New Member

[skeptictank]

Hello everyone, I don't give personal info over the net, so you will come to know me as Skeptictank, or some variation thereof.

I would like to introduce myself as a biblical christian. I was skeptical for some years about the bible, and after some years of study, I've come to the conclusion that the bible is the inerrant word of god and, as Paul writes in his epistle to Timothy-


2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


As of right now, I'm going through some spiritual preparation as I prepare to move to Utah. As a part of that I am challenging my faith further and am exploring views different or foreign to the ones I currently hold. That is what has brought me here. Apparently the theme of this site seems to be, "Homosexuality + Christian = So what?".

Okay, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm currently reading Mr. White's booklet "What the bible does and doesn't say about homosexuality". I've read most of its scriptural aspects and so far, if I may be blunt, I don't buy what he's trying to sell. I'll be working on a rebuttal to his "premises", but while I work on that I'm wondering, what do you guys think? Clearly most of you probably agree with the premise of the author of the afore-mentioned book.

I would like to lovingly and tentatively put forth my disagreement, and if any are willing to discuss the issue in light of scripture, I would be appreciative of his/her participation.

Since this is an issue that spans a large area let us take God for our example and go one step at a time. As it is written-

Isa 28:10 For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little:


So, here is my first line and I invite comment from all posters.


Gen 2:18 ¶ And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man
should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.


God purposed to make a "help" or "helper" for Adam. As we go about defending our choice of "helper" let's look at what god's choice was.


Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every
beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and
brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call
them: and whatsoever Adam called every living
creature, that [was] the name thereof.


This specifically would be a rebuttal to beastiality, but here God shows Adam his need for a "counterpart", if you will. Think about Adam seeing all the creatures of the earth, seeing male and female beasts and male and female birds (fowl), he must've been wondering "Hey, where's mine?". Anyway, I digress-


Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.


So nothing was fit to help him that had already been created. Straight forward enough, I think.


Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;


After Adam saw his need, God acted to supply the fulfillment of his need. I think we should keep this in mind while we go about trying to find our own sustainances.


Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


So the helper "meet for" (or needed by) the man, was a woman. That in and of itself is telling.


Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and
flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she
was taken out of Man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,
and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.


So a man is to "cleave unto his wife". This is the way god made it. Is it for us to change it?

In Christ's love always,

Skeptictank

[tpdncr4christ]

Christ disscussing divorce with the Pharisees in Mathew 19:10-12. King James Version:

10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

11But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

[skeptictank]

Christ disscussing divorce with the Pharisees in Mathew 19:10-12. King James Version:

It's interesting that you would bring that up. I just wonder what you were getting at. :)

Skeptictank

[tpdncr4christ]

Christ was talking to the Pharisees. Paraphrased here:

They say, "Hey Jesus, can a man divorce his wife whenever the heck he wants?"

Jesus says, verses 4 and 5, "Don't you know the scriptures?" He then proceeds to quote the passage you just quoted. Genesis, 2:24.

Jesus' boys, the 12 apostles, the disciples, whatever you'd prefer to call them, well anyways… they ask Jesus, verse 10, “What’s the point? If marriage sucks so much, isn’t it better not to get married?”

Jesus says, after having just quoted your lovely passage from Genesis, “Not everyone can accept this teaching. Don’t think that every man is meant for a woman. Some are born with women never crossing their minds.”



I find it odd that Jesus would say some men were born without attraction for women, if every guy was meant for a gal. See what I'm getting at?

[skeptictank]

I find it odd that Jesus would say some men were born without attraction for women, if every guy was meant for a gal. See what I'm getting at?

I do, but I must confess that I would have to take serious liberties with the text in order to interperet it as you seem to have done.

Jesus draws the line between men meant for married life, and men meant for celibate life. That is the nature of a eunich and in that case, his bride is christ/God. At no point does Christ encourage homosexuality (or any sexuality, for that matter) as you seem to be saying.

Have I understood you?

In Christ's love always,

Skeptictank

[tpdncr4christ]

Jesus draws the line between men meant for married life, and men meant for celibate life. That is the nature of a eunich and in that case, his bride is christ/God. At no point does Christ encourage homosexuality (or any sexuality, for that matter) as you seem to be saying.


Now I know this sounds lame, but I'd like to refer you to my friend/mentor/person I know Uncle Andy. That's what we call him here, or at least what I call him. He'll know all the greek words and stuff.

What I can tell you, Sir Skeptic, is that the word Homosexuality wasn't even in existance until the 18oo's, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong of course... But anyways, Jesus couldn't have possibly refered to homosexuals or heterosexuals because that wasn't the terminology. Back then relationships were business transactions. If you wanted sex with a woman, you married her. You could marry other women, in fact, sometimes you were required to. If you wanted sex with a man, you got a slave, I believe the greek word is Pias. That's what these guys did. They got wives or Pias's to relieve themselves. In Mathew 8:5-13 Jesus willingly heals the pias/servant of a centurion.

