Guest Voices: Homosexuality in Leviticus - On Faith at washingtonpost.com

Homosexuality in Leviticus

By The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson

This is the second in a series of articles examining the Biblical bases for opposition to homosexuality by The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire and visiting Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Washington, DC.

First, and most famous, of the scriptural texts used to condemn homosexuality are the two references in the Holiness Codes of Leviticus: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." (Lev. 18:22) and "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." (Lev. 20:13)

The context of these two passages are the holiness and purity codes set down for the people of Israel - rules set forth both to define what was clean and unclean before God, as well as what set the Hebrew people apart from their heathen neighbors who worshiped gods other than the one true God. In a memorable speech on homosexuality at Trinity College in 1992, The Rev. Dr. Frank G. Kirkpatrick put the biblical code in context: This "purity code assumes a 'normal' or natural state for things, any deviance from which is abnormal, deviant, and therefore unclean, impure, and polluting. Menstruation is not 'normal' for women (since it occurs less frequently than periods of non-menstruation): therefore when women are menstruating they are regarded as unclean. Blemishes [including blindness and lameness] are abnormal, therefore unclean."

Kirkpatrick further explained: "Men who act like women are abnormal, therefore unclean. Now the assumption here is that to be a man is to desire women. Anything else is acting against one's nature. Thus when a man lies with another man he is acting contrary to his own nature. It was inconceivable in this context that a man could be genetically or biologically predisposed to desire other men. To be engaged in homosexual activity therefore was to do what one was literally not inclined or predisposed to do. Thus it was acting against one's own conscience and predispositions. This is what made it unnatural and therefore a violation of nature."

This is an important point, difficult for the modern day mind to grasp: homosexuality as a sexual orientation was unknown to the ancient mind. Same gender, intimate physical contact was not unknown, of course, but everyone was presumed to be heterosexual. In his book Embodiment, An Approach to Sexuality and Christian Theology, James B. Nelson wrote, "It is crucial to remember this, for in all probability the biblical writers in each instance were speaking of homosexual acts undertaken by person whom the authors presumed to be heterosexually constituted." Therefore, any man who lay with another man as with a woman was considered to be a heterosexual man acting against his true nature.

The psychological construct of a homosexual orientation was not posited until the late 18th century - the notion that a certain minority of humankind is affectionally oriented toward people of the same gender, rather than the opposite gender. For people so oriented, intimate physical contact with people of the opposite gender would be "against their nature." Such a possibility was unknown to the ancient mind. And so, these verses from the Leviticus Holiness Code must be read in the context of the assumption that everyone was heterosexual by nature, and acting contrary to that was not "normal," and outside the will of the Creator.

In practice, we modern day Christians have regarded most of the injunctions in the Holiness Codes of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as culturally bound to the ancient times of the Hebrews--but not binding on us. These same purity codes forbid eating shellfish, planting a field with two different kinds of seed or wearing simultaneously two kinds of cloth. They would prohibit us from ordaining to the priesthood any handicapped person - not to mention women. We cannot, then, isolate these passages about homosexual acts and impute to them the kind of enduring authority which we ascribe to nothing before or after these passages. One has to wonder why the biblical literalists who cite this passage against homosexuality don't seem to go all the way and advocate for death as the punishment for homosexual behavior! We cannot have it both ways.

One other guiding principle in these codes which I presume most modern day Christians and Jews would not espouse is the bias against women. Women are generally regarded as problematic, less worthy, and more unclean than men. A man who had a discharge of semen was ritually unclean until sunset, but a woman who menstruates was unclean for a week. When a woman gave birth to a boy, she was unclean for a week - but when she gave birth to a girl, she was unclean for twice as long! I would maintain that part of what made the sin of a man lying, as Nelson wrote, "with a male as with a woman" so abominable, was the scandal of the noble, privileged, favored male of the species giving up that privilege to take on the role of the less clean, less noble, certainly less privileged female. Indeed it is not extraneous to note that during wartime, a common practice in the ancient Middle East was "the submission of captured male foes to anal rape. It was an expression of domination and contempt, a powerful symbol of scorn in societies where the dignity of the male was held in high esteem. Here a man was using another man as he might use a woman." Nothing could be worse. So in this context, these injunctions are not surprising.

Finally, there is the context of the "science" of conception of that time. Male sperm was thought to contain all things necessary for procreation. Women contributed nothing but a place for the nascent life to incubate. Therefore, the "spilling of seed" (male sperm) on the ground was a kind of abortion, the killing of life. This "scientific" understanding led to other proscriptions in the Holiness Code. Male masturbation is condemned. And the so-called "sin of Onan" was also condemned. Onan was a heterosexual man who withdrew from intercourse with his wife before ejaculation, spilling his seed on the ground instead of depositing it in his wife's womb. And God strikes him dead.

Add to this the ancient Israelites' need to grow the population. Upon their return from slavery in Egypt, they were surrounded by hostile cultures, eager to destroy the invaders who had returned to their "Promised Land." The Israelite nation needed to populate themselves in order to withstand the challenge to their presence. For a man to spill his seed on the ground rather than grow more babies was not only a sin against God, but against the nation!

Oddly enough, we have relaxed these "rules" against a man "spilling his seed" through masturbation and birth control, yet we hold onto "a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman" as if it were eternally binding on believers. Such an inconsistency simply does not make sense.

Given these changes in our modern understandings and contexts, it is no longer appropriate for us to condemn men who have intimate sexual relationships with other men based on this proscription in the Leviticus Holiness Code. Either all of these proscriptions must be tossed out as binding on us, or they all must be adhered to. Biblical "literalists" cannot have it both ways, picking and choosing which proscriptions are still appropriate.

The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson is the IX Bishop of New Hampshire, in the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, and a visiting Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C.

By The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson | December 7, 2010; 10:02 AM ET Save & Share:
Previous: A partnership to re-build Haiti | Next: Homosexuality in Sodom and Gomorrah

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.

On a side note:

WHOOOOOoOO HOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

The elimination of bigotry and discrimination has taken one step forwards.

Don't Ask Don't Tell has finally been repealed. It's about time our Congress acknowledged the fact that majority of military servicemen, the majority of Americans, and the majority of our government supported the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell and realize it was a discriminatory policy that had no place in our modern day. We need to praise our gay and lesbian men who are serving our nation and fighting for our freedom.

