• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Fish Out of Water: The Gay Gospel [W:42]

The Baron

Knight in Shining Armor
DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
5,967
Reaction score
1,530
Location
Somewhere in Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So another poster recommended I watch a film called A Fish Out of Water and said they would be interested in my thoughts on the film. The film documents a young woman’s journey of discovering exactly what the Bible has to say regarding homosexuality. It is a subject very close to her as she is a lesbian, herself.

The film employs a number of biblical “scholars” including Bishop John Shelby Spong who is the author of The Sins of Scripture which is a book about the hateful verses in the Bible and its impact on the environment, over breeding, sexism, birth control and, of course, homosexuality, etc. His views are those of a lunatic and don’t resemble anything biblical, much less, Christian. Among his baseless claims in the book is that the Apostle Paul was a self-loathing and repressed homosexual.

For “balance”, the film utilizes Fred Phelps to represent the traditional “Christian” view of homosexuality. For those who don’t know, Fred Phelps is a hateful, hate-filled, gerbil-headed butt-nugget whose views--like those of Spong--are neither biblical nor Christian.

Essentially the film is another regurgitation of the “gay gospel”. The message of the “gay gospel” is effectively that the Bible has been interpreted incorrectly over the last several thousand years with regard to homosexuality and it’s only been in the last decade or so that people have only properly understood these verses which, when understood correctly, do not condemn homosexuality.

What new revelations that have led to this “correct” understanding of these Scriptures are never addressed. Nor is it ever discussed why only the verses on homosexuality are the only verses that have been interpreted incorrectly? What about the rest of them?

The film examines seven verses in the Bible that condemn homosexuality and discuss why the traditional interpretations of these verses are wrong. I will provide their arguments and explain why they are wrong.

Genesis 1
The “Christian position” as presented by the film is that homosexuality is wrong because homosexuals can’t procreate. The pro-gay scholars in the film then explain that the logic of argument is wrong as any heterosexual union would be considered sinful if they (the heterosexual couples) failed to procreate.

This is a straw-man argument. While I’ve seen posters here at DP adopt this position, this has never been the complaint in any serious discussion. The Christian position of Genesis 1 is one of God’s created design…not procreation.

Genesis (Chapters 2 & 3)
The “Christian position” presented by the film is that marriage should only be between one man and one woman. The scholars in the film state that the error with this view is one of translation. The claim of the scholars is that while Adam was, if fact, presented with a woman (wife), the Scriptures--when originally written--used the words “ezer kenegdo” which literally means “suitable helper”. A woman was a “suitable helper” to Adam but argue that a “suitable helper” for a gay man or woman would be someone of the same sex. Since the Scriptures don’t specifically state that it has to be an opposite sex partner then there is no sin.

And the film is correct. The Christian position does state that Genesis defines marriage as being between one man and one woman as this is God’s design. This position originates with God in Genesis 1:27 is reiterated by Christ in Matthew 19:4-6 and reinforced by Paul in Romans 1: 26-27.

By the way, Genesis 1:27 & Matthew 19 are Scriptures the film ignores.

Genesis 19 (Sodom & Gomorrah)
The scholars of the film state that the “sin” of Sodom & Gomorrah was not that of homosexuality but one of inhospitality.

The film goes on to say that as all of the men of the city came down to rape the angels in Lot’s care, Lot came forward and offered to let the crowd rape his two virgin daughters who he--later in the story--got pregnant and that is the real sin of this story.

And their position is--in part--true. The wickedness of Sodom included many things and was not limited to homosexuality but homosexuality was a part of it as evidenced by 2 Peter 2: 2 and 6 and Jude 1:7-8.

Once again, the film ignores these Scriptures, as well.

It also ignores the fact that their rather recent “revelation” of the story of Sodom & Gomorrah not having anything to do with homosexuality means that literally millions of people over the course of thousands of years have been wrong in their interpretations of these Scriptures which are being properly understood for the very first time right now.

Yeah, right.

Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13
The argument from the pro-gay scholars is that while these Scriptures prohibit homosexual sex, they also prohibit the eating of shellfish and wearing of garments made from different fibers. As such, modern Christians are simply “picking and choosing” the laws they wish to follow.

