Difference between revisions of "God condemns homosexuality"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎to be investigated: Jonathan and David)
Line 44: Line 44:
 
<p>...I Samuel 18:3,4, in the Byington Translation, says that they: "pledged themselves to each other, in the love that he had for him ..." and "Jonathan stripped off the robe he had on and gave it to David..." This ritualistically represented the establishment of a love covenant relationship between the two men: What's mine is yours, what's yours is mine. From this point on there is no question about their relationship being platonic. This sharing of garments, covering the other, shows it was more than that in context of their culture.</p>
 
<p>...I Samuel 18:3,4, in the Byington Translation, says that they: "pledged themselves to each other, in the love that he had for him ..." and "Jonathan stripped off the robe he had on and gave it to David..." This ritualistically represented the establishment of a love covenant relationship between the two men: What's mine is yours, what's yours is mine. From this point on there is no question about their relationship being platonic. This sharing of garments, covering the other, shows it was more than that in context of their culture.</p>
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
 +
 +
''ibid.'', comment #100:
 +
<blockquote source=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/more_crazy_from_that_homeschoo.php#comment-1172678>
 +
<p>samuel 18:1-5</p>
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>'''1''' And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
 +
<li>'''2''' And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.
 +
<li>'''3''' Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
 +
<li>'''4''' And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
 +
</ul>
 +
 +
<p>samuel 20:3-5</p>
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>'''3''' And David sware moreover, and said, Thy father certainly knoweth that I have found grace in thine eyes; and he saith, Let not Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved: but truly, as the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, there is but a step between me and death.
 +
<li>'''4''' Then said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee.
 +
<li>'''5''' And David said unto Jonathan, Behold, tomorrow is the new moon, Num. 28.11 and I should not fail to sit with the king at meat: but let me go, that I may hide myself in the field unto the third day at even.
 +
</ul>
 +
 +
<p>samuel 20:41-42</p>
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>'''41''' And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
 +
<li>'''42''' And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.
 +
</ul>
 +
</blockquote>
 +
Sounds as much like homosexuality as anything the Bible condemns... (and also very sweet)

Revision as of 21:32, 25 October 2008

Overview

It is often claimed, especially by religious extremists, that God condemns homosexuality.

Reference

Specific Religions

Christianity

Christians who oppose homosexuality usually support this argument with various passages in the Bible:

  • Leviticus 18:22: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (This of course says nothing regarding lesbianism.) All of Leviticus 18 seems to concern laws regarding sexual relationships. I have been told, however, that the Levitican laws are not to be taken as current law as they are "unfulfilled". Obviously not everyone agrees with that... --Woozle 16:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
  • 1 Corinthians 6:9,10: "...Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men... will inherit God's kingdom."
  • Romans 1:26 - For this reason, God delivered them to degrading passions as their females exchanged their natural sexual function for one that is unnatural. This can arguably be interpreted as condemning lesbianism, in much the same way that a cloud can be interpreted as a bunny-rabbit. To me, it sounds more like a condemnation of artificial insemination or uterine replicators (which, as of this writing, have not yet been developed -- but presumably God knew we would get around to it eventually, and wanted to make sure that we knew well in advance that it was wicked). Either way, it doesn't explain what the problem is; the equivalence of "unnatural=bad" is assumed, and opens up the question of whether the many other unnatural things we do (e.g. modern health care, driving cars, wearing clothes) are also bad (and if so, why aren't they condemned as well?).

Counterpoints

Rational Counterpoints

These are the hurdles which any scriptural argument against homosexuality must clear. It must establish:

  • That "God" is an actual being, rather than a mythical/fictional/metaphorical entity
  • That God's opinions are accurately represented in one or more of the works in which those opinions appear
    • ...and for which specific works this is true
  • That those writings unambiguously show that God does in fact advise against practicing or tolerating homosexuality
    • ...and why God advises this (so we can determine how best to handle the situation)
  • That those opinions have not changed since they were set down (e.g. prior to 722 BC, when the sources for the relevant books of the Bible were first distributed, or prior to the death of Mohammed in 632 AD if the Qur'an is found to be a reliable source), in spite of the lack of any new and unambiguous condemnations in the intervening time
    • ...and why those opinions have not changed (since homosexuality has not been shown to be any more harmful than many other condoned activities)
  • That God's negative opinion of homosexuality is in humanity's best interests (which is not necessarily the case if God is not omnipotent).

As of this writing, none of these have been established with any credibility, so the claim that God condemns homosexuality is currently unsupportable.

A popular variant of the scriptural argument claims that we, as humans, are somehow obligated to follow God's instructions on the matter regardless of whether we understand them to be in our best interests. This claim supposes that offspring can be held liable for any contracts made by their ancestors, an idea rooted in feudalism and rejected by all enlightened societies.

Another way to look at the scriptural argument is basically this: although the Bible does clearly condemn homosexuality in a few places, this does not explain why we should also do so. Any scripturally-based argument against homosexuality must address this question with a specific chain of reasoning.

Doctrinal Counterpoints

Eventually move to Scripture:Bible/homosexuality

It is widely believed that "The Sin of Sodom" was homosexuality; this is not the case. Sodom's sin was actually being "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." (Ezekiel 16:49, NIV translation)

See The Bible and homosexuality for many more points to consider.

to be investigated

Matthew 12:31 "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men." would seem to indicate that regardless of how God feels about homosexuality, he's not going to hold it against you.

From here, comment #52:

I Samuel 18:1, in the Authorized King James Version, tells us that: "... the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him [David] as his own soul."

...I Samuel 18:3,4, in the Byington Translation, says that they: "pledged themselves to each other, in the love that he had for him ..." and "Jonathan stripped off the robe he had on and gave it to David..." This ritualistically represented the establishment of a love covenant relationship between the two men: What's mine is yours, what's yours is mine. From this point on there is no question about their relationship being platonic. This sharing of garments, covering the other, shows it was more than that in context of their culture.

ibid., comment #100:

samuel 18:1-5

  • 1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
  • 2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.
  • 3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
  • 4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

samuel 20:3-5

  • 3 And David sware moreover, and said, Thy father certainly knoweth that I have found grace in thine eyes; and he saith, Let not Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved: but truly, as the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, there is but a step between me and death.
  • 4 Then said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee.
  • 5 And David said unto Jonathan, Behold, tomorrow is the new moon, Num. 28.11 and I should not fail to sit with the king at meat: but let me go, that I may hide myself in the field unto the third day at even.

samuel 20:41-42

  • 41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
  • 42 And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.

Sounds as much like homosexuality as anything the Bible condemns... (and also very sweet)