Posted by: shadow_man | December 19, 2010 3:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

detroitblkmale30: Lol, awwwww, your trolling is not working? Calling you out on your trolling is not name-calling, it is pointing out the actions you are trying to achieve, and why said actions are failing miserably. And if you want to have full intellectual debates, i suggest ditching your trolling, don't avoid peoples arguments and points, don't ignore evidence, and provide evidence of your own. Oh yeah, and work on your trolling, that was far too obvious.

See, when i realized you avoided arguments and made statements like this:

detroitblkmale30 wrote: "you say I havent shown any facts or proven things. Neither have you."

shadow_man wrote: "It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples."

More troll-like behavior, blatant lies.

That's what initially gave away your trolling. Then as usual, like all other trolls, you started getting desperate to incite anger, which led to comments like these:

name-calling and insults
detroitblkmale30 wrote: ""your "troll" comment is both comical and juvenile." "
detroitblkmale30 wrote: "enough of your silly kindergarten attempts"
detroitblkmale30 wrote: "Troll: that's obviously the only language you understand shadow."

-
detroitblkmale30 wrote: "obviously you need an exercise in definitions and self examination"
detroitblkmale30 wrote: "I was not name calling"

---------------

Posted by: shadow_man | December 19, 2010 3:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

shadow_man: I think I gave you too much credit. I took you for someone who could at least be genuine in discussions, but I see you are insistent on ignoring critiques even when they fit you, repeating arguments, and mindlessly droning on and on about trolling when it doesnt even apply.You conduct yourself one way(namecalling, as in calling me a troll) but take no responsibilty for doing the very things you accuse me of(even though I haven't)Clearly you have no idea what name calling actually means.Further attempting to show you your errors would only fall on deaf ears, or eyes in this case. Therefore your attempted applications of the term troll to me do not apply. You clearly mistake opinion(even if of others) as facts. There is a difference. The earth is round is a fact.No one argues that point. Saying homosexuality is not a sin within Christianity is your OPINION. No one has PROVEN that it isnt. The only thing that has failed is your "troll-busting" .I leave you to your incessant fascination with trolling, perhaps you can convince someone else that they are somehow inferior or a troll as you have failed to accomplish this with me. Hey, you can't win them all the saying goes. The only thing I am doing wrong is continuing a conversation with you as you have no interest in being genuine about any points of discussion. I leave you to your troll-fixation. I will continue to seek out intellectual debates, not trivial ones which this one has devolved into.Good day sir.

Posted by: detroitblkmale30 | December 18, 2010 8:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

OoooO, more name-calling!

detroitblkmale30 wrote: "enough of your silly kindergarten attempts"

And of course, your trolling continues to fail miserably ^_^ Lol, i'm pointing out your insults not because they "bug" me (which is another troll-behavior, trying to paint emotions on the other poster because you are failing to incite anger :D ), but as further confirmation of your trolling and why it fails miserably. It's all part of busting a troll at the trolls expense. I'm not trying to "win" anything, i'm just merely showing you why your trolling has failed so horribly ^_^ I've seen plenty of points where i know you're pretty much desperate for a reaction, but one stands out above all others. We are the only two posters left here, meaning, the only reason you stayed was you didn't like the fact that your trolling failed miserably. Of course, i also know i'm entertaining, which usually get's trolls to come back. But if i'm enjoying myself, that means you are doing something extremely wrong :D

Now, let's examine your trolling once again ^_^

name-calling and insults
detroitblkmale30 wrote: ""your "troll" comment is both comical and juvenile." "
detroitblkmale30 wrote: "enough of your silly kindergarten attempts"

-
detroitblkmale30 wrote: "obviously you need an exercise in definitions and self examination"
detroitblkmale30 wrote: "I was not name calling"

lol wut!

lying
detroitblkmale30 wrote: "you say I havent shown any facts or proven things. Neither have you."

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples."

More troll-like behavior, blatant lies.

-
even more failed trolling

detroitblkmale30 wrote: "You have provided links to people who support your arugment. That is not PROOF. "

lol! Apparently evidence if not proof to him!

^_^

Posted by: shadow_man | December 18, 2010 7:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment

shadow-man: Troll: that's obviously the only language you understand shadow. enough of your silly kindergarten attempts to "trollize" me. It really is appears to be some kind of superiority complex with you. If i can somehow call him a troll, then I am superior to him and I "win" Whatever win means lol.This is quite juvenile. Real easy to say you predicted something (in your head) after youve seen what's been written LOL.

I don't see any post below that one that says that. I guess for those who engage in triviality like you do I should have said you have said nothing NEW of consequence, nothing new in putting forth a relevant argument. Indeed even that "new" paragraph simply rehashes your incorrect suggestion that I am a troll, in a different way. The premise is still old, and increasingly tired. Ooops looks like you've failed to catch me in a lie, again my friend.

detroitblkmale30 wrote: "obviously you need an exercise in definitions and self examination"
detroitblkmale30 wrote: "I was not name calling"
lol wut!
-------
Again failure to read is common problem in our society. I see you are no different. Here is the refutation of your inaccurate "name-calling" which I have already posted. But glad to see that you CONTINUE to repost old arguments, as if reposting them will make them any more true lol.
-------
the past rebuttal: Secondly I referred to your arguments at times being comical and juvenile, not you as a person. When people get upset and offended it is almost always when they feel they as a person have been insulted. I however did not do that,hence , I was not name calling as that refers to trying to affix these insults to you or your name. So as I said. I was not name calling. Failed argument number one.
---------
Any adjectives I have attached have been linked to your IDEAS not YOU as a person. Your NAME on here anyway is "shadowman" I have never said shadowman is a ....." I have said your ideas. So accuse of idea-calling(as if that term exists) Speaking of lying, yeah your name-calling bit falls right into the pit you set for me. You have a real penchant for accusing others of doing the very same things you are doing. Maybe that helps you feel better about yourself.I dont know.
the culture back then..here you go reposting another tired argument which I will not repost (again) for you. Your point is errant in the sense that the Sodom example does not involve any ritual or idolatrous worship nor does Romans. Can you say that every single case of homosexual acts in the Bible or for that matter, during that time period were ONLY limited to idolatry?? No of course you can't However since that is the argument YOU are putting forward. It is incumbent upon you to prove that case. Anti-homosexual passages do not say, only in the case of idolatry, or only outside of a loving caring relationship. lol Thats such a thin argument with no comprehensive proof.Show me where all homosexual acts of the time were only in idolatrous acts???

