I didn't mean to start an argument, or imply that the homosexual rights movement is completely insignificant. I just do not put it near the same level as other movements such as Black civil rights or women's suffrage.
The sacrifices have not been the same - but the crux of the movement - the ideology that all are created equal and deserve equal rights under our government - are similar.
But I respect that there are different opinions...
The bible equates two men having sexual relations as sin, not because of the act itself, but because it debases a mans status to that of a woman. in biblical times women did not have rights, and for a man to submit to another man, like a woman should, and be treated like a woman, would be a sin.
In all of Jesus' teachings, he never spoke once about homosexuality. If it was the ultimate sin it's made out to be, don't you think he would have mentioned it...at least one time?
I am not a "hardline right", I just happen to think that the answer to your question (one of them) is pretty obvious. I believe the reason this is such a hot button issue is because you are talking about something, the family, that is considered by many to be the bedrock of society. If that is "corrupted" or redifined as something other than the children of our society being raised in a home of a woman and a man (or other potential threats to the family such as cohabitation, epidemic divorce, etc.), then they believe that is less than ideal for the rising generations, and for the basic moral fiber of society. Now, obviously, the other "sins" you mention have much less of an impact on society. Comparitively, not much is going to be affected by millions of people taking the Lord's name in vain, or working on Sunday, etc.
This question seems kind of obvious, so I'm a little worried it is just a bait qustion. But if it is legit, than I say it is just because of the deep impact changing the defined traditional family could have on society as a whole.
People taking the Lord's name in vain = swearing = aggression.
Working on Sunday = 24/7 economy = no rest & reflection.
These two "sins" have a huge impact on society if you ask me.
In my opinion it is too easy to say families with same sex parents have a negative impact on society just because they are of the same sex. Rather than saying the traditional family consists of a man, a woman and their children, I'd like to say the traditional family is centered around, love, respect and tolerance of others.
Yes, families are important, but so is society itself. If we raise our children perfectly, but our brothers and sisters outside the family unit are corrupted/dishonest/aggressive/etc., this is very dangerous as well, if not more dangerous.
Like a cloud dropping rain
I'm discarding all thought
I'll dry up, leaving puddles on the ground
I'm like an opening band for the sun
Yes, families are important, but so is society itself. If we raise our children perfectly, but our brothers and sisters outside the family unit are corrupted/dishonest/aggressive/etc., this is very dangerous as well, if not more dangerous.
So very true.
Not to mention that in Christianity for example, one base premise is that: we are all sinners. This means we are all corrupt. We are to humble ourselves and accept salvation by spiritual means. This does not mean we suddenly become non-corrupt--it means we own our corruptness. When we deny our own corruptness, we also deny salvation.
What people tend to do is to deny their own corruption and imperfection by passing it off on the next guy. It doesn't matter what the reason is--the reasons to make the other guy wrong are quite incidental, actually. We've got a bunch of blind people trying to lead one another, while forgetting their own blindness. It's quite ugly at times.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Jesus made no mention of paedophilia, nor beastiality, nor did he specifically outlaw us from tying our neighbour to the wheel of a landrover and driving around the block.
This does not mean that Jesus had no opinion on it, however. He mentions in Matthew 5 (17-20) that 'Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.'
This means...
I'm fine with this until we get to: "This means..." What I hear is "this is what I, Curranpete, understand this to mean".
I personally hear this line as meaning something quite different. The Law is the Law forever more (ask farfromglorified and he'll tell you about gravity, universal Law and jumping off of cliffs). The Law IS the Law, "as is", and is different than man's ideas of the law, imo. The prophets did speak truths, and it sounds like Jesus meant to fulfill the divine truths that were told of.
...we can assume that unless specifically revoked, Jesus upholds every part of the law outlined in the old testament.
Apparently you assume as such. I do not.
So yes, Jesus was against homosexuality, the same as he was against child rape and land rover based torture methods. It was just that judging everybody wasn't the point of the gospels.
What is your evidence that Jesus was against homosexuality? Last I heard you were going on an assumption.
I wonder why judging everybody wasn't the point of the gospels.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Now I'm back to square one, where Jesus tells us not to point to the splinter in another's eye when there is a plank in our own eye. Also, it looks like Jesus did not condemn homosexuality. That is interesting in the light that he was here to fulfill the law and the prophets. Fulfill and avoid to me are words with two very different meanings. If Jesus said he would fulfill "the law and the prophets", I wonder if he can be held to his word. And also, it looks like what he did not say or do makes as strong a statement as what he said and did.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Now I'm back to square one, where Jesus tells us not to point to the splinter in another's eye when there is a plank in our own eye. Also, it looks like Jesus did not condemn homosexuality. That is interesting in the light that he was here to fulfill the law and the prophets. Fulfill and avoid to me are words with two very different meanings. If Jesus said he would fulfill "the law and the prophets", I wonder if he can be held to his word. And also, it looks like what he did not say or do makes as strong a statement as what he said and did.
