So here's my analysis on the passages used:

First off, the attempted forced sodomy of the angels in Sodom. If you read it closely, Gen. 19:1-29, its not the act of homosexuality being condemned, but rather the act of rape. Homosexual or not, the act was not consensual.

Also, the often quoted Lev. 18:22, "You (masculine) shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." The second (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have comitted an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."

The reason it was considered wrong was because at that time, the scientific standing was that male semen contained the whole of nascent life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubating space. Hence, the spilling of semen for non-procreative purpose, including male masturbation, was considered equivalent to abortion and murder. Subsequently, female homosexuality and masturbation were not condemned.

Also, stereotypical homophobia of the biblical age also referred to effeminism (aka acting like a "woman" as opposed to a "man"). It was condemned because people saw homosexuals as "weak".

Also, if someone wants to live according to the Old Testament, condemning homosexuality, they also must condemn sexual intercourse during the week after the menstrual cycle (Lev. 18:19; 15:19-24). But also condoned in the old testament are polygamy and concubinage. Sorry folks, can't have your cake and eat it too. People who pick and choose are hypocritical.

There's plenty more in the old testament that gets neglected, such as prohibition of both divorce and celibacy while at the same time demanding celibacy (Timothy 4:1-3).

So yeah, the scripture isn't as cut and dry as most people think.

Lets try to keep the discussion on an analytical level. If you think something, don't just yell it out, lay out your support, and hopefully we can respect each other's views.

quote:

---

Mr. Parcelan smmaassshhh!
This thread is so gay.

---

But by the Church, they see homosexuality as a sin. I think their idea there is to condemn the "sin", but not the person. Although, the Bible confuses me.... :/ Like as in the following quote that was made:

quote:

---

Also, the often quoted Lev. 18:22, "You (masculine) shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." The second (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have comitted an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."

---

I hope I'm not going to Hell for thinking homosexuality is perfectly okay and not a sin.

quote:

---

Savannah / Emily probably says this to all the girls:
I hope I'm not going to Hell for thinking homosexuality is perfectly okay and not a sin.

---

You're in for a surprise.

quote:

---

Demos spewed forth this undeniable truth:
The reason it was considered wrong was because at that time, the scientific standing was that male semen contained the whole of nascent life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubating space. Hence, the spilling of semen for non-procreative purpose, including male masturbation, was considered equivalent to abortion and murder. Subsequently, female homosexuality and masturbation were not condemned.

---

Where'd you get this from?

quote:

---

Alek Saege thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
Where'd you get this from?

---

From a few seminars I went to, it was a pamphlet. I'll try to find it.

quote:

---

Tier had this to say about Tron:
In cases like these, I like pointing out that the Bible is composed of writings over a thousand years old and hardly befitting modern times.

---

And that anyone that treats it as a rule book is in the wrong, it can serve only as a guide to "living your life in the right". In the end, only you and the government make the rules to live by.

quote:

---

Tier had this to say about dark elf butts:
In cases like these, I like pointing out that the Bible is composed of writings over a thousand years old and hardly befitting modern times.

---

By your rationale most law books are hardly befitting modern times as they still contain laws from a hundred or so years ago, just look at the Bill of Rights.

Damn you Razor cat for beating me to it .

[ 08-06-2003: Message edited by: Alek Saege ]

quote:

---

Alek Saege's account was hax0red to write:
By your rationale most law books are hardly befitting modern times as they still contain laws from a hundred or so years ago, just look at the Bill of Rights.

Damn you Razor cat for beating me to it .

---

Wrong, laws are constantly beeing revised to fit the current situation, even if it sometimes takes a good while.

quote:

---

Razor spewed forth this undeniable truth:
And that anyone that treats it as a rule book is in the wrong, it can serve only as a guide to "living your life in the right". In the end, only you and the government make the rules to live by.

---

I am pretty sure a great deal of people belive it is the law because, you know, their whole religion is based around the one who is supposed to have divinly inspire it. Of course many others see it as just a good moral guide and there are worse things than beliving that.

Genesis 2:24

quote:

---

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

---

I don't see anything mentioning the possibility of another combination of mane and woman.

It's a biological population control.

[ 08-07-2003: Message edited by: Dr. Pvednes, PhD ]

In any case, Demos is right about the scientific standing was that male semen contained the whole of nascent life is true. And it probably is why religous people were so against it before science discovered just about all the important reproductive trueths that we have today. Infact it may be why religions still frown apon it.

In any case I find it homorous that male homosexuality is still frowned on, but female homosexuality is perfectly okay.

quote:

---

This one time, at Shazorx / Modrakien camp:
Wrong, laws are constantly beeing revised to fit the current situation, even if it sometimes takes a good while.

---

And what do you call the whole split in Christianity and reformations that some, like the Catholic Church, have gone through these past 500 or so years. Its the same thing as a revision, "even if it sometimes takes a good while."

quote:

---

Alek Saege got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
And what do you call the whole split in Christianity and reformations that some, like the Catholic Church, have gone through these past 500 or so years. Its the same thing as a revision, "even if it sometimes takes a good while."

---

It's a zero score, though. Back in the early centuries of this millennium, there were TWO Popes for political reasons. When the merger reunited the two factions of Catholicism, the Cardinals decreed that the Pope was mortal and thus fallible. Century or two later, the Cardinals altered that decision; the Pope is still mortal, but his decisions are infallible.

That is, unfortunately, the way "Church Revisions" generally go. They don't adapt to fit the new age, they use the old line to fix perceived flaws in the modern world. While this frequently reassures people with a vested interest in things, it's a piss poor way to make a dynamic policy. The Protestant revolution was the closest thing to a dynamic change in ages, and the principle that you can form your own church of Christianity is the closest thing to staying up to date with the times we've seen in ages.

