception. Make sure you're right about it when you use it, otherwise it's just slanderous. Incidentally, regarding Ham, it seems to be part "twisting" on the part of American racists, and a translation error on the part of even earlier sources:

"The word ham is very similar to the Hebrew word for black/hot, which is cognate with the Egyptian word khem, meaning black. As the Egyptian word was used by the Egyptians to refer to Egypt itself, in reference to the fertile black soil along the Nile valley (as opposed to the whiteness of the desert), many scholars view Ham as an eponym used to represent Egypt in the Table of Nations[21]. However, a number of Christians throughout history, including Origen[23] and the Cave of Treasures[24], have argued for the alternate proposition that Ham represents all black people, his name symbolising their dark skin colour[25]; some prominent Christians, like Ephrem the Syrian[26], Ishodad of Merv[27], Ibn al-Tayyib[28], and Bar Hebraeus[29], went as far as to argue that black people originally had had a Mediterranean skin tone, the curse turning them black."

[Eliyyahu]

Wolf,

Yes, I see what you mean.

The Torah does indeed acknowledge different kinds of servants, and the laws Israelites must observe surrounding them.  Whether one agrees with the Torah or not on these things, the point is that they are not based whatsoever on race, or color, or "blood."  

[Edric O]

There is no validity to any denomination wanting to OK homosexuality, and probably would not do so, except they are terrified of the state closing them down.

Actually, they are terrified that non-homophobic people (the vast majority) would stop attending their churches. You see, what has happened in the West over the past few decades was not a shift in legal attitudes towards homosexuality (in most US states it is still legal to fire someone just because they're gay, for example), but a shift in cultural attitudes. For a number of complex reasons, the majority of people have come to see homosexuality as perfectly acceptable.

And homophobes have come to be seen as hateful bigots with absolutely no moral, scientific, or religious justification for their bigotry. Which they are.

[Wolf]

Just a quick point...

Although some American jurisdictions do not consider sexual orientation to be a Constitutionally protected class (only 17 states consider it to be Constitutionally protected, but it's worth noting that they are generally the more populous states), employers generally cannot fire an individual for an arbitrary non-business reason. Although this is not prohibited by statute, it may give rise to a cause of action in tort for breach of contract or other pecuniary injury. Without a non-arbitrary business reason for terminating an employee, an employer would have little defense in this situation. Though, by and large, Edric is right: the law has not yet adapted to the prevailing cultural attitudes--in other words, citizens generally self-police homophobic behavior. However, I think there's good reason to think that the law will soon catch up with those attitudes.