Let me start by saying that I am with you on the splinters and planks. Matthew 7 is perhaps my favorite part of the Bible and the part I think sums up the most how we are to react to our fellow man. It is the part I think Cjristians should, perhaps pay most attention to, yet sadly enough, is, perhaps, the most ignored.
That being said, because we don't read in the gospels any direct condemnation from Jesus regarding homosexuality, doesn't necessarily mean he CONDONED the practice. It may, perhaps lead us to assume that he didn't speak of it often enough for the eyewitnesses (yes, I said eyewitnesses)responsible for the gospels to record it, but not that he held no oppinion or thought it was completely acceptable. Perhaps matthew 7 sums it up best. We simply are not to judge.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
"At the time it was written, the idea of marriage as something done out of love was not exactly the norm. Women were literally considered to be property. So, the statement in Leviticus 18:22 that "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" is in reference to this. For a man to lie with another man as he would lie with a woman is to place the other man, sexually, in the same position as the woman, thus treating him as property is treated, which is not how men should be treated.
Now, there are a few other areas of the bible where homosexuality is criticized, and again they are almost always read out of context. For example, the statements against homosexuality in Romans have little to do with homosexuality itself and everything to do with differentiating the fledgling religion that would become "Christianity" from the dominant "pagan" religions in the area in which same sex relations were relatively common.
And, remember, we're talking about the time of the Roman Empire here. Homosexual relationships were incredibly well established, even among those who were not biologically homosexual. The same can be said for the Egyptians and the Greeks. Anyone who has studied a little history knows of the Spartan penchant for homosexual relationships among their men."
I read this post on another board having the same discussion, and a light bulb just dinged, and it all made since to me....I could not have said it better myself, so I just copied the post here and credited it.
-originally posted by SecretMethod70 @ tfproject.org.
Actually, there are many, many, many, facts in the bible- Off the top of my head here is one.
It says in the bible that you must wait three days before circumcising an infant after birth. Because when babies are born theit blood does not have the ability to clot, and the babies would die....it takes three days to develop the coagulant. Nowadays a shot is given to the babies, but back then, no such luck.
Let me start by saying that I am with you on the splinters and planks. Matthew 7 is perhaps my favorite part of the Bible and the part I think sums up the most how we are to react to our fellow man. It is the part I think Cjristians should, perhaps pay most attention to, yet sadly enough, is, perhaps, the most ignored.
That being said, because we don't read in the gospels any direct condemnation from Jesus regarding homosexuality, doesn't necessarily mean he CONDONED the practice. It may, perhaps lead us to assume that he didn't speak of it often enough for the eyewitnesses (yes, I said eyewitnesses)responsible for the gospels to record it, but not that he held no oppinion or thought it was completely acceptable. Perhaps matthew 7 sums it up best. We simply are not to judge.
I totally agree with you. It MAY lead us to ASSUME....etc. it doesn't NECESSARILY mean he condoned the practise, etc. I would be loathe to put words into Jesus' mouth, one way or the other.
Two things leap to mind for me: first, yes, we're all so 'human' and flawed that to think we are close enough to God to judge is a prospect that is best not undertaken lightly. I say we are all fully entitled to listen to our inner spirit and find what is the truth for us. But the minute we project our ideas onto others, that is about our own judgments of others, and not about the truth.
The other thing is that assumptions and our best guesses must be acknowledged for what they are, including the potential for reading in flaw and distortion. I take this very seriously.
To some it may be obvious that I'm a bit on this tangent about how people see religion at the root of evil--and it's a well-deserved projection, considered what has been done in God's name. When humans are so fallible, and so not-God it's very clear how easy we can distort truths. What prophets have said, and what is God's law is sometimes worlds away from what the masses take and run with. I'm now seeing how people are misconstruing verses with assumptions and other mental processes that further remove the truth from the facts.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
... I'm sure you can see the problem with assuming that there is a flaw in assumptions: your assumption that assumptions are fallible makes your assumption fallible meaning that it's not only plausible, but in fact probable that your assumption will be wrong; leading us to the conclusion that assumptions are not, in fact fallible, but completely true. Which of course would make your assumption that assumptions are fallible completely true, and then we're in a right tangle.
