The Bible and Homosexuality

A video worth watching. A young man takes biblical scripture and explains how the bible and god are not against homosexuality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY"]The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality - YouTube

 

ifiness

 

OP = so that's good right?

 

Paul wrote "men who lie with men will not enter into the kingdom"
Pretty cut and dry

 

And men wrote the bible
Also cut & dry

 

all scripture is inspired by god

 

Opinion, not fact.

 

is it fact if it is written in the bible?

 

Circular logic.

 

not sure what that means

The bible makes it pretty clear. Sex is intended between a man and a woman in marriage. that is what the bible says

if you feel that you were born gay then you must deaden your members and not engage in the sexual act. Just as if you were married and your partner was crippled. forget your selfish desires and give all glory to God and do his will, causse he is the creator and every human owes him a lot..

 

Circular logic is a formal fallacy whereby a pattern of reasoning is always or at least most commonly wrong. It is due to a flaw in the structure of the argument which renders the argument invalid.

Claiming something is true because it is in the bible and claiming that what is in the bible is true because it is in the bible is circular logic with its foot wading in the false authority fallacy.

 

sounds like you confuse yourself

 

Nope.

 

i don't get it, really.

you have a book which you believe is your absolute moral primer, yet it contains some teachings which you feel are immoral, so you go to extreme lengths to study and analyse the book until you have enough evidence to confidently claim that actually the book is conforming to your sense of morality, rather than contradicting it. so after all that work, the book can go back to being an absolute moral primer now that you've managed to reconcile what it APPEARED to be saying with it "actually" says (which, by an extraordinary coincidence, happens to be what you already believed, independant of being told it by the book.)

well, scholarly literature criticism is all well and good, even when the ulterior motives are this obvious, but wouldn't it have been slightly easier to just accept that a book written 2000 years ago probably isnt gonna be the most socially progressive work in the world?, and that maybe the book isn't absolute, doesn't contain a single cohesive moral structure, is inconsistent (but, like most works of literature, all the better and more beautiful and interesting for that)? maybe it really is the word of god, maybe he had it written in such a way as to confuse you, challenge you, make you sit up and pay attention and not just mindlessly consume regurgitated prose. maybe he wants you to come to him using both your intellectual faculties AND your hearts/souls. maybe human error crept in during all of those revisions, translations and downright censorings. maybe the best approach to reading the bible is to only pay attention to passages that speak to you and not look for an absolute moral system at all, but rather something less concrete, more affecting than cerebral. let the book be, not a monolithic tome, but a spark that ignites your mind and inspires you.

A brief look into how the modern bible came to be should reveal that this is probably the most logical approach to reading it. Unless you think that constantine the great was granted the authority, by god, to decide what was and was not religious truth.

but it doesnt make much sense to me to try and reconcile what is in the bible with what you already believe. at that point, why do you need the bible at all?

easier than all this, of course, is just to say that being gay is obviously and self-evidently fine regardless of what the bible has to say on it, just like its obviously not a good thing to maul 42 children to death just because they laughed at your bald friend (2 Kings 2:24) lol

 

that feeling is defined by a belief . to make a fact of it
is wrong and may confound little children who are indoctrinated
in the belief . children are in fact very fond of sensibility .

now , as for those who feel confukted by religion ... take
your shoes off and sit down humble in the dirt and won't
you share this toke on this pipe of the sort that has a bird
bone stem . be easy about children , sacredly .

 

Not quite. First of all, where did Paul write that? You're probably excerpting from two possible passages that the young man discusses on the video: 1 Corinthians 6 and/or 1 Timothy 1:8-10. Many biblical scholars think 1 Timothy is pseudographic (i.e., somebody else wrote it instead of Paul, but claiming to be Paul). But the passages say pretty much the same thing, and they say it in Greek, not the words you've quoted. Paul is providing a list of people who will not possess God's Kingdom, including fornicators (the jocks and frat houses are in trouble!), adulterers (numerous politicians of both parties have had trouble with this, but they keep getting re-elected), the greedy (Republicans take heed!), etc., (check out the list, most people are on it). And then it comes to two categories that are sometimes translated as "homosexuals" by such travesties as the Good News Bible. The words are malakoi (meaning soft) and arsenokoitai, a new word coined by Paul literally meaning "man bedder". The first word has no clear reference to homosexuality. It appears elsewhere in the Bible when it is asked if people went into the desert expecting Jesus to be "a man clothed in soft raiments" (to be consistent, we should maybe translate that "a man in drag"). The other word has connotations of exploitation and may refer to male prostitutes and/or pederasty. Or not. We don't know, because Paul did not make it clear. But we have no reason to think Paul was addressing committed relationships between same sex couples in love (as opposed to lust). I wouldn't call it "Pretty cut and dry". By the way, why is it that the other sins Paul includes on the list aren't discussed more by Christians? Could it be because we're more concerned with the mote in our gay neighbor's eye than the beam in our own eyes? We could discuss the other five passages in the Bible which are commonly brought up re homosexuality, but the language you used suggested 1 Corinthians & 1 Timothy, and the young man does a good job of dealing with the others.

 

homosexuality is pseudo sex . it pretends . so
do children .

 

Homophobia is pseudo-Christian.

 

The point about Constantine deciding what was and was not religious truth has come up before. Can you think of an instance? Constantine called and presided over the Council of Nicea, but he pretty much let the Christian participants duke it out over the contents of the Creed, and he seemed to be less concerned about the particulars, which he regarded as trivial, than that they get something settled.