Quote from: Abstract on October 02, 2011, 01:48:13 AM
The only thing in the bible (that suggests such) is three things...
the story of onan (genesis 38:9)which controversially may suggest that the seed should not be spilt...(thus no male on male sex) but that doesn't apply to a female to male
Or it might suggest that Onan was disobeying his father and humiliating Tamar, and disrespecting his dead brother, by going against the customs of the time. This doesn't apply to male homosexual sex, nor does it apply (as is too often misinterpreted) to male masturbation. The sin was denying Tamar pregnancy, not masturbation or otherwise "spilling seed".
Quote from: Abstract on October 02, 2011, 01:48:13 AM
then there is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Where it talks of the "men" surrounding the house of Lot and wanting forced sex... so it is possible it is only about rape... and then the nations had already been decided to be destroyed by god that is why he sent the angels and as such the initial reason for destroying them remains that they were simply blasphamos...no explanation... (being rapers is the most likely reason)
The story could also be used to justify handing over your virgin daughters (yes, plural) to be raped - Gen 19:8 ("Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."). But that wouldn't probably be accurate either. But regardless, Gen 19:13 says that the Lord sent the men to Sodom to destroy it - that was before this attempted rape occurred. Being that He hasn't instantly and recently destroyed any cities with large homosexual populations, I suspect that this was not their sin, but rather it was something unique and particularly ugly.
Quote from: Abstract on October 02, 2011, 01:48:13 AM
then in the letters of paul paul says that a man should not bed with a man and a woman should not bed with a woman...
the interesting thing is that none of the above say anything wrong with being gay or transexual it only at the most suggests that the having sex if you are gay is wrong...
interesting isn't it 
I agree that nothing is said directly about transexuality, although it does say a bit about eunuchs - not all good in the early part of the Bible (later things were intentionally reversed, hence a Eunuch being entrusted with carrying the gospel to Ethiopia). Fortunately that commandment, for Christians, is of the same category of not eating shellfish - no longer applicable. Gal 3:28 also might apply: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
But I also think that the translations of Paul's are very questionable when translated to imply homosexuality (something that they were not translated to mean until fairly recently, either).
That said, there are clear instructions from Paul for slaves to obey their masters - EVEN if the master is "harsh" in contrast to "kind and reasonable" (does this imply that a slave who ran away from abuse and sought freedom is sinning? I wouldn't even think of saying that) - 1 Pet 2:18. Jesus himself said divorce was wrong (while saying NOTHING about homosexuality or anything that could even be considered tangentially related to homosexuality) - Luke 16:18. Women are supposed to cover their heads while praying while men are forbidden from doing so (1 Cor 11:4-6). Oh, and women aren't to wear braided hair, gold, pearls, or expensive clothes (1 Tim 2:9).
Different Christians of course have different views about these. My personal belief is that some of the specifics of how we should act in society can and do change over time (for instance, women can and should have independent legal existence from men), but that the main threads remain the same throughout time (we shouldn't judge, we should serve God, we should love each other, etc). Certainly something that is only mentioned a few times in the Bible, and has a questionable translation on top of that (the New Testament verses on "homosexuals") should not be used to form a doctrine - particularly if you've found reasons that slaves should be free to run away from abuse, women should be able to pray without wearing a head covering, that divorce might be acceptable for instance in cases of abuse, etc. These other things are talked about much clearer and have much less uncertainty around their translation - yet most churches recognize that things aren't quite as black and white as a literal reading might imply (yes, I know some churches still do read it literally). Of course my view might be 100% incorrect on these things, but I don't like seeing only the anti-gay Christian view presented, since there are Christians (such as myself) that disagree with that view.