But then again, I'm not completley certain, I know Andy will have better answers for you.

[scott snedeker]

Skeptic

Why would God create me gay to then command that I deny myself passion romance and love of the one who holds my heart, While a heterosexual would have this blessing celebrated by him.

This would mean that he deliberately created me a second class human who would not be entitled to the same joy?

Would He do this so I would suffer loneliness by his will and design?

Do you really accuse God of being this cruel?

I'll remind you that If this is what you are here to communicate and quote scriptures further this is a comission of spiritual violence and a violation of god's will and you will be barred from this site.

We have young people here who can be injured by this type of sanctimonious predation.

Part of the role of the older members is to protect young gay member from predators on the internet.

If this is your nessage then you will have identified yourself as an internet predator and will be barred for their protection.

If you are here to learn how to break down barriers of unconditional love for gay people (And this specifically means accepting the we are not second class humans) then you may continue

[Emproph]

So the helper "meet for" (or needed by) the man, was a woman. That in and of itself is telling.

So a man is to "cleave unto his wife". This is the way god made it. Is it for us to change it?

I am a woman who was created with a man's body. What does the Bible say of me?

[NathanATX]

Attention everyone:

As Mel White has said, and as many of us believe, the issue of whether sexuality is a choice, a sin, or a blessing is NOT up for debate. The verdict IS in. Homosexuality is NOT a choice or a sin.

The forums are not a place for cold, heartless debate. The forums are for building relationships among people, especially those people who are attracted to and committed to the work that Soulforce does in the world.

Skeptictank, you are welcome here. However, insensitive, abusive, arrogant condemnation is not. And, yes, you can discuss these issues without coming across the way you have been coming across.

Tread lightly. Read ALL the rules. If you exhibit a lack of regard for our community, you will not be permitted to participate here.

Nate, moderator

[andrewlittle]

Although I'll call you Skeptic, if that's okay. I'm the "Uncle Andy" to whom tpdncr4christ referred. You can call me whatever you like - I'm not picky.

I would like to introduce myself as a biblical christian. I was skeptical for some years about the bible, and after some years of study, I've come to the conclusion that the bible is the inerrant word of god and, as Paul writes in his epistle to Timothy-
Could I ask you to define a "biblical Christian" as opposed to Christian? The word Christian only appears twice in the Bible and neither comes with a definition.
Apparently the theme of this site seems to be, "Homosexuality + Christian = So what?".
Pray tell, where did you come accross that theme? I would say the theme is "GLBT + Christian = Sure, they're not mutually exclusive."
Okay, you're entitled to your opinion.
Well, gosh darn, thanks ... but, what opinion is that specifically? There are many opinions here. To which one in particular are we entitled?
I'm currently reading Mr. White's booklet "What the bible does and doesn't say about homosexuality". I've read most of its scriptural aspects and so far, if I may be blunt, I don't buy what he's trying to sell. I'll be working on a rebuttal to his "premises", but while I work on that I'm wondering, what do you guys think? Clearly most of you probably agree with the premise of the author of the afore-mentioned book.
I don't mean to be picky, but we don't have a booklet by a Mr White. We have several resources by Rev Dr Mel White. He's not trying to sell anything, though, so that may not be the individual your referring to. You don't believe much in showing people with whom you disagree much respect, do you?
I would like to lovingly and tentatively put forth my disagreement, and if any are willing to discuss the issue in light of scripture, I would be appreciative of his/her participation.
You might begin by being at least respectful - not only to Mel (he doesn't require the Rev Dr part, but it's preferable to Mr.), but to everyone else.
So, here is my first line and I invite comment from all posters.
Isa 28:10 For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little:
Interesting quote - out of context, unless you're calling us the drunkards of Ephraim, bloated with food and drunk with wine.
God purposed to make a "help" or "helper" for Adam. As we go about defending our choice of "helper" let's look at what god's choice was.

This specifically would be a rebuttal to beastiality, but here God shows Adam his need for a "counterpart", if you will. Think about Adam seeing all the creatures of the earth, seeing male and female beasts and male and female birds (fowl), he must've been wondering "Hey, where's mine?". Anyway, I digress-
A couple of things. The last thing I would do is defend bestiality (no "a" in that BYW), but you bringing it up here reeks of a standard trick. "Well, if we accept gays and lesbians, then we'll have to take child molesters and people into bestiality and polygamists and ..." - that is a little too familiar to the folks around here. And it reeks of a cheap attempt to redirect the argument with lies and propaganda. If you didn't mean to do that, then I'll apologize - but, of course, I'll expect you to NOT do it again.

Other than that, though, how did the passage you cited address bestiality in any way, shape or form?
So nothing was fit to help him that had already been created. Straight forward enough, I think.

After Adam saw his need, God acted to supply the fulfillment of his need. I think we should keep this in mind while we go about trying to find our own sustainances.
Verse 20: The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.

