[Tirinor]

<STRONG>He's convinced me that the Bible condemns homosexuality; obviously that doesn't "prove" that it's a sin or wrong. The OT also talks about slavery with no apparent disapproval, and is an unreliable guide (IMHO) to life today. I agree with what Lush said above - seemed a very Christ-like utterance.</STRONG>[/QUOTE]

1 Corinthians is in the New Testament.

The whole of the Bible, both Old and New testaments, points to the Law, our shortcomings, and the necessity of redemption through Christ. Lush may seem Christ-like, but I assure you that the Bible is an infinitely better source for a worldview than Lush. No offense Lush. And it does prove that it is wrong, IF that is the foundation for your worldview.

And yes, Vitesse, we are straying from Tolkien, but I believe that Rhud's point was to straighten out the faulty presuppositions about the Bible and Christianity that some have been wielding in arguments in this thread, and nothing more. The Bible and Christianity condemn homosexuality, bottom line. If some choose not to agree with those parts, they are in essence saying that the Bible is not the infallible word of God, and are thereby looking to other sources, mostly themselves, for the answers to life's questions. While they have the right to do so, making claims under the umbrella of Christianity that contradict the source of Christian beliefs undermines the principles and integrity of that source.
If one wishes to make the claim that homosexuality is ok, that is their belief, and their right. But if one wishes to make that claim, and also claim that the Bible is ok with homosexuality. That is false.

Also, you are equal to Rhud at enflaming tensions by asserting your "that is who they are" premise. The source for you views is different; either side can't win the argument unless you come from the same premise. If I believe that the moon is made of cheese and you believe that it is made of rock, we will have no chance of convincing the other if the moon is edible or not.

Back to Tolkien: some have said Tolkien would not have homosexual characters in his books because he thinks that homosexuality is wrong. While I agree that Tolkien, being a devout Catholic, believes homosexuality to be wrong, it does not follow that he would then exclude it from his books. But, looking at the text itself, every time wrong doings are presented in his works, they are presented as exactly that, wrongdoings. Therefore it could be inferred that if Tolkien did include elements of homosexuality in his books, they would have been presented in a light that is consistent with his views. So, if Tolkien is against homosexuality, and homosexuality was in his books, it would be obvious, and presented in a negative light. If he didn't have a problem with homosexuality, it might be less easy to spot. But like I said earlier, I believe there is sufficient evidence the Tolkien was not supportive of the homosexual lifestyle.

But looking at the subject from a practical and unbiased viewpoint, the gay Sam theory is very weak, and to quote Vitesse's earlier post, "I don't buy it."