Posted by: detroitblkmale30 | December 17, 2010 1:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

detroitblkmale30: Lol, my next prediction for your trolling was that you were going to use the same words that i use. In this case, using "LOL" to trying to cover up your desperation to incite anger ^_^ There really isn't much to say because i already know you're trying to troll and failing miserably. I already proved all your points wrong :) That being said, let's further examine your lying:

detroit wrote: "You said nothing new in the your post. "

shadow-mans previous post before this: "There's this art called troll-busting, aka owning and countering a troll on their own turf. It's relatively a new thing to deal with them trolls and requires far more skill. I won't expose the tactics used for it though, because then you'll know what to look for ^_^ But you've pretty much done what i wanted you to do to bust your trolling. The main weakness of a troll, is once i know you're trying to do it, there's 0% chance of you winning, because the only way a troll can "win" is to incite anger. It's an extremely fun new technique. The fact that your trolling has failed miserably, is simply icing on the cake :o)"

I don't see any post below that one that says that. Looks like you were caught in another lie my friend :D

Not surprising since you were already caught trolling, as evidenced below:

name-calling and insults
detroitblkmale30 wrote: ""your "troll" comment is both comical and juvenile." "

-
detroitblkmale30 wrote: "obviously you need an exercise in definitions and self examination"
detroitblkmale30 wrote: "I was not name calling"

lol wut!

lying
detroitblkmale30 wrote: "you say I havent shown any facts or proven things. Neither have you."

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples."

Your trolling continues to fail miserably :-D

Posted by: shadow_man | December 17, 2010 12:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

shadow_man: You said nothing new in the your post. Cutting and pasting previous points is actually troll behavior, although I dont have to tell you that since you are so familiar with trolls. Running out of things to say?? Its still comical to me that you are so busy trying to take the speck out of my eye, you cant even see the beam in yours. You launch this whole name calling (Troll) discussion and then turn around and accuse me of name calling when I've already refuted that point clearly.MY response to your last point was an example of the phrase "you brought it on yourself. Once again I am not lying, simply disagreeing with you is not lying. LOL But then again people who argue from egotistical standpoints, view everyone else as beneath them and inferior so I guess from that standpoint it doesnt surprise me that you would take your word as ultimate truth, therefore anything that someone says contrary to it(like youve only offered opinions supporting yours) will be deemed a lie. There is no debating or arguing with someone who acts so delusionally. You are incapable of admitting your mistakes. Another sign of egotism. Its ok I never assumed you were perfect. Troll busting lol.. well you are failing miserably and you never will succeed. I am not a troll never will be. But if it saves time in both of our days, to "allow" you to "bust" me whatever that means LOL. This one-time debate has turned plain silly. Take your insistence on my inciting anger.

"The main weakness of a troll, is once i know you're trying to do it, there's 0% chance of you winning, because the only way a troll can "win" is to incite anger."
Either you cant read, you are acting stubbornly or you are so blinded by your troll-colored glasses you cant hear or see anything else. Let me break it down for you. I have ABSOLUTLEY NO desire to incite anger. Point to ONE place where I have said something in anger, something inciteful, or incendiary. I simply defend my viewpoints. You seem intent on trying to either to draw anger or submission from me. Of course, you will never get either. But keep on trying to "win" lol The only lies are the ones your posting.As I have already described, name calling refers to you a person by name or insulting name such as hmmm A TROLL. Your own argument catches you in deception. On one hand you keep calling me personally a troll, yet with my names you refuse to admit that those are not the same. I call your actions or ideas certain names.Not yourself. Speaking of not-responding you said nothing in response to being skewered by my last posts about your back to back posts, hmm you also failed to respond to your egotistical statement. I always find it ironic and comical when people accuse someone of doing something and they infact are doing the very same thing. If I am a troll by multiple posts and not responding to comments, what does that make you? That noose is getting tighter lol Keep em coming my friend, its funny watching you chase your tail. LOL

Posted by: detroitblkmale30 | December 16, 2010 9:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Lol you want me to do that when i already know you're trying to troll, and failing miserably. ^_^ Not only do you name-call and lie, but you also avoid most points and provide virtually no evidence. That's why your trolling has failed, you are too obvious and use too many troll-techniques at the same time. You started out well making it less obvious, but this has one drawback. If you fail ultimately to incite anger, you've wasted all that effort, and usually at that point, a troll starts to become very obvious and desperate for a reaction, as you've done here.

There's this art called troll-busting, aka owning and countering a troll on their own turf. It's relatively a new thing to deal with them trolls and requires far more skill. I won't expose the tactics used for it though, because then you'll know what to look for ^_^ But you've pretty much done what i wanted you to do to bust your trolling. The main weakness of a troll, is once i know you're trying to do it, there's 0% chance of you winning, because the only way a troll can "win" is to incite anger. It's an extremely fun new technique. The fact that your trolling has failed miserably, is simply icing on the cake :o)

Now let's examine some of your failed trolling once again :D

detroitblkmale30 wrote: "obviously you need an exercise in definitions and self examination"
detroitblkmale30 wrote: "I was not name calling"

lol!

name-calling
detroitblkmale30 wrote: ""your "troll" comment is both comical and juvenile." "

lying
detroitblkmale30 wrote: "you say I havent shown any facts or proven things. Neither have you."

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples."

More troll-like behavior, blatant lies.

Keep em coming my friend :D

Posted by: shadow_man | December 16, 2010 3:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Shadow: I almost hesitated to post this right after my previous post when I ran out of space on my last comment, because of your last trollish criticism, but then I remembered that you yourself post two comments in a row(simply look at some of your posts) I thought, well then its ok because surely the great amd all-knowing shadow certainly wouldn't be caught doing something so "desperate"
Signed,
"The pot calling the kettle black"

Posted by: detroitblkmale30 | December 15, 2010 11:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

shadow_man: Here we go again...Its funny how on one hand you focus so much attention on being accurate, but when you miss the mark you deflect and refocus on trolling.It is inaccurate actually. Just admit it. You missed the mark on that attack. Its ok I know your human. All of us make mistakes.Seriously though, I've already "allowed" you to call me a troll if it makes you feel better. And you still keep trying smack me over the head with it as if you have to try an prove it to the world. LOL What is your fixation with "trolls" Most people arent even familiar with that term. By your own admission focusing on a joke or even a NAME CALLING fixation actually makes you a troll by your own definition. Own it. Its ok.Well im sorry to inform you, "meeting you" has had absolutely ZERO impact on my through process regarding my self-worth intellectual abilities. I still think Im EXACTLY as intelligent an capable or deflating any arugument as I was prior to this increasingly silly "debate" I really am over here laughing right now. Are you serious with that line???? Wow how egotistical are you? Thats ridiculous. You will never get the satisfication or confirmation from me that somehow I think you're better or smarter than I am. Never. Nothing you can post or say will change that. Nice try though.

