bushbasher

You are not willing to accept a Biblical definition of marriage.

You are not willing to accept a Biblical definition of adultery,

You have attributed to Jesus the qualities that you want to attribute, regadless of the evidence.

Yet you somehow still feel that you can meaningful contribute to a debate about Biblical authority (which you show that you reject) regarding an issue that doesn't directly affect you.

You state that homosexual relationships can be as loyal and meaningful as marriage: well, so can non sexual relationships between siblings, but so can incest, but that don't make those the same as marriage.

Please either agree tha the Bible should be accepted, or say that it isn't, and then debate another topic that actually will have an affect on your life.

bushbasher you write 'in brief, you have not convinced me that homosexuality is a sin in any meaningful sense of the word.' It is not up to us to convince you.That is clearly done for us by the bible. You along with other moral relativist want to define what sin is yourself. If your conscience is not seared you will agree with God's word. If it is seared you will continue to justify what the bible (including new testament) condemns. By all means argue that homosexuality is okay but don't be do dishonest as to pretend God approves of it in His Word.

hamlet and runner. of course i am not willing to accept biblical definitions, or biblical characterizations of anything. they mean nothing to me. and since i am not, of course i have no place in a religious battle: if the anglican church chooses to tear itself apart over homosexuality, that's their right and their problem.

but i am interested in why certain christians are so hung up about homosexuality. and i am particularly interested, since it seemed to be of no grand concern to jesus. i'm sorry if you think i'm presumptuously interpreting jesus, but i'm not exactly putting words in his mouth: if anything, you guys are.

all you two are giving me is religious law. homosexuality is a sin by definition, because it is adulterous, or because the bible says so, or apparently god said so.

you're allowed to do that, but i don't know why you bother, since it will obviously mean nothing to me. it has nothing to do with morality or ethics or human understanding. it's simply quoting authority, and an authority i clearly do not accept.

Runner and Hamlet

Of course we should not take the whole bible literally – do you seriously believe that we should follow biblical prescriptions for disobedient children, adulterers, mouldy buildings, clothing, food laws, menstruation and wet dreams?

We ignore many of the laws advocated in Exodus and Leviticus because we understand they are products of a time and culture that is not ours, and that they have no relevance now – indeed they offend against modern ethical codes that have themselves been influenced by 3,000 years of moral reflection deeply influence by Judaic and Christian thinking. Liberals do this honestly, I believe so-called “bible-believing” Christians rationalise it. But no-one actually advocates strict observance of all those laws.

We put Paul’s exhortations for slaves to obey their masters in the same category. Most of us do the same with pseudo-Pauline misogyny.
On a different note, we understand Jesus’ instructions to hate our parents as hyperbole, and don’t take it literally.

So the question is not whether to take the whole bible literally, but how to discern, interpret and apply the truths it points to for our own age and culture. That is what the debate about attitudes to women and homosexuals is about. From a church perspective it is fundamentally a question of theology and authority, but small wonder non-Christians are bemused by the disproportionate emphasis it attracts, and revolted by the lack of compassion exhibited by some who would use homosexuals as the scapegoats for all the perceived sins of liberal Christianity.

bushbasher,

'but i am interested in why certain christians are so hung up about homosexuality. and i am particularly interested, since it seemed to be of no grand concern to jesus'

I actually partly agree with you bushbasher. Though as I stated many times I agree with the apostle Paul's description of homosexuality as being unnatural it is no better or worse than adultery or fornication in God's sight.

I think you will find that it is the homosexual lobby itself that draws attention to itself with it wanting to tell the church or God what is right and wrong. They want condoned by all what the bible calls perversion. Look how many articles their are on this site on the issue. Look who is lobbying Parliament to have their actions condoned.

There is also heaps of dishonesty about the negative affects on society created by homosexuality. Any honest study uncovers the dramatic increase in disease shared among many homosexuals. Kids are told that homosexuality is in a persons genes(more pseudo science)and so many experiment trying to find out what they are due to false information. Some people in their 70's still can't decide if they like boys or girls. Anyone who visited Kings Cross in the 70's or 80's would be sickened to think of their kids being exposed to this lifestyle.

Again if the homosexual lobby were not so militant and vocal (a number of judges among them) we probably would not be having this discussion. Funny enough though it is not only Christians who see this lifestyle as destructive. Many doctors and health workers agree.

Why are some Christians "hung up" about homosexuality? Because they have a sick obsession with what goes on in the bedrooms of gay men and lesbians.

They are the same people who publicly abuse gays - and watch so-called lesbian pornography. They are the same people who preach about the evils of homosexuality from the altar - then sexually molest children (gender irrelevant). Runner said some people in their 70s can't work out if they like girls or boys. They're called priests, sweetie. And incidentally, most prostitutes are women after males. Any ignoramus knows that.

They are the same people who bash or murder gays - then (what a surprise!) come out as gay themselves. They are the same ones that lambast the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras and go there to "disapprove" (yeah, right) every year without fail from a good vantage point. And they are the same ones who use this forum to vent their obsession - notice how any article about homosexuality gets heaps of responses but, for example, the one on elder abuse did not.

Is Christianity a perversion? It is a form of mysticism certainly. But it is not entirely rotten. After all, didn't Christ throw the money-changers (Jensen and the Bishop of Rome's predessors) out of the temple? It's not entirely without hope.