Another small point - there was not found a helper. Genesis doesn't say Adam saw his need - it's passive - God did not find a helper among the animals. All we know at this point is that Adam had been naming the critters - we don't know what he did or didn't recognize as "his need".

So the helper "meet for" (or needed by) the man, was a woman. That in and of itself is telling.

So a man is to "cleave unto his wife". This is the way god made it. Is it for us to change it?

Okay - now for the nit-picky part. (Everyone cringes - ufta, he's at it again)

Up to verse 23, and then in verse 25, everyone agrees that the people being discussed are adam (man or Adam) and ishah (woman or wife). Right?

But then, in verse 24, the very specific references to this "first" man and woman become archetypes (universals) for human behavior, instead of prototypes (first of). Why do you think that, for one verse in the midst of the others, this all of a sudden became the "norm" for all men, all women and all time. It even remains singular - a man, a woman - not men and women.

This interpretation is an assumption that God ordained this as the normative relationship - the only one allowed. Later, however, we find that "one man and one woman" wasn't the plan for all time. If the numbers aren't part of the intended "plan", then why are the genders?

[Bearnabas]

For the group as a whole: I find it interesting that right after God determines that Adam should not be alone, and he declares "I'll make for him a helper, a companion" that he starts making animals.... as opposed to a human woman...then after all the animals are named it is said that "he did not find a suitable companion".

My "he" is not capitalized, so I'm gonna guess that's Adam browsing through the animal kingdom for a good companion.

But the text, that inerrant text everyone is fond of, says that God made the animals with the intent of finding a companion, then when Adam doesn't find a suitable one--Adam's choice, Adam's pickiness after God's diversity-display--THEN God puts Adam to sleep.

He doesn't start out with putting Adam to sleep? I wonder why.

BTW, there are two versions of creation: version 1 (Chapter One) Man comes last. Version 2 (Chapter Two) it actually says that before there were plants or animals, God made Man. Man comes first. So which is it? God can't lie. Man first or Man last? And why the cavalcade of animals after God's explicit wish to find Adam a companion? Yeah, Skeptic, you can read all you want into the text, but it's still the inerrant text.

Personally, I believe in an inerrant God. The text is no problem to believe, even if it has errors in it, and to try and swat every gnat of an error that comes up, really wastes my time into defending a book that is a beautiful book, a guide for my life, and God's word as tumbled down to us from aeons of translation--all to make it make sense to a bunch of 21st century American christians. Who knows what it looked like to the original Hebrews--or what it meant to them? Or who changed it or copied it wrong or deleted an important passage. I bet God let us get what we needed, and knew we needed HIM to decipher it, translate it, read it into our hearts...not get our heads all caught up in whether or not we can make the two versions of creation make sense with each other....otherwise we would make a god out of the Bible and not need the god of God. We would have our own answers.

Finally, Skeptic, don't worry about my post. It's just an interesting aside. Instead, I hope you answer Andy. He's made good points and you would have to address them for me to take you seriously. It's good to have honest debate when people stick to issues and treat each other with respect.

Sincerely, your chocolate labrador retriever and companion...

[skeptictank]

Although I'll call you Skeptic, if that's okay. I'm the "Uncle Andy" to whom tpdncr4christ referred. You can call me whatever you like - I'm not picky.

Alright Andy, I am happy to "hear" from you. You've been spoken in something of a positive light, by our friend tp... if I may use the abreviation.

Could I ask you to define a "biblical Christian" as opposed to Christian? The word Christian only appears twice in the Bible and neither comes with a definition.

I only specify "biblical christian" for those who like to get caught up in specific denominational labels. When I say I'm a "biblical christian" I mean that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour (as detailed in the bible), and that I take the bible very seriously. I believe that the bible is the word of god. That the bible doesn't contain the truth, but rather that the bible IS the truth.


Pray tell, where did you come accross that theme? I would say the theme is "GLBT + Christian = Sure, they're not mutually exclusive."


That's basically what I meant, though you and I may see it from a different perspective. ;)


Well, gosh darn, thanks ... but, what opinion is that specifically? There are many opinions here. To which one in particular are we entitled?


My friend, in the U.S. you are entitled to ever oppinion you choose to have. :D


I don't mean to be picky, but we don't have a booklet by a Mr White. We have several resources by Rev Dr Mel White.


This is the Gentleman to whom I was reffering.


He's not trying to sell anything, though, so that may not be the individual your referring to.


I was using figurative language. :)


You don't believe much in showing people with whom you disagree much respect, do you?

I believe in showing them the utmost respect. I'm ashamed to have made such a negative impression. Yet when someone puts something on paper, publishes it, and distributes it, I should hope he would be open to the open scrutiny of others.


You might begin by being at least respectful - not only to Mel (he doesn't require the Rev Dr part, but it's preferable to Mr.), but to everyone else.