Lol, claiming someone does not provide evidence when they provided links is the true proof. Also, when you avoid 90% of someone's points, that's even clearer proof ^_^
-------------
You have provided links to people who support your arugment. That is not PROOF. Proof contradicts and eliminates ANY potential opposing arguments. You as I have said Ad Nauseam, have provided links to OPINIONS, not proof. That doesnt make your smarter, maybe just means you have more time on your hands. You also my friend fail to respond to many of my points so again you are only incriminating yourself in the troll department.

I also notice you immediately made a second post above your big one. This shows desperation on your part of trolling. Here's a pro-tip: Trolling does not work if the person you're attempting to incite anger knows that's what you want :0)
---------------------------------------
Sigh, Shadow dont you know people who live in troll huts shouldnt throw stones??? First of all, if you actually READ that second post you would have noticed it was obviously not desperation. It was the inclusion of a sentence that I had omitted from the previous post. The sentence started but was not finished, so for your edification I completed the sentence. TIP 1: Don't assume you know what someone else want's to do. Tip 2: Try reading what people say. I've said many times I have NO desire to incite anger.I dont use incendiary words or insult people. Wonder what it makes you to repeatedly try and cast an action onto someone which is inaccurate? I won't sink to the kindergarten "I know you are but what am I" level and call you a troll. I'll just say what you are, WRONG.

Posted by: detroitblkmale30 | December 15, 2010 11:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Detroit wrote: "you need an exercise in definitions and self examination. First of all you began the whole troll diatribe.. inacurately I might add."

So you know that you were trolling then if you claim people were talking about it "inacurately" Lol, it's not inaccurate. Making a joke, or merely getting responses is not trolling. Trolling is only successful if you incite anger. I guess you don't like the fact your trolling has failed miserably. A lot of trolls when they meet me realize, they were not as good as they thought they were. The mere fact you called it "inacurately" shows your insecurity in your trolling ^_^

You claim that you didn't troll. The facts show it all:

detroitblkmale30 wrote: ""your "troll" comment is both comical and juvenile." "

lying
detroitblkmale30 wrote: "you say I havent shown any facts or proven things. Neither have you."

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples."

More troll-like behavior, blatant lies.

Lol, claiming someone does not provide evidence when they provided links is the true proof. Also, when you avoid 90% of someone's points, that's even clearer proof ^_^

Posted by: shadow_man | December 15, 2010 4:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Oops missed a sentence in there.. On the lying point, instead of definitively proving something you have simply posted positions of pro-gay scholars. That's not proving something, basically offering a perspective.

Posted by: detroitblkmale30 | December 14, 2010 8:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

shadow: obviously you need an exercise in definitions and self examination. First of all you began the whole troll diatribe.. inacurately I might add. Secondly I referred to your arguments at times being comical and juvenile, not you as a person. When people get upset and offended it is almost always when they feel they as a person have been insulted. I however did not do that,hence , I was not name calling as that refers to trying to affix these insults to you or your name. So as I said. I was not name calling. Failed argument number one.

Lying: LOL you havent shown any facts that prove homosexuality is NOT a sin. You have simply So saying that someone is "lying" because they suggest that you havent offered definitive proof is in of itself a lie, although I won't stoop to "name-calling" by calling you a liar. I simply beleive you passionately believe what you do as I beleive what I do. No harm in that. Failed argument number two.

Sorry engaging in disputing another's points does not make one a troll, if it does guess what you are one too. Like I already said on that point. The point of those scriptures is BOTH idolatry and same sex acts were sinful to God. So simply trying to deflect the sin only on the idolatry is disingenuous. Even if that was the case, if same sex acts were unacceptable in idolatry why would they be acceptable outside of it? Why were they associated with idolatry in the first place?? No matter how you slice it, seems like it all lies on thin ice.The only thing that is predictable is your repeated and failed attempts to define me as a troll. But since it is obviously so important to you to affix that label to me, however inaccurately, like i said last time fine go ahead lol.I'm secure enough in who I am to know it doesnt apply. I just find it odd that the person who began by personally calling me a name "troll" is going to have an issue with having his IDEAS called names.

Posted by: detroitblkmale30 | December 14, 2010 8:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

detroit: Nobody's name-calling you. We are just pointing out your actions, and why those actions are failing miserably ^_^ Let's examine your trolling:

name-calling
detroitblkmale30 wrote: ""your "troll" comment is both comical and juvenile." "

lying
detroitblkmale30 wrote: "you say I havent shown any facts or proven things. Neither have you."

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples."

More troll-like behavior, blatant lies.

Then of course there is lack of evidence and avoiding 95% of my proofs that homosexuality is not a sin :)

You may be a little less obvious than most trolls, but your trolling fails just as hard, because they always fall into the same traps: being predictable.

Posted by: shadow_man | December 14, 2010 2:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

shadow_man: shadow, by our very definition, even though I already know im not, Ill show you the error of your ways; I am not a troll. I have no desire to incite anger first of all, I am simply putting forth a perspective which I believe in. That is having the conviction of one's beleif, not trolling. However if it makes you feel superior to call me a troll, go ahead, I know that sometimes makes people feel better about themselves to try and attempt to inaccurately belittle others. II'm secure enough to allow you to try and label me something that benefits you(even if it is irrelevant) SO there call me what you want to..sticks and stones...Untrue once again. my opinions are based of centuries of facts and scripture. Your opinion are based off of opinionated and slanted research. That's ok Washington does that all the time. YOu havent refuted anything really. But once again if it makes you feel better to have the "upper hand" *rolling eyes* You havent caught my lying at all, nothing ive said is a lie. calling people a liar doesnt make them a liar. all of those scholars support many of the premises of what I already put forth. If you or anyone else are so inclined to take the time, you can find them in their papers. There is NO evidence that homosexuality is a not a sin. Thats the point. Simply posting things that others believe to be true are not proof that homosexuality is not a sin. Like I said irrefutable proof means everyone accepts it, there is no way to deny it. There are clear ways to dispute and aruge with every point you have made or your scholars. Your example proves my point. There is no red apple that you are holding up that everyone can look at and say yes that is red. Your example is more like holding up some sort of crystal that may look red to you from your angle when the light is hitting it, but is different colors from where others stand and depending on what light reflects of it. That pretty much sums up this whole debate. The difference is since the Bible has specifically states an anti-homosexuality position in both testaments, through multiple writers, contexts, cultures and since there is no refuting of this position anywhere actually IN THE BIBLE, including by Jesus himself, when he had every chance to do so, the onus is on you and yours to indisputably, definitively, provide overwhelming evidence that the BIble is wrong.You have not accomplished this.No one else has either, so you shouldnt feel bad. It hasnt been accomplished because it isnt true. Gravity we can proove, various laws of nature and phyics we can proove, this on the other hand, for folks on your side of the issue is an OPINION based on interpretation of a couple of greek words with unclear meanings. But you put forth a valiant attempt at trying to troll-matize me. Take heart in that.