What these “scholars” don’t seem to know is that the Old Testament law was done away with by the New Testament covenant of grace. Modern day Christians aren’t picking and choosing anything. The Scriptures call homosexual sex an “abomination”. And since God does not change (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8 and James 1:17) we can be confident that His views on the subject have not changed.

The Scholars also go on to claim that the verses do not prohibit all homosexual sex and explain that men used to have sex with women because they were the property of men. They explain that all these Scriptures prohibit is men having sex with other men who are their “property” (slaves, war prisoners, etc.).

The problem is that their claims are simply not supported by the Scriptures themselves which explicitly condemns all homosexual sex between men.

Romans 1:26-27
The argument here is that Paul knew nothing of sexual orientation and so “his” prohibition against homosexual sex is a “cultural” view and not a “natural” view as we can see homosexuality displayed in nature.

1) Paul’s language is rather specific and emphasizes biology. He is saying that homosexual sex is biologically unnatural.

2a) You will also find in nature animals eating their young and killing their mate after sex. Are we to justify these behaviors in humans as well? After all, they are found in nature. Obviously not! We do not judge human behavior based upon the behavior of wild animals. We judge human behavior based upon moral and societal standards like those set forth in the Bible.

2b) Just because an animal tries to hump something of the same sex does not mean that animal has a homosexual orientation. The animal may be trying to show it dominance or simply relieve its most base urges. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any animal has a homosexual orientation.

Bishop Spong goes on to say that Paul is saying that homosexuality is a punishment from God and he’s only saying that because Paul himself is a repressed, self-loathing homosexual. However, there is simply no evidence to support his claims…at all.

1 Timothy 1:9-10
Here the scholars claim that the term used by Paul, “arsenokotai”, does not condemn homosexuality. It’s a simple matter of a mis-translation. Paul could not have known about anything about homosexual orientation. He would have known about male temple prostitution and that is what he was condemning.

Actually Paul is referring back to the Holiness Code in Leviticus 20:13 which, in the Greek, reads, “hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos”.

For the record “arsenokotai” is the literal translation from the Hebrew “mishkav zakur” which basically means “lying with a male” which is how they used to refer to homosexuality back in the day. But the film won’t tell you that!

1 Corinthians 6:9
The film complains that this is the verse that Christians use to say that Homosexuals are going to burn in Hell. To the best of my knowledge the only “Christians” saying that are Fred Phelps and his band of misfit, back-water, in-bred, hate-spewing, non-Christian, unbiblical, bone-headed losers and this film quotes Phelps often.

And this film simply ignores what is probably the best know Bible verse today known to both Christians and non-Christians--John 3:16. And it states that “everyone” that believes in Christ will be saved. Period!

Jesus Was Silent
Another claim of the movie is one that I hear all the time here at DP. The claim? Jesus was silent about homosexuality so obviously he didn’t have a problem with it.

1. As the last few verses of John’s gospel makes clear, the gospels are not exhaustive. We simply don’t know all of the things that Jesus said and did so we don’t know what Jesus said about homosexuality, if anything.

2. The only sexual relationship that Christ did endorse was that between one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-6). In fact, that is the only relationship in which sex is allowed throughout the whole Bible. It’s consistently is noteworthy.

In summary, Fish Out of Water is simply an unintelligent film that appeals more to emotion than facts. The gay-gospel fails here for the same reason it fails as an argument anytime it’s used. And that is because it attempts to make the Bible say what it does not while trying to convince you that it doesn’t say what it clearly does.
 
Thanks for this interesting posting.

I'm far from being an expert on Christian theology, but it was my impression too that it's rather obvious homosexuality is considered a sin in the Bible.

That said, I totally understand when Christian believers with homosexual feelings decide not to ignore these feelings, and to live them out. No big deal, it's a matter between them and God, IMO, no need for anybody else to condemn them, as we're all sinners. But it's still a good thing when you are aware it's a sin.

I think we all, as fallible creatures, live with contradictions. It's not a bad thing to admit these contradictions. But it's better to admit them and take responsibility for it, than pretending there was none.
 