Of course, how might I better accomodate you and the rest in that regard? As far as Dr. White, I use the "Mr." because that is the manner in which I am accustomed to reffer to individuals of higher standing than myself. I avoid special labels because they've always bothered me, but that's for another discussion.


Interesting quote - out of context, unless you're calling us the drunkards of Ephraim, bloated with food and drunk with wine.

We've all got our problems I think, but no that is not what I was reffering to. I was reffering to the fact of the basis on which god builds his truth, which is the clear refference being made.


A couple of things. The last thing I would do is defend bestiality (no "a" in that BYW), but you bringing it up here reeks of a standard trick. "Well, if we accept gays and lesbians, then we'll have to take child molesters and people into bestiality and polygamists and ..." - that is a little too familiar to the folks around here. And it reeks of a cheap attempt to redirect the argument with lies and propaganda. If you didn't mean to do that, then I'll apologize - but, of course, I'll expect you to NOT do it again.

Certainly, and I do apologize. Indeed, I am one to go off on tangents which are unrelated, or scarcely so, to the topic at hand. It's just my style of writing to comment as I go. It's also my mode of speech, but of course, I shall try to keep it to a minimum if it offends you. And it was not my intention to detract from the topic as you've described.


Other than that, though, how did the passage you cited address bestiality in any way, shape or form?


That among the animals, no "helper" was found. So the relationship that god intended for Adam to have could not be fullfilled thereby.


Verse 20: The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.

Another small point - there was not found a helper. Genesis doesn't say Adam saw his need - it's passive - God did not find a helper among the animals. All we know at this point is that Adam had been naming the critters - we don't know what he did or didn't recognize as "his need".


You are right, in that I have added my own interperetations of the text. If you are interested I will explain myself, otherwise, I don't think it is entirely relevant to the point, (another tangent, you see).

Okay - now for the nit-picky part. (Everyone cringes - ufta, he's at it again)

Up to verse 23, and then in verse 25, everyone agrees that the people being discussed are adam (man or Adam) and ishah (woman or wife). Right?


Sounds good.


But then, in verse 24, the very specific references to this "first" man and woman become archetypes (universals) for human behavior, instead of prototypes (first of). Why do you think that, for one verse in the midst of the others, this all of a sudden became the "norm" for all men, all women and all time.


Firstly, I think you are making an assumption when you say that the refference to verse 24 is only to "this first man and woman". The verse says-

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Adam is speaking of a man leaving his father and mother. I don't see how we, by any manipulation of interperetation, could construe this as reffering to Adam or Eve. Niether of them had a mother, and their Father was god. I seriously doubt that the inspired text is telling us that any man should "leave" his father who is in heaven. That would be a contradiction of several verses, which, for now, i will take as common knowledge.


It even remains singular - a man, a woman - not men and women.


That is because the relationship is to be between a single man and a single woman, not two women and one man, not two men and one woman, et al..

This interpretation is an assumption that God ordained this as the normative relationship - the only one allowed.


The scripture specifically states it as the reason for "a man leav[ing] his father and mother". For us to fully develop a view of god's intention for the family unit, from this verse alone, we would have to make use of interperetive skills, but I don't see how we could gather anything else from the text, that this (a relationship between a man and a woman) was god's purpose for the family unit.


Later, however, we find that "one man and one woman" wasn't the plan for all time. If the numbers aren't part of the intended "plan", then why are the genders?

:confused:

I'm forced to answer your last question with another question, where in the bible is it said that "one man and one woman" wasn't a part of the plan?

To be continued... :pray:

Thank you, Andy, for your thoughtful responses

Skeptictank

[skeptictank]

I'll remind you that If this is what you are here to communicate and quote scriptures further this is a comission of spiritual violence and a violation of god's will and you will be barred from this site.

We have young people here who can be injured by this type of sanctimonious predation.

Part of the role of the older members is to protect young gay member from predators on the internet.

If this is your nessage then you will have identified yourself as an internet predator and will be barred for their protection.


I will be happy to address your questions and other comments soon, but for now, I would just like to assure you that my only intention here is to discuss scripture. My oppinion is no more valid than yours, and I think I would be denying myself a rich resource of truth, if I ignored counsle from those who, like yourself, hold views different from mine.


If you are here to learn how to break down barriers of unconditional love for gay people (And this specifically means accepting the we are not second class humans) then you may continue

I certainly wouldn't use your own terminology to describe you. You are human, and like me you are a sinner. God loves you, and I'm trying :lol: . Just kidding, but of course we all need to learn to love one another more perfectly :pray: . My goal here is to discover and discuss truth. Does that comply with the rules of this board?

God bless you,

Skeptictank

[Pablo Rafael]

I'm forced to answer your last question with another question, where in the bible is it said that "one man and one woman" wasn't a part of the plan?


Skeptic,

I just have to once again make this point. It is against sound Biblical interpretation methods to ask someone to prove something negative. To ask someone to prove that something wasn't part of the plan is essentially saying. "I have formulated this doctrine; now prove to me from the Bible that it isn't so." This way of thinking is just what I think Jesus was speaking of when he told the pharisees that they teach man's laws as though they were God's laws.