Posted by: detroitblkmale30 | December 13, 2010 9:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

detroitblkmale30: Don't be mad at me that your trolling has failed miserably ^_^ If i were trolling, i would never have provided any evidence or links. But of course, you rarely post evidence (listing random scholars but not showing what they say isn't evidence), name-call, and have been caught lying. It's easy to see why your trolling has failed miserably :) Lol, merely saying "you haven't proven anything" and then looking at my posts is equivalent to me holding up a shiny red apple, and you claiming "it's not red" ^_^

The difference between what i posted and what you posted is that your posts are mostly your opinions not backed up by good supporting evidence (i've refuted all of them), whereas the evidence i posted is from reputable biblical scholars and historians who have posted significant evidence proving homosexuality is not a sin.

Of course, that doesn't matter to you, since you're trying to troll, and failing miserably at it ^o^

Posted by: shadow_man | December 13, 2010 6:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

shadow_man: nice try. If you go back you'll notice you have defined yourself as the troll since you were the one to launch the troll label at me. Nice caught in your own noose just like Haman. once again you havent proven anything, just taken your opinion and those who agree with you and offered their thoughts.You've have simply put forth opinions of others that have not "proven" anything. If it were so compelling EVERYONE would support it kinda like gravity or a round earth. So alas you have provent NOTHING.Repeating what you said earlier doesnt make it any more true, now that I think is "trollish"behavior once again in your own admission.I also notice you didnt respond to any of the main posts that was said in my last posts. Its ok at some point one runs out of arguments and things to say its natural.
You've have simply put forth opinions of others that have not "proven" anything. If it were so compelling EVERYONE would support it kinda like gravity or a round earth instead of a flat one. There is no overwhelming and compelling evidence that these scriptures are false or taken out of God's intended context. As I mentioned, God himself through his son Jesus who walked this earth did NOT correct these contexts, he said ......... that.So alas you have provent NOTHING. I will take God's word over your "scholars".
Peace. Be well friend.

Posted by: detroitblkmale30 | December 12, 2010 10:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment

detroitblkmale30: Once again, you are proven wrong :) Homosexuality is not a sin. After the name-calling and lying you attempted, it's pretty clear you're trying to troll, and failing miserably ^_^ If i already know what you're doing, you will fail to incite anger every time.

Ciao my friend! :D

Posted by: shadow_man | December 12, 2010 4:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Leviticus is constantly taken out of context. These two lines do not condemn homosexuals when you examine Leviticus as a whole and relate the historical times.

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also, the word abomination was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type idol worship.

The Hebrew word "toevah" was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. "Toevah" has been translated in our Bibles as "abomination" or "detestable". The "toevah" was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. "Toevah" refers to things that were ritually unclean - like eating pork.

It is significant that another Hebrew word, "zimah," also translated "abomination," which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.

It is also significant that female homosexual relationships are not mentioned in the old testament. That's because they aren't talking about sexual orientation, they are talking about idolatrous practices.

Posted by: shadow_man | December 12, 2010 4:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Let me bump the other interpretations to show how it all ties in together.

Romans does not condemn homosexuality.

If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching.

Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ's gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile.

Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ.

The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as "natural/unnatural", relates to that which is against one's own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul's concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by "nature." Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.

Romans 1:24-27: It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.

Posted by: shadow_man | December 12, 2010 4:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Of course, this argument stems from here.

I Corinthians 6:9-11
Let us examine that very closely.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate? I think so.

Now onto the interpretation, i've included the original Greek words as well where it's relevant.

Paul was attempting to educate the new Christians in Corinth as to what Godly living was all about. In verses 9-10, he listed ways of living that were not compatible with a Christ-centered life. In verse 11, Paul reminded them that they had been saved out of those destructive ways. There are two Greek words in I Corinthians 6:9, which sometimes are translated with a homosexual connotation.

First word, "malakoi" or "malakos" - it literally means soft or mushy; it can mean spineless, wishy-washy or without backbone. "Malakoi" was used four other times in the New Testament and it always meant "soft." The context of I Corinthians seems to imply a moral softness or decadence, a failure to stand up for what is right and godly. It is significant that for several hundred years there was no sexual connotation assigned to this word.

Second word, "arsenokoitai" or "arsenokoites" - it literally means, "males having sex." Early commentaries on I Corinthians related "arsenokoitai" to male temple prostitutes and to men having sex with boys. (Idolatrous prostitution and pedophilia are always wrong for those seeking to honor God.)

Homosexual relationships were known in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul's day. The Greek word commonly used in reference to adult male same sex partners was "arrenokoites." Paul did not use this word. Instead, he created his own, "arsenokoitai." If Paul had intended to condemn all adult male same sex partners, he would have used the common word for it.

Posted by: shadow_man | December 12, 2010 4:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

(Continued from below)

# Define arsenokoites. Porphyrius Phil. Against the Christians, 88.13. The context is adultery, drunkenness, theft, witchcraft but the arsenokoit stem is not defined.

# Define arsenokoites. Hippolytus, AD 170-236, Refutation of All Heresies. The context is the serpent in the garden of Eden, sodomizing-raping Eve and Adam.

This usage gives no basis for concluding that arsenokoites refers to homosexuality. Naas is the serpent, from the word Naas, referring to the Naasseni, the people who call themselves Gnostics.

“Naas, however, has committed sin, for he went in unto Eve, deceiving her, and debauched her; and (such an act as) this is a violation of law. He, however, likewise went in unto Adam, and had unnatural [meaning nonprocreative or interspecies] intercourse with him; and this is itself also a piece of turpitude, whence have arisen adultery and sodomy.”

Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, Book V, Chapter 21. This Link will open in a new page.

# Define arsenokoites. Flavius Claudius Julianus, Against the Galilaeans. Claudius quotes I Corinthians 6:9 without providing a definition of the word.

