Talk:Homosexuality and biblical interpretation

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Just reading the opening sentence, I think this may need to be moved to essay space. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 14:44, 9 January 2009 (EST)

What is "essay space?" In any case, the intro has been edited, and the topic, which Ed Poor began and invited me to contribute is not simply presenting interpretations of texts on homosexuality, which might be covered under the CP page, homosexuality and the Bible, and which should link to this one, but is presenting the phenomenon of prohomosex apologetics, showing their misinterpretations, and which topic relates to other pages relative to the homosexual agenda.Daniel1212 21:05, 7 February 2009 (EST) It is more difficult however, to present this in a neutral manner than it is for WP to do likewise for ID.

In this article, you mentioned the unique bond between male and female, as represented by Adam and Eve in Genesis. Scientists have recently traced all of humanity back to one man and one woman, dubbed Adam and Eve. However, Eve was found to have existed tens of thousands of years before Adam. Surely then, there must have been lesbianism on an industrial scale for those missing years, before Adam came along, since sex is one of humanity's most primal urges.
I guess that you are going to argue that science has got it wrong and that the stories which someone wrote thousands of years ago without any evidence is clearly right.If you take the bible as being literal, Eve had some sons with Adam. However, she had no daughters. The only way of Adam getting grandchildren, thus prolonging the human race was for Eve to sleep with her own children to bear them children, until a girl is born. Do you support the idea of boys sleeping with their mothers? Is it acceptable for me to sleep with my future sons? Does the bible encourage this? No. In fact, I hope that you agree that in this respect, the bible is wrong. It was perhaps acceptable under the circumstances, but today it is not. This is exactly the same as with homophobia in the bible. At the time, it was perhaps acceptable, but todaty it is not. We live under different circumstances, we are more accepting for other people, and above all else, we believe in love for our neighbours. Ululator 13:16, 15 February 2009 (EST)
This article is not about the plenary Divine inspiration of the Bible per se, but about attempts by prohomosex authors to use the authority which that inspiration affords in order to justify their practice. Your theory is an extra Biblical one, but it is based upon what the article states is the end of prohomosex apologetics, that being the effective negation of the Bible as the immutable word of God and coherent moral and spiritual authority, with the ever morphing (im)morality contemporary culture being exalted as the judge of it.
As regards your "scientific" scenario, your are correct when you anticipate that I would doubt the science, and your hypothesis is far from an widely accepted establish scientific hypothesis much less a conclusion, and has lesbians producing only females, evidently by parthenogenesis as a hermaphroditic species, for 10's of thousands of years before the first Adam showed up. (And they all got along.)
What this evidences is that prohomosex people haste to embrace anything that might favor their practice, because the Bible most evidently does forbid homosex.
As regards your attempts at Biblical eisegesis, your are wrong that Adam and Eve did not have daughters, rather the Bible states that Adam lived 930 total, 800 years after Seth, and adds that "he begat sons and daughters" (Gn. 5:1). And no, boys did not sleep with their moms, at least not in accordance with God's law, but brother and sisters did get married in the ancient times (and great age disparities were possible), and it was not until at least 1500 years latter that the laws against incest are evidenced. Most likely due to the fact that the effects of the Fall were progressive, with the flood also resulting in a great increase in DNA errors. And which effects we are still under today, likewise the laws, but which work for our benefit when obeyed.
However, while incest forbids sexual unions due to closeness of kin, homosex is forbidden due to closeness of kind, and while bestiality (which your logic would also allow) is forbidden due to being radically of another kind. DNA is specific, but the Creator is even more specific about who is to be sexually joined. And as the article abundantly substantiates, the women alone was made for the man, as his uniquely compatible and complementary help meet, in ways that transcend, but do not eliminate, procreational aspects.
So, no, i do not agree the Bible was wrong, but that you are wrong, including your premise and conclusion. Today's morality is not saving lives, but destroying them and society, and costing plenty in souls, lives, and money. Daniel1212 17:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)

My article is cited in note 62. Can someone clarify that my article doesn't support the liberal view that the Lev 19 passage is merely about inhospitality? It's ambigious by the wording of the main text and then the note 62 connected with it. But I'm on record in that article and quite a few other places coming down on the conservative side of things. KH