It is incumbent upon those of us who want to make a doctrinal statement that our views are based on the Bible. If you wish to make the point that the Bible speaks against homosexuality, you are required to bring forth your evidence. No one else needs to be asked to prove that it doesn't.

Does the Bible ever say that all partnerships must be one man, one woman? - No.
Does the Bible condemn committed, monogamous gay relationships?- No
Then I am not allowed to formulate my own teaching (which the church has been very bad at doing over the centuries) and claim that it is God's teaching.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[u-dog]

I agree with you whole-heartedly Pablo but what I think Skeptic is saying is that Andy said "1M1W is not part of the plan" and that he (skeptic) wants to know where it says that.

The answer to that Question is: Genesis (the Jacob cycle of stories says that both Jacob and his brother Essau had multiple wives) The Abraham Cycle (Abraham has only one wife but also has a concubine with all of the priveleges of marriage). In 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings: The David Cycle of stories contains references to David's multiple wives as well as Solomon's SCORES of wives. None of these figures are condemned in scripture for practicing multiple marriage. So Andy's question stands: if numbers don't matter, why does gender?

[ladyinred]

To Uncle Andy, If I may be permitted to call you that. I just thought you might be interested in this:http://fou.uniting.com.au/texts.html It deals alot with the root meaning of greek words (and hebrew ones) in scripture.http://fou.uniting.com.au/texts.html#deut23,http://fou.uniting.com.au/texts.html#romans
http://fou.uniting.com.au/texts.html#deut23

[scott snedeker]

I will be happy to address your questions and other comments soon, but for now, I would just like to assure you that my only intention here is to discuss scripture. My oppinion is no more valid than yours, and I think I would be denying myself a rich resource of truth, if I ignored counsle from those who, like yourself, hold views different from mine.

Very Cool! The discussion familiarizes Straight Religious Right folks like yourself with Gay Pagan fellas like me. Familiarity lessens tensions, fears and inaccurate assumptions. This allows hearts to open up to one another by permitting the human side of each to be perceived more clearly.


I certainly wouldn't use your own terminology to describe you. You are human, and like me you are a sinner. God loves you, and I'm trying :lol: . Just kidding, but of course we all need to learn to love one another more perfectly :pray: . My goal here is to discover and discuss truth. Does that comply with the rules of this board?

God bless you,

Skeptictank

It complies if discussion of "truth" does so without crossing some specific personal and spiritual boundaries. The specific boundary is communicating on this board that homosexuality is a sin and a choice and not a trait inherent to a gay person. This can be tricky for you to discuss on this board if that is, in fact, your belief. However, Dialogue between our two belief systems is necessary to achieve our common goal to breach the gap.
Here are some suggestions that I have to do this:

When approaching the homosexuality=sin/choice boundary which I will abbreviate as "hscb," It is important to make very clear the intent behind the statement or question.
An intent to understand why I don't consider myself to be committing a sin or how do I reconcile or interpret biblical verse for example, communicates an open interest to understand my point of view. A genuine desire to learn.

An Intent to "reveal" to me through scripture that homosexuality is a sin is a direct violation of the hscb and will result in being barred from the site.

The reason for this boundary is that telling a gay person that homosexuality is a sin is like a mother telling her child that the only reason that he exists is that she was raped brutally and impregnated. This devastates the spiritual identity of the child who now sees himself as a lesser human.

To avoid crossing the hscb I suggest phrasing such opinions in the following manner: "I have been taught that the verses in Leviticus indicate that homosexuality is a sin. How do you interpret their meaning?" This indicates a reference to an opinion and an open mind to others

On the other hand stating:
"Leviticus clearly states that for a man to sleep with a man is an abomination. If you don't repent you will go to hell for your sin" is a dogmatic announcement that does not reference an opinion nor does it communicate a desire to learn another opinion. It feels like a judgement just like being told that the only reason you exist is that your mother was raped brutally.

In your quote at the top of this post for example you state: "You are human, and like me you are a sinner" This is dogmatic.

Insteading you could phrase [My belief is that you are human and like me you are a sinner] This attaches ownership to an opinion.

Being a pagan I believe that gay sex pleases God so that He can share in the joy of it.

These I think will bring us a step closer to understanding one another.