# Define arsenokoites. Eusebius - Preparation of the Gospel, 6:10. Eusebius uses the word in reference to pederasty or rape. The text does not indicate homosexuality as we understand it today - a faithful, noncultic partnership between two men of equal status.

# Define arsenokoites. Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel, Book I, 6.23. Eusebius uses the word in a warning against adultery, followed by the phrase, against nature (indicating nonprocreative sex). Eusebius provides no definition of the word.

# Define arsenokoites. Epiphanius, AD 310-403. Two references, both of which quote I Corinthians 6:9 without providing a definition.

# Define arsenokoites. Athanasius, AD 296-373. Athanasius quotes I Corinthians 6:9 without providing a definition.

# Define arsenokoites. Basilius, AD 329-379. Five times Basil quotes Paul’s use of the arsenokoit stem without providing a definition.

# Define arsenokoites. John Chrysostom, AD 347-407. Twenty times Chrysostom quotes I Corinthians 6:9 or I Timothy 1:10 or makes allusion to those verses without providing a definition.

# Define arsenokoites. Pseudo-Macarius, mid-fourth-early fifth century, Sermon 49:5-6. As used by Pseudo-Macarius, the word refers to interspecies sex, the attempted rape of angels in Sodom, not homosexuality.

# Define arsenokoites. Theodoretus, AD 393-457. Theodoretus uses the word four times, once in a vice list and in quotations from I Corinthians 6:9, without providing a definition.

Posted by: shadow_man | December 12, 2010 4:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

detroitblkmale30: LOL, on your arsenokoites post, the only rebuttal you have here is that "Robinson" doesn't agree with it. However, see how you could not refute a single point? Let me repost the points for you my friend that you didn't address:

Arsenokoites. This word is used in corinthians and used in that passage by anti-gays to condemn homosexuals.

Now let's examine it's uses in the Bible, and see why that notion is false.

The Uses of the The Arsenokoit Stem

# Paul, I Corinthians 6:9. This is the first historical use of the word. Paul does not define the meaning of arsenokoites.

# Paul, I Timothy 1:10. This is the second historical use of the word. Paul does not define the meaning of arsenokoites.

# Sibylline Oracle 2:70-78. The context is stealing, falsely accusing and murder. The meaning is not defined.

# Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians. Ignatius quotes I Corinthians 6:9 without providing a definition.

# Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians. Polycarp quotes I Corinthians 6:9 without providing a definition.

# Define arsenokoites. Acts of John 36. The context is robber, defrauder, thief but no definition is provided. Arsenokoithj is translated sodomite here, which indicates a shrine prostitute.

“36 Thou that rejoicest in gold and delightest thyself with ivory and jewels, when night falleth, canst thou behold what thou lovest? thou that art vanquished by soft raiment, and then leavest life, will those things profit thee in the place whither thou goest? And let the murderer know that the condign punishment is laid up for him twofold after his departure hence. Likewise also thou poisoner, sorcerer, robber, defrauder, sodomite [shrine prostitute], thief...” Acts of John, 36.

# Define arsenokoites. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 3.11. Clement twice quotes I Corinthians 6:9, without providing a definition.

# Define arsenokoites. Aristides, Apology, 13. Aristides, a Christian preacher, delivered his Apology around AD 125. The context is interspecies rape or pederasty, Greek gods killing, committing adultery and arsenokoitia with humans.

# Define arsenokoites. Origin, Dialogue With Heraclides 10.1-12 & On Jeremiah 20.3.33. Origin quotes I Corinthians 6:9 and comments on the verse without providing a definition.

The Temple of Apollo at Corinth was built around 510 BC.

# Define arsenokoites. Origin, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 14:10. Origin uses the word without providing a definition.

# Define arsenokoites. Origin, Commentary on I Corinthians 27.58. Origin mentions arsenokoitai, without providing a definition

# Define arsenokoites. Origin, Exposition on Proverbs 7.74. The context is lusts contrary to nature, which indicates nonprocreative heterosexual sex. Historically, the phrase contrary to nature refers to nonprocreative sexual activity between men and women, not homosexuality.

Posted by: shadow_man | December 12, 2010 4:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment

detroitblkmale30: On your next comment, you talk about how God lets homosexuality fester for 2000 years long and that's why it's wrong. Well, looking back at history, God also let slavery and the subjugation of woman fester so long. Only recently has those changed as we realized our earlier interpretation of the Bible was wrong. The same thing is happening here with homosexuality :) When the progressive train passes you by, and the majority of people see homosexuality as normal and accept gay marriage, remember when i said "i told you so" ^_^

Posted by: shadow_man | December 12, 2010 4:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment

detroitblkmale30: Lol, you merely reposted your sodom rebuttal in a different way. My interpretation proves you wrong. But i can copy and paste too my friend ^_^

The Sodom Story - Genesis 19:1-29
Homophobic Viewpoint: "Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality."
Scriptural Viewpoint: Sodom was a lush beautiful region of land whose inhabitants had known the goodness of God. Despite their exposure to, experience with, and witness of the one true loving Creator, the people of Sodom had rejected a relationship with God, and turned to numerous types of idolatry. When God's messengers were sent to the city, the men of Sodom responded by threatening the ultimate act of violent abuse, murder, disrespect and humiliation. They were going to RAPE God's representatives.

It's interesting that out of all the people in the Bible who mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah, only Jude explicitly mentioned sexual activity (I'll get to that). And why in the world would Lot offer his DAUGHTER to supposed male homosexuals? And how is it possible that the entire city was homosexual?

So what were the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah? Oh, I don't deny that sexual activities took place (but of every conceivable kind...particularly of the abusive kind, and certainly not exclusively gay sex), but the implications in the above passages were that Sodom and Gomorrah were smitten for their general moral depravity: that is, the city was pretty much an embodiment of every sin imaginable. What really broke the camel's back though was the city's inhospitality. In Mosaic law (under which death was not an uncommon punishment for what we might consider trivial today), and considering the cultural norms of the time, inhospitality toward guests was punishable by death (consider Exodus 23:9 for why this is so). That is, by showing a clear lack of hospitality to the two angels and presumably others, piled on top of the city's overall depravity, Sodom had doomed itself long before its citizens tried to rape the angels on Lot's doorstep. Oh, by the way, calling the citizens "homosexual" because they tried to rape someone makes as much sense as calling male prison rape the act of homosexuals.