I think we all, as fallible creatures, live with contradictions. It's not a bad thing to admit these contradictions. But it's better to admit them and take responsibility for it, than pretending there was none.

Good point.

For the record, the Bible does not condemn the homosexual orientation. It only condemns the homosexual sex act. I think (and this is only my opinion) that God doesn't condemn the orientation because--as any gay person will tell you--this isn't something they have any control over. As such, I don't think God condemns us for things that are out of our control.
 
There is a difference between who one is and what one chooses to do.
 
Good point.

For the record, the Bible does not condemn the homosexual orientation. It only condemns the homosexual sex act. I think (and this is only my opinion) that God doesn't condemn the orientation because--as any gay person will tell you--this isn't something they have any control over. As such, I don't think God condemns us for things that are out of our control.

It seems like a pretty evil thing for the Christian God to do, creating people with a sinful impulse that's so strong that they're almost guaranteed to sin or live their lives pretending to be attracted to the opposite sex.
 
It seems like a pretty evil thing for the Christian God to do, creating people with a sinful impulse that's so strong that they're almost guaranteed to sin or live their lives pretending to be attracted to the opposite sex.

The problem with your argument is the premise is all wrong. What is your evidence that God makes people gay when the Bible teaches that every part of our humanity was affected by sin (total depravity).
 
The problem with your argument is the premise is all wrong. What is your evidence that God makes people gay when the Bible teaches that every part of our humanity was affected by sin (total depravity).

Well, you seem to accept (and certainly I do too) that gay people are born gay. So, at the very least the gay person didn't choose to have the urges. If you're going to argue original sin, then I'd still argue it's evil to punish children for the sins of their parents.
 
Well, you seem to accept (and certainly I do too) that gay people are born gay. So, at the very least the gay person didn't choose to have the urges. If you're going to argue original sin, then I'd still argue it's evil to punish children for the sins of their parents.

There is absolutely no evidence that people are born gay or that God makes people gay. But I do have to accept what gay folks say and they say that they didn't choose their orientation. And while you may choose to believe that it is evil to "punish children for the sins of their parents", you are:

1. ignoring the nature of sin.

2. saying that God punishes people by making them homosexual and there is, once again, no evidence to support your claims.
 
There is absolutely no evidence that people are born gay or that God makes people gay. But I do have to accept what gay folks say and they say that they didn't choose their orientation. And while you may choose to believe that it is evil to "punish children for the sins of their parents", you are:

1. ignoring the nature of sin.

2. saying that God punishes people by making them homosexual and there is, once again, no evidence to support your claims.

Please explain #1. As far as #2, what evidence do you expect? You said you have to accept that gay folks say they're born gay. Do you think they're lying? If you do think they're lying, why would anyone ever chose to be gay, with all the gay haters out there?
 
Please explain #1. As far as #2, what evidence do you expect? You said you have to accept that gay folks say they're born gay. Do you think they're lying? If you do think they're lying, why would anyone ever chose to be gay, with all the gay haters out there?

1. For example, I have a niece that at the ripe old age of 15 was raped. Having never been with a man before she got pregnant and had an abortion. The baggage that this poor child is going to end-up with is simply overwhelming. However this rape / abortion ends-up manifesting itself in her life is the result of sin. It's just not her sin that created all of this. Such is the nature of sin.

2. The argument for years has been that people are born gay due to genes or hormones or whatever the junk-science is claiming at the moment. However, there has never been any proof of it. Any claims that people are "born gay" have been discredited.
 
This is the only gay bible I'm aware of:

In the beginning Gloria created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was nanti form, and void; and munge was upon the eke of the deep. And the fairy of Gloria trolled upon the eke of the aquas.

And Gloria cackled, Let there be sparkle: and there was sparkle. And Gloria vardad the sparkle, that it was bona: and Gloria medzered the sparkle from the munge.

From: Polari Mission
 
1. For example, I have a niece that at the ripe old age of 15 was raped. Having never been with a man before she got pregnant and had an abortion. The baggage that this poor child is going to end-up with is simply overwhelming. However this rape / abortion ends-up manifesting itself in her life is the result of sin. It's just not her sin that created all of this. Such is the nature of sin.


That doesn't seem to apply to the gay case. How would anyone's sins cause someone to be born with an attraction to the same sex? Or, if you're going to continue arguing that they're not born gay, what are you saying causes them to decide to become gay?

2. The argument for years has been that people are born gay due to genes or hormones or whatever the junk-science is claiming at the moment. However, there has never been any proof of it. Any claims that people are "born gay" have been discredited.

What claims have been discredited and by whom? Also, you didn't answer my other question. Why would someone choose to be gay?
 
That doesn't seem to apply to the gay case. How would anyone's sins cause someone to be born with an attraction to the same sex?

Oh.

Okay, first my qualifier. Nobody knows what causes homosexuality. And I don’t think that anyone out there believes that there is a single cause for a homosexual orientation. I seems to be far more complicated than I’m about to describe but I’m going to keep it simple.

Now having said that there are theories out there that homosexuality is “caused” by an absent or distant father. Every child needs male love and acceptance (and female love and acceptance, thus the need for a mother and a father in the raising of children). When that love is absent or withheld, the need intensifies. As a child goes through puberty, it becomes eroticized. Now, I’m stating this in the very simplest of terms and no doubt there are plenty of people who will criticize what I’m saying but that is the gist of it.

There is also a theory out there that boys molested by men will grow-up with homosexual desires. Again, its a little more complicated than how I’m describing it, but again, that’s the gist of it.

Or, if you're going to continue arguing that they're not born gay, what are you saying causes them to decide to become gay?

Once again, nobody knows. There are many who are desperate to find a biological cause as they think that will discredit the Bible, Christianity and all arguments against “gay rights”, “marriage rights”, etc.

What claims have been discredited and by whom?

Oh, wow. Uh, lemme think. Google Dean Hammer, Simon LeVay and Bailey & Pillar. All have made claims that homosexuality is biological only to be debunked and discredited.

Also, you didn't answer my other question. Why would someone choose to be gay?

I don’t think anyone “chooses” to be gay. I think they have desires they can’t control. I simply disagree that God created folks that way or that they are born that way.
 


I don’t think anyone “chooses” to be gay. I think they have desires they can’t control. I simply disagree that God created folks that way or that they are born that way.

Desires they can't control sounds an awful lot like being born that way, at least in the sense that something in their biological makeup lead them to develop these desires. Plus, I doubt that you, for example, can control your initial attraction when you see a good lucking woman. When did you choose to start feeling that attraction when you see a good looking woman?
 
Desires they can't control sounds an awful lot like being born that way, at least in the sense that something in their biological makeup lead them to develop these desires.

Desires are complicated. When you assume that folks are "born that way" you assume facts not in evidence.

Plus, I doubt that you, for example, can control your initial attraction when you see a good lucking woman. When did you choose to start feeling that attraction when you see a good looking woman?

Ah, jeez, it's been a life-long, chronic addiction. There is just something about a pretty girl that has caused me to surround myself with them (a beautiful wife, two beautiful girls, a female dog, etc.). Hell, half the people I know are female. I just can't seem to help myself.
 


Desires are complicated. When you assume that folks are "born that way" you assume facts not in evidence.

But, the thing is, even if gay people aren't born that way it's still ultimately the result of an evil act by your God. If he created everything it means he created the possibility that people could have these evil urges. If he really didn't want people to sin in this way he could have just not made homosexuality a thing...not even a possibility.
 
But, the thing is, even if gay people aren't born that way it's still ultimately the result of an evil act by your God. If he created everything it means he created the possibility that people could have these evil urges. If he really didn't want people to sin in this way he could have just not made homosexuality a thing...not even a possibility.

God did not create sin. And if sin is the origin of homosexuality then He is not the author of it.
 
It seems like a pretty evil thing for the Christian God to do, creating people with a sinful impulse that's so strong that they're almost guaranteed to sin or live their lives pretending to be attracted to the opposite sex.