[andrewlittle]

Alright Andy, I am happy to "hear" from you. You've been spoken in something of a positive light, by our friend tp... if I may use the abreviation.
Proof positive that you can fool some of the people all the time. ;)
I only specify "biblical christian" for those who like to get caught up in specific denominational labels. When I say I'm a "biblical christian" I mean that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour (as detailed in the bible), and that I take the bible very seriously.
Likewise
I believe that the bible is the word of god.
Ditto
That the bible doesn't contain the truth, but rather that the bible IS the truth.
Here we probably differ. There are so many translations and interpretations that differ significantly with each other, and differ substantially from the oldest versions we have in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, that I would not know which one to take literally. The task, from my perspective, is uncovering the truth that has been buried by human translations and manipulation.
I believe in showing them the utmost respect. I'm ashamed to have made such a negative impression. Yet when someone puts something on paper, publishes it, and distributes it, I should hope he would be open to the open scrutiny of others.
Of course, how might I better accomodate you and the rest in that regard? As far as Dr. White, I use the "Mr." because that is the manner in which I am accustomed to reffer to individuals of higher standing than myself. I avoid special labels because they've always bothered me, but that's for another discussion.

Scrutiny is always good - as I think Mel and everyone else here would agree. Perhaps it was just my sensitivity in reading your post as disregarding Mel's credentials. I certainly don't think Mel would go with the "individuals of higher standing" thing - and I know I don't - but credentials show some measure of study and preparation in particular disciplines, and that effort is deserving of respect. I understand, though, no disrespect intended.
We've all got our problems I think, but no that is not what I was reffering to. I was reffering to the fact of the basis on which god builds his truth, which is the clear refference being made.
Perhaps we can delve into this more later. I would proffer that the verse in question was very specific to the subject of Ephraim.
Firstly, I think you are making an assumption when you say that the refference to verse 24 is only to "this first man and woman". The verse says-

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Adam is speaking of a man leaving his father and mother.
In verse 24, Adam is no longer speaking. The quote is included entirely in verse 23. The beginning of verse 24 does not begin with what is called a "vav consecutive" which is used throughout this part of Genesis, and much of the rest of the Hebrew scriptures, to indicate continuing thought or speech in a following clause or sentence.
The writer or narrator is again the one speaking about Adam, not Adam speaking to or about someone else.
I don't see how we, by any manipulation of interperetation, could construe this as reffering to Adam or Eve. Niether of them had a mother, and their Father was god. I seriously doubt that the inspired text is telling us that any man should "leave" his father who is in heaven. That would be a contradiction of several verses, which, for now, i will take as common knowledge.
There are several issues of consistency in the early parts of Genesis, not withstanding two versions of creation in different orders. Notably, God is both singular and plural (e.g. Gen 1:26 "...let us make man/humankind in our image" and Gen 1:27 "So God created man/humankind in his image...), grammatical number for man/human (e.g. Gen 1:27 "So God created man/humankind in his image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" - all English texts try to manipulate this by making both references either singular or plural, but the Hebrew has first a singular and then a plural). Also Adam and Eve, the two first humans, produced Cain and Abel. Cain kills able and is banished to Nod, where he takes a wife and they have Enoch. Where did the wife come from?

Manipulating the texts occurs when we try to take these seeming contradictions or difficulties and smooth them out by playing with interpretations. That is what has historically been done with Gen 2:24 by saying that it is Adam's comment about future humanity. This is not true. Even if it was, however, it still doesn't establish a norm of "one man-one woman".
The scripture specifically states it as the reason for "a man leav his father and mother".
Scripture states no such thing. It is NOT written as "For this purpose a man will leave his father and mother, so he can cling to a wife..."
There is no cause/effect - no reason/result or reason/consequence - itis a simple statement.
For us to fully develop a view of god's intention for the family unit, from this verse alone, we would have to make use of interperetive skills, but I don't see how we could gather anything else from the text, that this (a relationship between a man and a woman) was god's purpose for the family unit.
Truth for that particular circumstance in that particular time - or "normative" for all time and all people? I go with the former. What reasons do we have to assume the latter, except by interpreting scripture to validate a preconception?
That is because the relationship is to be between a single man and a single woman, not two women and one man, not two men and one woman, et al.. [I](rearranged to place with the rest of the comments)

:confused:

I'm forced to answer your last question with another question, where in the bible is it said that "one man and one woman" wasn't a part of the plan?

To be continued... :pray:

Thank you, Andy, for your thoughtful responses

Skeptictank

First, one argument says that the plan of God is absolutely "one man-one woman." The other (mine) says that is is not a stated plan of God. The burden of proof is on those who do not recognize other types of relationships as Godly or righteous.

Case in point, which u-dog beat me to because I was gone all day (show-off :D ), following your logic King David could not have been a rghteous or Godly man. He broke, manytimes over, the "one man - one woman" divinely ordained plan. Yet, he was a righteous man, according to God. Ergo, he couldn't break the plan of God for marriage, because it isn't the normative plan in the first place.

I agree with you whole-heartedly Pablo but what I think Skeptic is saying is that Andy said "1M1W is not part of the plan" and that he (skeptic) wants to know where it says that.

The answer to that Question is: Genesis (the Jacob cycle of stories says that both Jacob and his brother Essau had multiple wives) The Abraham Cycle (Abraham has only one wife but also has a concubine with all of the priveleges of marriage). In 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings: The David Cycle of stories contains references to David's multiple wives as well as Solomon's SCORES of wives. None of these figures are condemned in scripture for practicing multiple marriage. So Andy's question stands: if numbers don't matter, why does gender?

[ladyinred]

It's interesting to note that Jesus wasn't married and didn't fit in to the mom,dad and kids family unit nor were his apostles married. So if marriage was God's plan for the world he didn't fit into that plan. To me the discussion about homosexuality and the bible is a moot point. What Jesus emphasized by his ministry was serving others, helping the poor ,healing the sick, ministering to the marginalized, the lepers, the prostitutes, the tax collectors Jesus didn't play the game of favoritism.And yes the main theme of his ministry was to love others and not just our own immediate families. I see here at Soul force, the many honest , sincere people who also try to serve others in their own unique way. Many are reaching out to the poor and the marginalized,helping others, and serving others in love. To me that is what truly counts in the eyes of God.

I think there are too many issues that our society faces that far outweigh the concern of the sexual orientation of the person. We have our poor, we have the homeless, we have youth on the street, we have our elderly who need our care, People who can't afford medical care, we have dishonesty and corruption in our own government, we are attacking countries who haven't attacked us, we have people in low paying jobs who can barely make ends meet or afford to feed their families, we have concerns about the environment,people losing their jobs and security,broken families, the high rate of divorce and many other concerns that need to be addressed.

I don't personally know why there is such a myopic focus on homosexuality by many of those in the evangelical community. In James it says pure religion before God the father is this ,to visit widows and orphans in their time of trouble. I think that pretty much sums it up what God requires of us.

[ladyinred]

And if you want ,Skeptic tank, to get into the bible and Paul and the others you so fondly like to focus on. Remember this ,Paul was speaking from a perspective unique to the culture , the practices and times. I read up on some of the ancient civilizations and alot of what was being practiced during those times was temple prostitution and pedastry. It had nothing to do with a loving same sex relationship.

These were widespread throughout the ancient world and marriage in many ways was a an arrangement of convenience. They enjoyed their pleasures with girls and women who were temple prostitutes as well and this was a very widespread practice. Many of the women who were prostituted were young and old alike.(many were slaves) Many had no other choice it was their means of survival.

Their marriages with women were more about bearing their offspring and could hardly be viewed in the context of a loving relationship either.( more about control and domination they viewed wives as the bearers of their heirs and they wanted to keep the bloodlines pure which is why they valued chaste women, they were also misogynistic,in Rome ,women had very few rights)

I was also reading that pedastry was initially encouraged as a means of population control in certain ancient cultures. (In other words to curb their sexual appetite and behavior with women) Which to me does not explain the homosexual orientation today as we see it. Actually homosexual was not a term until 1891.(How did such a modern word slip into the ancient writings of the bible?)

People often read the bible and think it pertains to modern times and practices. The bible was written at a time that has a unique perspective that pertains to the ancient cultures,customs and practices. People in the ancient world thought the earth was flat, did it make it true? Would we accept the widespead prostitution that was accepted in these cultures as the norm knowing what we know now,of course not.We see it as a crime against humanity to prostitute young girls and boys. Do we offer burnt sacrifices to gods or even God like the Hebrews, no of course not.

To me reading the bible without some knowledge or historical backround is really not to understand the bible at all.

Again when reading the bible and the views of those who wrote the scripture ,keep in mind the context of the times they were living in. When we try to impose 21st century thinking , in terms of our understanding of things onto the bible, we forget that their writings again pertain to the culture, customs and practices of their times, their perspective was influenced by these factors, and have nothing to do with our current understanding or perspective of things.

Here is something to consider, suppose one of the biblical writers like Paul were propelled into our time through a "magic time machine" How would Paul view our culture? It would be alien and strange to him, he wouldn't know anything about radio, tv's, cars,how we lived or anything. (and would Paul understand our current language and use of words like homosexual?)

So to me how alot of people may today interpret scripture is alien to what Paul actually meant , they do not understand or know anything about the culture and times he was living in , nor how the people at that time saw things.

Just to add:
Married life in ancient Rome.Not what you call your idea of a dreamy relationship, children didn't fare much better evidently:http://library.advanced.org/26602/society.htm

Prostitution in ancient Greece and the near east:http://www.answers.com/topic/prostitution-in-ancient-greece ( interesting to note that sodomy was a common practice with female prostitutes,if so why is the word sodomite then associated with homosexuality?)
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/neprostitution/Ancient_Near_East_Prostitution.htm
a new perspective on biblical passages that supposedly condemn homsexuality:http://www.midmocelebration.org/information.html
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/judeochristian/bible.txt

[ladyinred]

And as for the Rev.White, from what I've read he has done research and studied the bible extensively. I think he takes a common sense approach to the bible, whether you think so or not.So just because you discredit him it really doesn't mean a hill of beans to me.

[skeptictank]

Attention everyone:

As Mel White has said, and as many of us believe, the issue of whether sexuality is a choice, a sin, or a blessing is NOT up for debate. The verdict IS in. Homosexuality is NOT a choice or a sin.