So what of Jude 7? In the KJV, Jude mentions "fornication" (adultery; self explanatory) and "strange flesh" -- in Greek, "sarkos heteras" ("other flesh"). Remember that the men tried to rape *angels*, who by biblical definition are not *human*. That is to say, it can just as easily be interpreted that they were committing bestiality of sorts -- for attempting to rape angels. Or, it's possible that the meaning was something else entirely -- cannibalism (considering how it talks about "flesh", not "bodies"). I don't tend to believe the cannibalism theory, but it's been posited.

Posted by: shadow_man | December 12, 2010 4:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

detroitblkman: Ahhh, more troll-like behavior, throwing out blatant lies like this one.

detroitblkman wrote: "you say I havent shown any facts or proven things. Neither have you."

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples."

That's factual history. While our interpretations are opinion, i have proven why mine has far more weight than yours, as i cite far more evidence ^_^

Posted by: shadow_man | December 12, 2010 4:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

That list doesn't even include the hundreds of scholar and historians referenced in my links, which prove homosexuality is not wrong :)

(Change *** to www)
***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
***.gaychristian101.com/
***.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
***.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
***.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
***.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

Posted by: shadow_man | December 12, 2010 4:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality"

Daniel Helminiask, PH.D., was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1967 and is incardinated in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. From 1981-1985 was Assoc. Prof for Systematic Theology at Oblate School of Theology and earlier completed his Ph.D. in systematic theology at Boston College and Andover Newton Theological School. He currently is a pastoral counselor and a Fellow of the Amer Assn of Pastoral Counselors and has authored many books and articles. He concludes the Bible says absolutely nothing about homosexuality being sinful when you examine the actual Hebrew/Greek texts.

"In God's Image - Christian Witness to the Need For Gay/Lesbian Equality in the Eyes of the Church" By Robert Warren Cromey, Rector, Trinity Episcopal Church

"In The Courts Of The Lord" by James Ferry

This is the account of a gay priest and the incredible journey his life took.

"Stranger At The Gate" by Mel White (Simon & Schuster)

Mel While, one of the most respected evangelical writers coming out of the gay closet. Mel was ghost writer for many of the books and speeches of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham. This book details the authors attempts to hide from his natural homosexuality and his own journey as well as examine the religious rights agenda. White is Dean of Dallas's Cathedral of Hope, the largest gay church in the world.

"Is The Homosexual My Neighbor?" by Latha Dawson Scanzoni (Harper)

This is the revised edition of the classic book that calls for Christians to reexamine their beliefs and attitudes toward homosexuals. The authors look at homosexuality from biblical, scientific and psychological perspectives. An excellent resource.

"But Lord, They're Gay" By Rev. Sylvia Pennington.

Author was a straight women who went to San Francisco was a "missionary" to "save" Gay people and found God in The Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) like she had never experienced God before.

Posted by: shadow_man | December 12, 2010 4:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment

detroitblkmale30 wrote: "your "troll" comment is both comical and juvenile."

Name-calling ^_^ Just like a troll typically does. I see you can pull out a list of scholars, but unlike myself, you still do not cite evidence from them to counter my points. I can also do the same copy and pasta of scholars ^_^

"Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality"

John Boswell is professor of history at Yale and the winner of the 1981 American Book Award For History among other things. Boswell's 400 page book is renowned as being the most comprehensive study and is the result of ten years of research. Boswell's extensive study cites from over 100 other scholars works. Paul Robinson of The New York Times Book Review, says of the book "John Boswell restores one's faith in scholarship...His knowledge of the relevant scholarly literature is remarkable, and his book displays the sweep and control that one finds only in the work of a major historian. Newsweek in its review said "An astonishing work of scholarship that ranges with ease over fourteen centuries, almost as many languages..." Boswell goes on for 60 pages just on lexicography, texts and translations. He takes the biblical language very seriously. Boswell is a prize winning, respected historian.

"The New Testament and Homosexuality"

Robin Scroggs, Prof of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary is a serious theologian and is favorable reviewed by many theologians. He is a married heterosexual. He also cites other theological professors that read his manuscripts and the final book is a combination of much insight from many Christian theologians. Scroggs, includes cites from Boswell and expands even further.

"Body Theology"

James B. Nelson, Professor of Christian Ethics, United Theological Seminary, New Brighton, MN. Deals with both heterosexual and homosexual issues. William Coffin, Pastor Emeritus, Riverside Church of New York, says "For all pastors, counselors, and especially Church members who are silent, timid, or negative about sexuality "Body Theology" is a godsend." Nelson calls Christian Homophobia a sin from Jewish through Christian times due to the false understandings. What the Bible forbids is acts of lust, rape, idolatry, violation of religious purity obligations, or pederasty, but no condemnation of homosexuality in relationships of mutual respect and love. "On the other hand, the Bible pointedly celebrates instances of same-sex emotional intimacy, a fact often overlooked by fearful homophobic readers.

Posted by: shadow_man | December 12, 2010 4:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I can sum up your major one argument with one refutation, because frankly, we all have better things to do on a weekend than this. The word arsenokoites which you keep hammering like a nail sticking out. NO one , and even Robinson agrees in his other posts with this, can say definitively and consistently what it meant or referred to. Which could have included everything from homosexuality to pedophilia, to idolatry to, irreverance. So why through different authors of scripture at different times in different books, and testaments, is it referred to as the same thing..homosexuality??..hmmmm..At the end of the day, nothing you have posted or said has convinced me and apparently vice versa. I'll stand on the Word of God in the Bible as it stands, 2000 years of precedent, the majority of Christendom and most importantly both the re-affrimation of the mosaic moral laws by Jesus. You can stand on one vague greek word, Robinson's interpretation and the "enlightenment" of non-Biblical sources and societal leaders.

Posted by: detroitblkmale30 | December 11, 2010 4:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

feetxxxl1Im glad you have a dictionary complete in the Biblical sense does not mean to do away with. So we agree Jesus came to fulfill, complete hold and maintain the Levitical laws which prohibit homosexuality. Even the phrase is in agreement with something and not opposition to. SO even if Jesus was saying I came to complete the mosaic and levitical laws. It meant he came to support them. He clearly says do not think I came to do away with the law.No where in the new testament Jesus say you no longer need to follow the ten commandments or other laws of moral conduct. He ushers in grace and love but he also calls for accountabilty and for followers to "sin no more." Jesus didnt define sin, it was already define. He didnt change what sin was, he changed the punishment for sin through his love.Sin is still sin, the law is still the law. We still must follow it. We cannot live however we want to simply because we have grace. The Bible says "God is not mocked, you will reap what you sow."We can be thankful for God's love we can't however take advantage of it.

