Not only that but they're claiming that The Bible does not teach what it so obviously does and twisting themselves into knots to get the interpretation they want. I looked at another of those links.
Quote:
At the heart of the claim that the Bible is clear "that homosexuality is forbidden by God" is poor biblical scholarship and a cultural bias read into the Bible.
|
What cultural bias? That prevailing at the time the Masoretic text was compiled? Maybe the cultural bias of 1st century Jewry was at work? Better not mention the Alexandrians. What would they know about classical Hebrew? Even if they'd learned it by rote they could hardly produce a reliable translation. And yet their effort was good enough for Matthew – but what would Matthew know? Amateurs, the lot of them, is about what the first sentence amounts to. Moving on:
Quote:
The Bible says nothing about "homosexuality" as an innate dimension of personality. Sexual orientation was not understood in biblical times. There are references in the Bible to same-gender sexual behavior………
|
I can't let that pass. According to the secular agenda—not all secularists agree with this but I'm responding to a narrow claim here—concepts of gender have nothing to do with biology. Therefore a boy who thinks he's a girl is regarded as a real girl and presumably grows up to be a real woman. As a consequence, he could (as a woman) engage in "same-gender sexual behavior" with someone else who identifies as a woman but who is actually female and not contravene the Biblical prohibition in this respect.
Quote:
………references in the Bible to same-gender sexual behavior and all of them are undeniably negative. But what is condemned in these passages is the violence, idolatry and exploitation related to the behavior, not the same-gender nature of the behavior.
|
No it's not. But is this author really equating homosexuality with violence, idolatry and exploitation? Why? Idolatry is condemned in its own right without elaboration unless a specific idol is mentioned or a grove or a high place or some such detail. For example the Exodus prohibition of interspecies erotica falls between two verses addressing witches and sacrifice to other gods; would this be claimed as acceptable for people who weren't idolators or witches?
Quote:
There are references in the Bible to different-gender sexual behavior that are just as condemning for the same reasons. But no one claims that the condemnation is because the behavior was between a man and a woman.
|
That's because it's not. Again, taking temple prostitutes as an example, are we expected to accept them if there aren't any idols involved? Of course not! This is explicit in
Deuteronomy 23:17.
Quote:
Sexuality is a wonderful gift from God. It is more than genital behavior.
|
And yet that's what God condemns. It doesn't matter what you call it, why you do it, whether you enjoy it or charge for it or treat it as performance art, as far as God's concerned it's an abomination. The idea that no-one had a word for it is equally ridiculous. They didn't have a word for boomerang either, but if Euclid saw one and wrote a description I'm quite sure that Archimedes could have made one. There are, however, a number of words available and if the concept of "sexual orientation" was unknown to God that's because it doesn't exist. Given the detail He went into it's hardly something He'd forget to include.
These mental contortions—necessary to make The Bible mean something no-one ever thought it meant for thousands of years including the people whose culture preserved the text and produced a standard collation over approx. a millennium with reference to the Greek from Alexandria as well as the knowledge they had of their own language—are more than obsessions or neuroses. They are insanity. The particular source in this case:
A rational person would look at something they disagreed with and think, "What a load of rubbish! I don't agree with that," and discard the ideas altogether. For instance, I've read the koran and the communist manifesto: utter, utter garbage! Not only do I disagree, I think such ideas should be eradicated. So strong an opinion requires more investigation than a superficial reading of texts alone. Maybe visit some places where the ideas inform laws or talk to people about the ideas (after all I might have misunderstood) or see what changes occur when the ideas are imported to somewhere they never were before. And I've done those things. My conclusion is that far from mere rubbish, the literature in both cases—together with the societies and cultures they bring into being—are despicable. Could some other interpretation be wrought from the text? Probably, by changing the meanings of words and tying oneself up in knots. But I don't do that. I reject the tenets of both equally based on what they are in fact, not what they could possibly be if they meant something they don't mean or were implemented in a way neither the founders nor their minions across decades and centuries ever envisaged. Because then they'd be something else.
If you want something other than The Bible, with which you disagree, why not say so?