May I open a thread where I ask the members here how Dr. White came to that conclusion?


The forums are not a place for cold, heartless debate. The forums are for building relationships among people, especially those people who are attracted to and committed to the work that Soulforce does in the world.

Skeptictank, you are welcome here. However, insensitive, abusive, arrogant condemnation is not. And, yes, you can discuss these issues without coming across the way you have been coming across.

Tread lightly. Read ALL the rules. If you exhibit a lack of regard for our community, you will not be permitted to participate here.

Nate, moderator

Okay, but I can't find the rules. Where are they so that I can read them?

Thank you,

Skeptictank

[Daniel]

Skeptic- The guidelines are within the FAQ tab. Here is a link to them:

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/faq.php?faq=soulforce_faq_item#faq_soulforce_faq_i tem2

May I open a thread where I ask the members here how Dr. White came to that conclusion?

Again- as it's been mentioned previously, if you read Dr. White's essay, What the Bible Says - and Doesn't Say- about Homosexuality, you will find the answer to your question. His reasoning is self-evident to those who can read with a mind towards comprehension.

Here is the link:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible

[skeptictank]

Skeptic- The guidelines are within the FAQ tab. Here is a link to them:

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/faq.php?faq=soulforce_faq_item#faq_soulforce_faq_i tem2



Thanks I've been looking for it.


Again- as it's been mentioned previously, if you read Dr. White's essay, What the Bible Says - and Doesn't Say- about Homosexuality, you will find the answer to your question. His reasoning is self-evident to those who can read with a mind towards comprehension.

Here is the link:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible

[/quote]

I appreciate it. Thanks. I'll be reading it.

Skeptictank

[Daniel]

Skeptic- You're welcome. :) Happy reading. Don't worry. I don't think there's a test. But don't quote me on that. ;)

[ladyinred]

did some reposting above to provide some history lessons on ancient greece and rome.Above in my reply to Sceptic tank.

[rustaman]

Skeptictank, there is a tremendous amount of research and resources available to answer these questions in the form of books, articles, and websites. I would suggest doing some homework if you truly are interested in the why's and the wherefore's. Here are a few to get you started:
Bibliographies
http://www.religion-online.org/listbycategory.asp?Cat=58
http://www.othersheep.org/AnobiblIndex.htm

Dr Truluck’s book and website are both near the top of my list
http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/six_bible_passages.html

A very good overview
http://www.religioustolerance.org/homosexu.htm

This is the very first article I read - it changed me forever:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030604131830/hcqsa.virtualave.net/dispell.html

I must agree with Andy. Your statement that the Bible IS the truth requires that one ask: which version, which translation, and more to the point, which mistranslation IS the truth. There have been many over thousands of years.

Does it not surprise you to learn that nowhere in scripture is it written that the "sin of Sodom" was homosexuality. It is clearly written in Ezekiel 16:49-50 - "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned: they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me." Where does it say homosexuality? Where is the Truth here? The "truth" that people march out is based in inference, and interpretation. Basically you make it say what you want it to say.

Every one of the scriptures used to condemn homosexuality falls into this category of inference and interpretation. And every one of them falls apart under scrutiny. With more and more good biblical research being presented, the Religious Right can hang onto "it says what it says, and it means what it means" until the cows come home. But just because you say it is true, doesn't make it true.

And I would like to caution you. Unless you are honestly prepared to possibly have your beliefs changed, this really is not the place to have this discussion. This is what was noted on the Religioustolerance.com site:

We have exchanged Emails with hundreds of visitors to this web site about the Bible and homosexuality. Most fall into one of two groups: (Religious liberals and Religious conservatives.) We have been unable to change the beliefs or actions of any of these hundreds of people on even one point related to homosexuality. Their views appear to be fixed. It is doubtful that much progress towards compromise on homosexual rights can be made by means of dialogue.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

So if dialogue or debate does not change people's beliefs, what does? How do we go from God hates Gays, to God Loves Gays? That's the important question.

[Bearnabas]

And I would like to caution you. Unless you are honestly prepared to possibly have your beliefs changed, this really is not the place to have this discussion. This is what was noted on the Religioustolerance.com site:

We have exchanged Emails with hundreds of visitors to this web site about the Bible and homosexuality. Most fall into one of two groups: (Religious liberals and Religious conservatives.) We have been unable to change the beliefs or actions of any of these hundreds of people on even one point related to homosexuality. Their views appear to be fixed. It is doubtful that much progress towards compromise on homosexual rights can be made by means of dialogue.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

So if dialogue or debate does not change people's beliefs, what does? How do we go from God hates Gays, to God Loves Gays? That's the important question.

Wow, this is the important question. I'm noticing people change their mind after meeting christian gays, reading their memoirs, their struggles. This is why Equality Ride is so important--spreading gay christians to places where there are none to see (out).