I’m glad you’re willing to consider the whole counsel of God’s Word on this subject. I’d like to stick with what I said about not getting into the six “proof passages” you mentioned just yet – I believe there’s an important positive message about sex and marriage in the Bible to be understood first. It seems we’re both rather busy – I’m leaving in the next few days and will be out of the country for a week and a half. I may or may not be able to comment while I’m away, but I’d like to continue this conversation, especially since we’re out of the realm of “traditional writings” and into a discussion of God’s Word.

When I return from my trip (or perhaps during my trip?), I’d like to start with a few thoughts on God’s teaching on marriage, sex and family in Genesis.

In the meantime, I have a couple of questions about your interpretation of Scripture. Here are a couple of recent quotes from you:
“The magic words in the statement are "without ambiguity". This means that all the interpretations of any passages you quote must be against homosexuality.”

“If you just provide anti-gay interpretations, because the pro-gay interpretations exist, then at best all you are doing is showing that the Bible has ambiguous opposition to same sex relationships.”

The Oxford Compact Dictionary defines “ambiguous” as 1. Having more than one meaning, and 2. Not clear or decided. You seem to believe that just because multiple interpretations of a passage of Scripture exist, it means that the Scripture itself is somehow unclear.

Try thinking about this in the context of a doctrine we would both agree to be false, such as the Trinity. Do you really believe that when multiple contradictory interpretations of Scripture are presented, that means there is no such thing as a correct interpretation? Does the mere fact that the correct interpretation is not immediately clear to everyone somehow devalue the truthfulness of the interpretation?

Just to make sure I've responding to your whole message...

I believe that an examination of Biblical teaching and marriage and sex will eventually bring us to what Jesus said about eunuchs, as well. However, just as some food for thought, it's interesting to note that Jesus presented two options to his followers: marriage between a man and a woman, and acceptance of all of the principles and commandments about adultery, faithfulness and divorce that go with that (which is the context of the passage you quotes, Matthew 19:1-12)... or, renouncing marriage and sex altogether, as a eunuch (either for physical reasons, or for spiritual reasons).

There is no Biblical third option - it's marriage between a man and a woman, or no marriage and abstaining from sex. I think we'll see this more clearly in the context of the whole Bible's message once we've had more opportunity to discuss. We'll start with Genesis, as soon as I get the opportunity to write further! :)

"I've responding..."

Oops... that's what I get for trying to think and type too quickly. :)

"You seem to believe that just because multiple interpretations of a passage of Scripture exist, it means that the Scripture itself is somehow unclear."

No - I believe that if there are two equally valid interpretations of a passage or group of passages, then both of those interpretations are equally valid. To use a concrete example - if I can prove that The First Epistle of Frank has a gay friendly interpretation, and you can prove that it has an anti-gay interpretation, then you have to show that my interpretation is wrong to prove that you are unambiguously right.

There are a couple of places that I think the Bible is unclear, but I don't believe that these passages have any essential doctrine in them.

"renouncing marriage and sex altogether, as a eunuch (either for physical reasons, or for spiritual reasons)."

Eunuchs did not renounce sex altogether. There is quite a bit about this on Inherit The Kingdom's article "The Meaning of Marriage" and on "Born Eunuchs": Homosexual Identity in the Ancient World.

About the way we interpret Scripture:

Okay, that’s not quite as extreme as I thought you were getting at first. Can I use another couple of examples to make sure we understand each other?

1) An interpretation of Scripture can be proven incorrect by its context, or by showing how that particular interpretation is inconsistent with the rest of the Bible. For example, I could find you a Bible verse that says “There is no God”, and interpret it to mean that the Bible teaches the non-existence of God – but all you would have to do is show me how that interpretation is inconsistent with the context (Which says “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’”), and that it is also inconsistent with the message of the entire Bible. The Scripture is clear and unambiguous – I just happened to interpret it incorrectly. Even if I am never fully convinced that my interpretation is incorrect, it doesn’t make it any more valid – I am still objectively wrong.

2) If two interpretations of Scripture are mutually exclusive – such as, “Verse A teaches that Jesus was Very God” versus “Verse A teaches that Jesus was not Very God”, you can disprove one interpretation just by proving the other. Proving the rightness of one interpretation automatically excludes the other, because they are mutually exclusive.