We're all this way, in one way or another. Not all the same way, of course, but every last one of us is subject to temptation to do different evils. Some of us may be more subject to the temptation to steal, or to cheat on our wives, or to abuse our children, or whatever.

It is absurdly simplistic to say that God is evil for creating us with free will, and to leave us subject to temptation; and such a position demonstrates massive ignorance of God's plan and purpose for us. We were not created as mere puppets or pets, for God's own amusement; we are literally his children, his heirs. We could never hope to fulfill the potential that he intends for us, without the ability to experience both good and evil, to make choices in accordance thereof, to experience the consequences of our choices, and to learn and grow therefrom. Each of us has a different set of challenges that we must face and overcome. An inclination to homosexuality is just one such challenge, that a few of us have, and most of us do not.
 
So another poster recommended I watch a film called A Fish Out of Water and said they would be interested in my thoughts on the film. The film documents a young woman’s journey of discovering exactly what the Bible has to say regarding homosexuality. It is a subject very close to her as she is a lesbian, herself...
What new revelations that have led to this “correct” understanding of these Scriptures are never addressed. Nor is it ever discussed why only the verses on homosexuality are the only verses that have been interpreted incorrectly? What about the rest of them?...
A movie about erroneous biblical interpretations against homosexuality didn't have any real reason to point out any other errors; it was concise and to the point of the "gay gospel", not the, "Most Christians don't read the bible right or at all" gospel.
Genesis 1
The “Christian position” as presented by the film is that homosexuality is wrong because homosexuals can’t procreate. The pro-gay scholars in the film then explain that the logic of argument is wrong as any heterosexual union would be considered sinful if they (the heterosexual couples) failed to procreate.

This is a straw-man argument. While I’ve seen posters here at DP adopt this position, this has never been the complaint in any serious discussion. The Christian position of Genesis 1 is one of God’s created design…not procreation.
Does not god design each of us individually? If so, then he's specifically designing some of us to be gay; no sin there, although most Christians agree with that. They typically have come to the conclusion that a homosexual orientation is fine, just not the physical act of homosexual sex. Semantics.
Genesis (Chapters 2 & 3)
The “Christian position” presented by the film is that marriage should only be between one man and one woman. The scholars in the film state that the error with this view is one of translation. The claim of the scholars is that while Adam was, if fact, presented with a woman (wife), the Scriptures--when originally written--used the words “ezer kenegdo” which literally means “suitable helper”. A woman was a “suitable helper” to Adam but argue that a “suitable helper” for a gay man or woman would be someone of the same sex. Since the Scriptures don’t specifically state that it has to be an opposite sex partner then there is no sin.

And the film is correct. The Christian position does state that Genesis defines marriage as being between one man and one woman as this is God’s design. This position originates with God in Genesis 1:27 is reiterated by Christ in Matthew 19:4-6 and reinforced by Paul in Romans 1: 26-27.

By the way, Genesis 1:27 & Matthew 19 are Scriptures the film ignores.
Yeah...Polygamous marriage isn't ever discouraged in the bible, despite examples of it. There's no translation issue there.

There is more than enough evidence to support that the translation between the Hebrew and Greek bible was chock full of errors. From the experts I've heard from on biblical transliteration for this issue, it comes down to whether the modern translation of "wife" refers to "woman" or just "helper". But, it's all a moot point; if I absolutely proved that it just meant "helper", it wouldn't actually change anyone's mind. Plus, it's still the Old Testament, Christians aren't held to it as scriptural law. Although it's repeated in the New Testament, it's sort of a "go figure" moment; Jewish people quoting Jewish laws for a Jewish book. They were Christians in the sense that they followed Jesus, but they were still Jews; how could they have followed a book they hadn't written yet? Since Jesus never spoke on the issue, it's no different than a recap of the Old Testament, which isn't binding to Christians.

Genesis 19 (Sodom & Gomorrah)
The scholars of the film state that the “sin” of Sodom & Gomorrah was not that of homosexuality but one of inhospitality.

The film goes on to say that as all of the men of the city came down to rape the angels in Lot’s care, Lot came forward and offered to let the crowd rape his two virgin daughters who he--later in the story--got pregnant and that is the real sin of this story.