Posted by: detroitblkmale30 | December 11, 2010 4:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

uphold..........to maintain, to follow

fulfill............to complete

Posted by: feetxxxl1 | December 11, 2010 1:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

shadow: would this all loving all knowing merciful God simply allow these misunderstanding to fester? Keep in mind unlike slavery and similar issues, this was not a topic on which the Bible said little. As the Words of the Bible read today, it very clearly speaks out against homosexuality. So I would beleive that a God who is so loving and caring, would NOT allow his word to be twisted for centuries, when he had the opportunity to correct it through his son. He did NOT however. Why is that???? Why would he wait for rev. robinson and similar "scholars" to attempt to contextualize the arugment thousands of years later??? The answer in case you are wondering is...HE WOULDNT. Don't worry more specific responses to your comments to come.

Posted by: detroitblkmale30 | December 11, 2010 11:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment

shadow_man: you say I havent shown any facts or proven things. Neither have you. YOu have offered you interpretation of scripture, which these days apparently are like opinions, everybody has one. We obviously diasgree. Simply saying something you disgree with is taken out of context, does NOT actually mean it is taken out of context. I or millions of other Christians fail to see your point.

"The Sodom story also does not condemn homosexuality."
-------------------
Obviously it DOES condemn homosexuality. It you clearly miss and do not debunk at all the fact that the men of the town go ahead and discuss Jude 1:7 while you are at it. "just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." This strange flesh has been determined by Biblical scholars Gill, clarke, Barnes, to be homosexual in nature, not idolatrous. The bottom line is the men of the town whether rape, consensual as was implied to be a larger practice of the town in addition to idolatry were practicing sexy with men. It says men not boys, stop trying to turn this into a pedophilia argument. Additionally, its subtle and shrewd how you attempt to smokescreen the prohibitions against homosexuality and cloak them in "a real reference to idolatry." Of course Jude refutes this point as do other scriptures on Sodom in the Bible. But let's presuppose your supposition is correct. Even if it was a warning not conduct ritualistic same sex practices. The warnings were against BOTH idolatry AND fornication in a same sex fashion. It would be foolish to think that with the referencs to these same sex practices that they are actually ok , just their motivation(idolatry was wrong) And if one says well same sex acts are ok within the concept of marriage. Why did Jesus limit marriage in his own words to a man and woman?? If the old testament had gotten this wrong as you so imply through so many missues of terms and texts. Why didnt Jesus come and offer a clarification. This was God's chance to push the "reset" button. Alas, as you eleoquently state, Jesus indeed said NOTHING on the subject. No support, no clarification, no rebukes. Notice, however Jesus did rebuke the pharisees, he did offer clarifications on many issues in the scriptures..but no not homosexuality. Could it be perhaps because this issue was already CORRECTLY spoken for? Jesus spent alot of time correcting scripture, yet added nothing to this debate.
Would an omniscient God fully aware of how the Bible would be translated especially in the old testament, who creates people "gay" choose to just allow this grand misunderstanding to take place over the centuries, when he could very very clearly address it through his son at a time when he was re-addressing all the other past "wrongs". Would this God leave his homosexual creations twisting in the wind for 2000 years?

Posted by: detroitblkmale30 | December 11, 2010 11:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

shadow: your "troll" comment is both comical and juvenile. I assure you you are well off base on that point. As you will see from the following comments. Since you want to take things more in depth that is fine.I well indulge you as well, more specifically as you still havent PROVEN anything. You have simply offered an opinion, backed by likeminded "scholars". For every opinion there is an opposite opinion and in this case reality. Your position along with Robinson, is a MINORITY opinion within Christendom, even with all your 50(wow big number) "scholars".But as the true researcher I am we will go point by point by point with you so that you will feel that your diatribes have been adequately addressed. This way you wont have to resort to the very thing you accused me of doing, relying on insults and inciting anger.Homosexuality is, always has been and always will be a sin in the Bible. Here are multiple scholars who have studied the Bible and these passages in their proper context and agree it is a sin.
Hadley Arkes
Amherst College Robert George
Princeton University Fr. Richard John Neuhaus
Institute on Religion and Public Life
Matthew Berke
First Things
The Rev. Hugh Haffenreffer
Emanuel Lutheran Church
Hartford, Conn. Rabbi David Novak
University of Virginia

Gerard Bradley
Notre Dame Law School John Hittinger
College of Saint Francis James Neuchterlein
First Things
Rabbi David Dalin
University of Hartford Russell Hittinger
Catholic University of America Max Stackhouse
Princeton Theological Seminary
Ernest Fortin
Boston College Robert Jenson
St. Olaf College Philip Turner
Berkeley Divinity School (Yale University)
Jorge Garcia
Rutgers University Gilbert Meilaender
Oberlin College George Weigel
Ethics and Public Policy Center
Rabbi Marc Gellman
Hebrew Union College Jerry Muller
Catholic University of America Robert Wilken
University of Virginia

Your first point refuted.

Posted by: detroitblkmale30 | December 11, 2010 11:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

feetxxxl1 : We fundamentally disagree. as does Jesus' very words in scripture with your post. Jesus DID NOT come to release us from any laws or obligations of the old testament. He came to UPHOLD those. I cant say it any more clearly than that. Anything other than that is a revisionist attempt on the Bible. Do you even read the old testament anymore or do you just focus on the new testament?

Posted by: detroitblkmale30 | December 11, 2010 10:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment

that the believers attempt to make any kind of regulation of anything out of legalites such as"Arsenokoites"comes against the principles of the new covenant. because under the new covenant we are not under regulation but grace. we no longer have a relationship to god thru regulation as in deut 28(torn curtain), but instead it is directly thru the conviction of our hearts of not godloving ourselves and our neighbor. it is the leading of christ's loving that we are led by, the law being to remind believers of what is not love, but it is the spirit of christ that lives within us that shows us what is his love. it is this inner relationship that we are led by. paul understood that because he was one of the first to be taught directly by this inner dwelling spirit, paul who never taught thru the law, not even with the man who had his father's wife.

paul writes that anything that does not come against this love " is permissible but may not be constructive" such as it was permissible for women to speak in church, but paul did not find it constructive in his churches.

Posted by: feetxxxl1 | December 11, 2010 6:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment

It's very clear that homosexuality is not a sin ^_^

Posted by: shadow_man | December 11, 2010 3:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment