[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...notoppose.html Try that article. Very interesting.

That article was very interesting indeed. Christians are often accused of "mental gymnastics" in their attempt to explain certain aspects of the Bible, but that article could have been written by Kurt Thomas himself for all the "mental gymnastics" it went through. Saying that the Bible doesn't frown on homosexuals per se, just homosexual acts. I don't see much difference there. Heterosexuals aren't going to commit homosexual acts. Also, the underlying argument relies heavily on the fact that the term "homosexual" isn't specifically mentioned in any of the specific verses, therefore these verses are "open to interpretation". OK...then tell how you "interpret" a man lying with a man and a woman lying with a woman?

The argument trying to debunk the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah are the most feeble. The claim that the Bible wasn't referring to sexual attraction when the men of Sodom wanted to "know" the angels sent by the Lord is an absolute farce. The phrase "to know" IS the Biblical terminology for sexual intercourse. Look in Numbers, Kings, and other chapters that chronicle family lines. When it says that a man "knew" his wife or mistress, it meant that he "lay" with her - or in other words - they had sexual intercourse. To try to suddenly change the meaning of that terminology in the most vivid example of God's disdain for homosexuality is grasping at the thinnest of straws.

The entire article keeps trying to say that - although the Bible does condemn homosexual acts - that doesn't really mean they condemn it for those that are born homosexual, or that it only means it for the Israelites, or they weren't really talking about sex at all. The problem is that the article has to change it's argument with every different example, because one explanation is debunked by other examples they present.

If the Bible truly did NOT condemn homosexuality, then one explanation would suffice for every example given. Yet the Bible does condemn homosexuality (or homosexual acts). It refers to homosexuality as "an abomination". That doesn't leave much of a grey area.

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: As far as interpretations from an old language go, are you saying that you know Hebrew better than a theologist who has studied it, probably most of his life?

I don't have to know Hebrew better than the theologist who you presume has studied it "most of his life". You said that the Rabbi claimed the Bible only mentioned homosexuality one time in one line. As I said before - and as your own article linked proved - it is mentioned many more times than just a single line in Leviticus.

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: Secondly, most of those verses 'mentioning' homosexuality don't actually mention it. They can be interpeted differently. Thirdly, the Bible probably started off as an oral tradition until they discovered paper. I doubt it's original message was kept intact.

I already addressed the first point. As for the allegation that the Bible has obviously been altered due to many translations, you are welcome to believe that if you wish. I - on the other hand - believe it is the literal and innerrant Word of God and God is capable of keeping His Word from being mis-translated or "changed in the telling". That is my personal belief and you are welcome to accept or reject it as you see fit.

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: I also can honestly say I can control my actions. However, the fact still remains I am attracted to men and not women. Why am I attracted to men? Anyways, my question wasn't can you control your desires, it was did you choose them.

My apologies. I did kinda "sidestep" your question. Do I believe you can "choose" your desires? The answer yes and no both. I believe we are all created by God. I believe God considers homosexuality a sin. So I do not believe He would create someone with a natural affection for the same gender. However, I do agree that we don't necessarily "choose" our desires - at least not on a conscious level. As I said, I believe in the "nurture" side of the argument. I believe our desires are shaped from our very earliest years, before we are mentally aware of the outside influences affecting them. It is a poor illustration, but my wife likes certain foods that I simply cannot stand. Why? Because that's what her mother fed her while she was growing up and I didn't eat the same food. Her "like" for a certain food is not a conscious choice, it is a result of her upbringing. I don't believe most homosexuals just wake up one morning and say "I think I've decided I like men better than women" (or vice versa)...but I do believe these "desires" were shaped from our days as an infant by influences we may not even be aware of.

Again, this is my personal opinion only - and is open for acceptance, rejection, or challenge as any see fit. I don't expect my argument to change your beliefs, just as yours won't change mine. I'm just explaining why I believe as I do.

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: I never said you said that marriage was one-man, one-woman. I just pointed that out for anyone else who would make the claim. Just to clear up something so you won't inadvertantly offend someome, bisexuality is when someone is attracted to both genders, not when they're in love with two people. If someone was in love with two people, that's Polyamorous. And besides, I don't think more than one person marrying is immoral. Of course, I doon't think I could marry more than one person.

My apologies again for the misinterpretation of your original post. I thought you were directing the Biblical allowance of polygamy as a rebuttal to my point of marriage being defined as one man and one woman.

I also didn't realize I was mis-using the term "bisexual". I stand corrected on that point also.

As for your last statement, that actually proves the point I'm trying to make to others about the "next logical step" in re-defining marriage. If we lift the restriction of gender, then the next logical step is to remove the restriction of the number of participants.

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: Some traditions should be changed. Love is a good enough reason, if not then we've all been lied to our whole lives.

I don't agree completely. It certainly sounds good, but you have to keep in mind the Law of Unintended Consequences. There are many people with a definiton of "love" that is currently socially acceptable. While we believe it would be impossible for some of these definitions to ever becomen acceptable, the same school of though applies to homosexual behavior in the not too distant past.

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: And some people can't afford that option. So what're they to do?

At the risk of sounding trite, I never said the option was "fair"...just that it was available.

NOTE TO MODERATORS: I feel the first part of this post is a pretty clear violation of the current moratorium on religious discussion and I apologize for that. I felt it was necessary to include the arguments I did to better explain my views and beliefs and I will accept any consequences necessary for my actions. However, I DO ask that the thread not be LOCKED because of my posts. The discussion is going very well and if any actions need to be taken for bringing religion this prominently into the discussion, then I ask that the repurcussions be confined to me so that the other members may continue discussing the issue without interference.