And their position is--in part--true. The wickedness of Sodom included many things and was not limited to homosexuality but homosexuality was a part of it as evidenced by 2 Peter 2: 2 and 6 and Jude 1:7-8.

Once again, the film ignores these Scriptures, as well.

It also ignores the fact that their rather recent “revelation” of the story of Sodom & Gomorrah not having anything to do with homosexuality means that literally millions of people over the course of thousands of years have been wrong in their interpretations of these Scriptures which are being properly understood for the very first time right now.

Yeah, right.
No, it hits the nail on the head; there are several period accounts of Sodom and Gomorrah and they all say the same thing; they mistreated the poor, tortured children to death, and turned away strangers as a rule. Contemporary accounts state that they did homosexually rape strangers, a practice that is still practiced in some ghettos of South Africa; it's an intimidation tactic, not a sexual preference. When those cities were burned, it was due to "not even 10 good people living there", and they don't explain much more.

The sin of Sodom is never specifically defined in the Christian bible; The Orthodox view, which was intertwined with our cultural and linguistic development, defined it as the Homosexual act, or any non-reproductive sex act. Many modern day Christians have defined it as Inhospitality, which is the most overt sin that Sodom is associated with in period references. Most Jewish scholars have defined the sin of Sodom as Selfishness, mostly because they go into much further detail in the story than the other Abrahamic religions. Islam specifically defines it as Homosexual sex.

To frame the story a little better, ask the Jews. They mention the Sodomites torturing children, in graphic detail. They mention a "trick" they'd play on the poor; write their names on money, give it to the poor, and then have them thrown out of stores (Presumably, to be arrested as thieves) for bearing money with the givers' name on it. There are plenty of examples of their inhospitality, greed, and inhumanity; if you didn't get it by now, the Sodomites weren't very nice people. There practice of homosexually raping strangers is relatively small compared to everything else they did, and doesn't explain the burning of Gomorrah, Admah, or Zeboiim, which were all burned for the same reason on the same day. All of these cities were associated with inhospitality and aligning themselves against Elam during the battle of Saddim.

So, to say that we're noting some strange new revelation of a problem in the Christian interpretation of the Sodom and Gomorrah story, that's a no; the Jews had this "revelation" before the Christian bible was even written. But, in either case, millions of people thought the earth was flat for thousands of years; it's no biggie, we're human.
Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13
The argument from the pro-gay scholars is that while these Scriptures prohibit homosexual sex, they also prohibit the eating of shellfish and wearing of garments made from different fibers. As such, modern Christians are simply “picking and choosing” the laws they wish to follow.

What these “scholars” don’t seem to know is that the Old Testament law was done away with by the New Testament covenant of grace. Modern day Christians aren’t picking and choosing anything. The Scriptures call homosexual sex an “abomination”. And since God does not change (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8 and James 1:17) we can be confident that His views on the subject have not changed.

The Scholars also go on to claim that the verses do not prohibit all homosexual sex and explain that men used to have sex with women because they were the property of men. They explain that all these Scriptures prohibit is men having sex with other men who are their “property” (slaves, war prisoners, etc.).

The problem is that their claims are simply not supported by the Scriptures themselves which explicitly condemns all homosexual sex between men.
No, most Christians don't know that, or atleast don't acknowledge it. If the Old Testament doesn't matter, stop using it; if you're going to use any of it, you should use all of it, or you're just cherry picking. I have a deep respect for the Amish, because of their true dedication and adherence to Old Testament laws; I'd respect them for quoting it. For every other Christian, if Jesus didn't tell you to do it, it's not your law. Every mention of Homosexuality in the New Testament is from a Jew; in the absence of new knowledge, they quoted the Old Testament.
Romans 1:26-27
The argument here is that Paul knew nothing of sexual orientation and so “his” prohibition against homosexual sex is a “cultural” view and not a “natural” view as we can see homosexuality displayed in nature.

1) Paul’s language is rather specific and emphasizes biology. He is saying that homosexual sex is biologically unnatural.