On the other hand, legal law frequently shifts, dynamically, to adapt to changes in the world that crop up as things go along.

quote:

---

Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
Century or two later, the Cardinals altered that decision; the Pope is still mortal, but his decisions are infallible.

---

Incorrect (or at least no longer true). Only certain statements by the Pope are claimed to be infallible -- for example, when the Pope issues a papal bull (address given from a certain stage which was prepared with great care) -- the Pope has not been held to be infallible for quite some time.

I would also point out generally that, whether or not you agree with the book, Demos' "pamphlet" ignores most of the New Testament commentary on homosexuality. I'm not going to get into it in any great detail because of my rule (information only in religious threads, lest I mock or get mocked without cause), but while it is certainly clear that Leviticus was a purity code law, the New Testament also has some commentary that cannot be explained away on a purity code basis.

Of course, if you don't think the book is God's word, why do we care what it says?

Deth, I would also quibble with you notion of the law changing dynamically, because it really doesn't. Application may change, but laws take decades upon decades to get reworded. In fact, more often new laws get passed and the old ones get ignored for application purposes....

Except the tax laws. Those seem capable of change on a moment's notice.

quote:

---

From the book of Gydfather, chapter 3, verse 16:
Of course, if you don't think the book is God's word, why do we care what it says?

---

Because there are others that do, and those others use it as an excuse to do bad things to people.

Not everyone that belives it does bad things, but some do. If there's something in there that can mess them up and shut them down, we want to know about it. "Know thy enemy", and all that.

Does anyone even realize that the Bible was written by humans? Humans make mistakes. Many claim (Even to this day) that they are speaking from the words of God, but how do we know that's true?

I am a bisexual, and also a Christian but has God done anything horrible to me because of what I am? No. Why? Because he's not that shallow. He loves you for who you are. He made you perfect in his own image. If he never wanted homosexuality to exist, he wouldn't have created it in the first place. Plain and simple.

Not being straight is something that you're born with, and you live with it for the rest of your life. It gradually develops as you get older. Now I love the Lord with all of my heart and all of my soul, but why would he condem me to hell all because of one problem? I can't help the way I am. He made me like this.

quote:

---

Gydfather was listening to Cher while typing:
the New Testament also has some commentary that cannot be explained away on a purity code basis.

---

Can you list them please? I would honestly like to take a look at anything I've missed.

quote:

---

Demos obviously shouldn't have said:
Can you list them please? I would honestly like to take a look at anything I've missed.

---

I will have to look them up, and frankly I'm too tired at the moment and away from the computer tomorrow. If I get to it this weekend I will drop you a PM if this thread is gone by then. If not, remind me.

By memory, there are references in Romans, either Timothys or the Thessalonians, Ephesians, and elsewhere, but my head is hurting trying to remember (this is not a topic I dwell on). Several are specific to homosexual sexual activity (and to be clear, the Bible never says that homosexuality is a sin, just homosexual sexual activity, which is classified as "sexual immorality" -- just like pre-marital sex or adultery), some are part of "sexual immorality," and one reference is believed to refer to pedophilia.

And my "Gyd's getting uncomfortable" siren is buzzing, so I think I'll back out of this discussion from now on. Too easy to step on toes without meaning to, and I like my toes the way they are. Someone wants to carry on a discussion, I am always available in PMs.

When you state that homosexuality was seen as weak or unmanly, you tube the rest of your argument by proving you haven't the least clue about the times of which you speak.

For your information, and for Aury's and Zephyr's delight, the ancient Greeks considered love between two men as a higher form that that between man and woman. Including the carnal aspects. The Roman empire was based in a very large part upon the concepts of the Greeks before, though they took machismo to new heights.

And if you routinely go around quoting pamphlets as Gospel--OMG pun!--I've got a time share brochure I think you'll like.

quote:

---

Nobody really understood why Bloodsage wrote:
Demos,

When you state that homosexuality was seen as weak or unmanly, you tube the rest of your argument by proving you haven't the least clue about the times of which you speak.

For your information, and for Aury's and Zephyr's delight, the ancient Greeks considered love between two men as a higher form that that between man and woman. Including the carnal aspects. The Roman empire was based in a very large part upon the concepts of the Greeks before, though they took machismo to new heights.

And if you routinely go around quoting pamphlets as Gospel--OMG pun!--I've got a time share brochure I think you'll like.

---

Homosexuality was encouraged in the military, widely so, because it was believed it tied you closer to your brothers in arms. For instance, it was believed you'd fight better, and protect your units better, if they were your lovers rather than just a comrade.

Due to human nature however, it was eventually shown that units acted more erradically if they had lovers working with them, and the practice was stifled towards the end of the Roman Empire. It never went away, but it became frowned apon, although the social events continued almost exclusively between men, at that point it was more for the fact women were viewed as weak and inept when compared to men. Ironically, more power was wielded, albeit inadvertantly, by women than men. Which is where we get the "Behind every great man, is a better woman" line. Women manipulated the system, and men were shallow.

A lot of the earlier homosexuality came about more for the fact women were viewed as inferior, and they just wouldn't understand, or offer what a better man could. So men turned to men, because women were useless in thier eyes as far as anything valuable aside from giving birth.

quote:

---

The New International Version (NIV) currently translates Leviticus 18:22 as:

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

---

quote:

---

The New Living Translation (NLT) widens the translation to also include lesbians:

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

---

However, if you accurately render the verse from Hebrew, you get something like:

quote:

---

"Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman's bed; it is ritually unclean.

---

That's taken from a very thorough analysis of the topic found here. If you want to gain some real insight about it, I'd recommend giving this a read.