About Eunuchs:

I read your references about eunuchs, and I don’t believe they’re entirely relevant - as followers of Christ we’re not concerned with the sexual behavior of any old eunuch in the ancient world. We’re concerned with how a righteous, Christian eunuch (one who could not marry or had renounced marriage) would behave, and that would include following the Bible’s command not to fornicate – that is, have sex outside of marriage.

The argument on Inherit the Kingdom seems to go as follows: some historical writings say that some pagan eunuchs had sexual relationships with men. Some historical writings also say that some eunuchs lack sexual attraction for women. Therefore, when the Bible talks about eunuchs “by nature”, it can’t be referring to a physical deformity; it must be referring to those who, for NO physical reason, are not interested in women.

I believe that’s a pretty big jump in logic from your historical information to your conclusions. If Jesus referring to eunuchs being made by made is obviously physical, I see no reason from your argument that Jesus’ description of eunuchs “by nature” would exclude all physical deformities. In the law, the same rules applied to eunuchs made that way by men and those who were born eunuchs by nature, that is, with deformed or wounded sexual organs; Deuteronomy 23:1 says that no one who was emasculated in any way could enter the congregation. However, God’s plan was not to permanently exclude eunuchs from His service, as we read in Isaiah 56:1-5. It is assumed is this passage that eunuchs are not physically able to bear children; they are a “dry tree”. They are reassured, however, that the eunuchs who obey God will be given a reward that is better than sons and daughters. Those who become spiritual eunuchs, renouncing marriage for spiritual reasons, give up the joys of family, just as natural and man-made eunuchs would – that is implied in the text. However, they will join the ranks of those who have suffered for God and will receive an amazing reward in His Kingdom.

Just because, say, Clement of Alexandria and an ancient Jewish text say that some eunuchs and other men lack an opposite-sex attraction, the conclusion doesn’t follow that those individuals are free to carry on whatever sexual relationships they want. The same Clement of Alexandria quoted on Inherit the Kingdom delivered some pretty scathing condemnations of homosexuality, effeminacy, and “sodomy” in his own time; just because he stated that some men are naturally repulsed by women, it doesn’t follow that homosexual acts were considered acceptable. Similarly, regardless of what Jewish writings describing a eunuch’s lack of interest in women, the ancient Jews interpreted their law to mean that sexual relations between those of the same sex was unacceptable.

I agree that someone experiencing same-sex attractions is usually unsuitable for marriage, unless through self-discipline and great willpower they master themselves. You might, for example, fall under the category of someone who should remain unmarried for your entire life. I agree that the institution of marriage is not for everyone. You might consider yourself exempt. However, that doesn’t give followers of Christ the freedom to have sexual relationships with anyone they want. You make a massive jump in logic by expressing that, “Because the Bible says I don’t have to marry a women, it’s okay for me to have sex with men.”

Strangely enough, your view also says something interesting about “homosexual marriage” – because you think that the Bible says that eunuchs should not marry, and you would consider yourself a eunuch. And yet you said, way back when I first gave you that list of questions, that you would approve of homosexual marriage.

Would you say to someone experiencing opposite-sex attractions, but who feels they must renounce marriage for some reason, they Christ gives them permission not to marry – but that they can go ahead and have sex with any woman they want in an unmarried state? I don’t believe that fits with the Bible’s teaching on fornication, but I think it’s the stance you’re taking about homosexual sex.

I appreciate you getting back to me before I depart for my trip. Feel free to respond to this post if you wish, but when I return (or perhaps while I’m away?), we’ll start from the beginning and get a bit of a foundation in what God teaches about sex and marriage.

There is a lot in red257's post - most of it hinges on the definitions of the words "eunuch" and "fornication". To understand any historical text - the Bible, Homer's Iliad, the Magna Carter, the speeches of Winston Churchill - we have to understand the historical context they were written in. I've mentioned fornication before (but I can't find where, stupid unsearchable Xanga comments), but I think its time to look at it again. I'll see if I can use my influence as part of the Gay Christadelphian Mafia to get something added to Inherit The Kingdom.