2a) You will also find in nature animals eating their young and killing their mate after sex. Are we to justify these behaviors in humans as well? After all, they are found in nature. Obviously not! We do not judge human behavior based upon the behavior of wild animals. We judge human behavior based upon moral and societal standards like those set forth in the Bible.

2b) Just because an animal tries to hump something of the same sex does not mean that animal has a homosexual orientation. The animal may be trying to show it dominance or simply relieve its most base urges. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any animal has a homosexual orientation...
1 is an exact contradiction of 2a. Paul was a guy living in the bronze age, he wouldn't know scientific biological studies if it bit him; it's a moot point.

2b, no; we've documented specimens that prefer same sex mates, repeatedly. There's plenty of evidence, you just don't want to accept it. To refute evidence solely for the sake of not changing your mind is illogical, and you know it. It's no different than flat earthers or lunar landing conspiracy theorists, and we respect you more than that. (I really, REALLY, hope your not like that.)
Bishop Spong goes on to say that Paul is saying that homosexuality is a punishment from God and he’s only saying that because Paul himself is a repressed, self-loathing homosexual. However, there is simply no evidence to support his claims…at all.
No complaints here, Spong is just a shock jock.
1 Timothy 1:9-10
Here the scholars claim that the term used by Paul, “arsenokotai”, does not condemn homosexuality. It’s a simple matter of a mis-translation. Paul could not have known about anything about homosexual orientation. He would have known about male temple prostitution and that is what he was condemning.

Actually Paul is referring back to the Holiness Code in Leviticus 20:13 which, in the Greek, reads, “hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos”.

For the record “arsenokotai” is the literal translation from the Hebrew “mishkav zakur” which basically means “lying with a male” which is how they used to refer to homosexuality back in the day. But the film won’t tell you that!
That's still understood by most Christians to be interpreted that the attraction is not the sin, the act is. He was more than likely referring to temple prostitutes. But, using the Greek to back up modern English is ridiculous; we know there were many problems in translating from Hebrew to Greek. That's bad on the movie, too, they should have known better.
1 Corinthians 6:9
The film complains that this is the verse that Christians use to say that Homosexuals are going to burn in Hell. To the best of my knowledge the only “Christians” saying that are Fred Phelps and his band of misfit, back-water, in-bred, hate-spewing, non-Christian, unbiblical, bone-headed losers and this film quotes Phelps often.

And this film simply ignores what is probably the best know Bible verse today known to both Christians and non-Christians--John 3:16. And it states that “everyone” that believes in Christ will be saved. Period!
Amen, from an atheist. (Although I don't get saved, no heaven for me)
Jesus Was Silent
Another claim of the movie is one that I hear all the time here at DP. The claim? Jesus was silent about homosexuality so obviously he didn’t have a problem with it.

1. As the last few verses of John’s gospel makes clear, the gospels are not exhaustive. We simply don’t know all of the things that Jesus said and did so we don’t know what Jesus said about homosexuality, if anything.

2. The only sexual relationship that Christ did endorse was that between one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-6). In fact, that is the only relationship in which sex is allowed throughout the whole Bible. It’s consistently is noteworthy.
1, yeah sure; we can only assume that plenty of the New Testament was lost during the first century of editing and copying the bible.

2, Well, there are plenty of Polygamous marriages that aren't called out as sinful. That's not consistency if you ask me. That aside, yes the bible is fairly clear that sex is meant for reproduction. Of course, it still comes down to Christianity in practice; why is homosexuality such a "big" debate when there are dozens of other sins that have a much higher prevalence in our society (theft, adultery, lying, etc.) per capita, and are barely even mentioned in these debates. Even when these sins are against the 10 commandments, or other-wise more significant, they don't seem to get as much attention as homosexuality. That's not due to scripture, it's just cultural.
In summary, Fish Out of Water is simply an unintelligent film that appeals more to emotion than facts. The gay-gospel fails here for the same reason it fails as an argument anytime it’s used. And that is because it attempts to make the Bible say what it does not while trying to convince you that it doesn’t say what it clearly does.
I didn't say I liked it; it was too touchy-feely for my taste. But, the "gay-gospel" doesn't fail on their argument; plenty of Christians agree with them. If it didn't change your mind, so be it, you can't win them all. I'll admit they did use some loosey-goosey bible arguments (plenty of strawmen), but they also did address some legitimate points. They didn't twist the bible any more than any Republican, Social-Conservative, or Fundamentalist Hate group; I think we're about 1 to 1,000,000,000 on the bible twisting scoreboard.
 
Last edited:


Oh.

Okay, first my qualifier. Nobody knows what causes homosexuality. And I don’t think that anyone out there believes that there is a single cause for a homosexual orientation. I seems to be far more complicated than I’m about to describe but I’m going to keep it simple.

Now having said that there are theories out there that homosexuality is “caused” by an absent or distant father. Every child needs male love and acceptance (and female love and acceptance, thus the need for a mother and a father in the raising of children). When that love is absent or withheld, the need intensifies. As a child goes through puberty, it becomes eroticized. Now, I’m stating this in the very simplest of terms and no doubt there are plenty of people who will criticize what I’m saying but that is the gist of it.

There is also a theory out there that boys molested by men will grow-up with homosexual desires. Again, its a little more complicated than how I’m describing it, but again, that’s the gist of it.

The claims you made above that a distant farther and a history of child molestation causes homosexuality have really been discredited. There are plenty of gay people that had living relationships with both parents and were never molested.

In fact my research suggested that men who suffered child molestation became promiscuous whether they were hereto or homosexual. Distant relationships with ether patent really effects the children in so many ways. But it was the norm that homosexual men had both parents.

Once again, nobody knows. There are many who are desperate to find a biological cause as they think that will discredit the Bible, Christianity and all arguments against “gay rights”, “marriage rights”, etc.
Nothing can discredit the Bible. There are no valid arguments against equal marriage. Regardless of religion this is the land of liberty.

I don’t think anyone “chooses” to be gay. I think they have desires they can’t control. I simply disagree that God created folks that way or that they are born that way.

I dint know what causes homosexuality either. But everybody has desires they can't control, i don't think it is any better if the desire is for the opposite sex. But heterosexual people are not frowned upon for chasing those desires by christianity, we never even address it.

It feels like people are looking down their nose at gay people. This makes christianity feel like a hostile thing to someone who is gay. And that isn't the message i get from the Bible.

This isn't directed at you, but just to the general public. Gay people can't help their desires any more than anybody else can. The reason why I say this is because it seems that gay people are banished. And the problem i see with that it's that Jesus said no such thing. He actually welcomed all people to his table.
 
I would agree with the Baron that is logical to interpret that the writers of the bible intended to demonize homosexuality. However, its equally illogical to believe that the bible is any kind of literal truth. Let us assume that Jesus did in fact arrive on earth and perform miracles. Humans being humans, its completely impossible that the scattered writings which made up the bible weren't modified either through mistakes or malice during the hundreds of years before they were formally codified. The game of telephone shows how quickly the truth becomes distorted, the time frame for the bible makes perfect accuracy impossible. Even relatively modern bibles, like the original King James versions had printing errors in them. There was a famous version in someone accidentally forgot the "not" in "though shalt not commit adultery". Imagine if that version is discovered 1000 years from now and taken as literal truth?

So tell me Baron, do you accept the logic? Or will you resort to same emotional arguments you criticized in the OP.
 
It seems like a pretty evil thing for the Christian God to do, creating people with a sinful impulse that's so strong that they're almost guaranteed to sin or live their lives pretending to be attracted to the opposite sex.

yeah, so much for that whole God is love thing.
 
Whatever, frankly I don't give a **** what the Bible has to say. To have any realistic appraisal of the validity of the Bible one first has to recognize the reality that it is ultimately a product of fallible man, and the Bible we have today is the result of dozens of ecumenical councils and decades if not centuries Church politics determining what is or isn't supposed to be canon. Anyone who feels that their interpretation of the Bible is more "correct" than someone else's is either blind or arrogant, not to mention wading into an argument that is ultimately irrelevant.
 
Back
Top Bottom