Nice try. We all know an assumption is different than proof. You showed your process, admitted an assumption, then you concluded by saying: "So yes, Jesus was against homosexuality..." An assumption is fine for your opinion. You're entitled. However, despite the logical show, your conclusion remains an opinion, rather than a process having shown how Jesus was in fact against homosexuality.
This is ground that we've covered before, and I know that what you were in fact looking for was the proof behind the assumption. However it is worth bearing in mind that when we assume to disregard assumptions, or rather absolutely defy absolutes, no rational answer can be found.
If you want to find absolutes where they are not, that is fine. If you have much more to your process--such as guidance of the spirit--that is not logical and rational and pertinent in this type of debate, that I accept as well. I can't discount what you know or what you see. However, considering how the truth is misconstrued, and often, I only accept evident absolutes as absolutes for me. The room for error and the consequences are serious to me.
So then, the proof:
This largely lies in what it means to 'fulfil the law'. If it means to 'bring an end to it', as is often claimed, then we can use this statement to toss aside any semblance of the law. However, if it means 'to actualise', or 'to make whole' as in 'I fulfilled my craving for a donut by eating one'; then the law is still standing, and has been completed by the coming of Christ, who was the embodyment of what the law meant: it's fulfillment.
At this point it is useful to bear in mind that the gospel writers are conveying a message about Christ; this is not just a biography; this is an example from Jesus' life used to show his thoughts so that people may believe.
Due to time constraints, I can't go into too much detail, but in concise form: This quotation falls in the section of Matthew dedicating to proving all of the prophecies Jesus fulfilled, and this is the big kicker: Jesus is not only the fulfiller of prophecies; but the very fulfiller of prophecy itself: He is the explanation of the entire scriptures.
Jesus quotes from the law of Moses, but he also explains the reason it was how it was; and much of it is changed, because Jesus is ushering in God's new era of grace, which is the fulfilment of the law. (the law shows us we've messed up and need God, grace is how we get to him)
Because Jesus is the fulfilment of the law, and not the rebuttal, it is rational to assume to that any law that is not specifically revoked stays the same.
It would be irrational to assume otherwise: the equivalent of saying 'well it was illegal to murder yesterday, but they haven't said anything about it today; so bombs away!'
This is all good and fine as your understanding of the interpretations of the bible that you've been taught. However it means little to me. For me to accept any part requires faith in a fallible human being and what he's been taught by other humans. There are so many leaps of faith, and while I don't say they are wrong, my personal relationship with God and what I learn from it are what I trust 100%.
This has very little to do with judging; rather it's about reading what the Bible says rather than declaring fact on what it doesn't.
It's interesting that no one has been able to prove Jesus' anti-homosexuality stance, and yet entire religions back it. Besides, my thing is that I see a ton of human error around me all the time, I go out of my way to walk that fine line and not be condescending, because I know for me to look down on others in judgment is not my right. So even if homosexuality were wrong, to give one's self permission to talk down to others remains inexcusable.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
oh my God ..what a hard topic"homosexuality and religion":The Church hates the homosexuals but homosexuals do believe in God.If the Church states that homosexuality is abnormal(sickness) and needs some severe treatment so maybe we should get some treatment ,think over our faith in the Church.This topic is a very controvercial one here in Poland and I must say I'm totally ashamed of this situation..and it is not going to change :( I've resigned of any immediate contacts with the Church after some struggles - my views are so much different,too much and I couldn't stand it.What a pity ..
To summarise my last post: There is absolutely no reason to suggest Jesus was for homosexuality: There is nothing in the gospels, or even in any of the epistles that could suggest it. That is fact.
(Should you wish to disprove that fact, you will have to present evidence to the contrary, not merely call it interpretation.)
Given that there is no reason to suggest Jesus was for homosexuality, we must then search for evidence to see whether Jesus was against it:
1. Jesus was a Jew, and upheld the Jewish law. That law outlaws homosexuality. Again, those two points are fact clearly stated in the Bible.
2. Jesus mentions 'pornea' (translated: 'fornication') when he discusses the laws for divorce. The word chosen means the whole of the Jewish law about sexuality; including homosexuality. Jesus cites these laws, and uses them, which means they were true laws, and laws he believed in. Again, that is fact, clearly stated in the Bible.
So, at a glance: My proof is that there is no evidence supporting Jesus being for homosexuality, and two strong evidences showing him being against.
All of these evidences are direct references from the Bible, I have not used verses which are ambiguous or open to interpretation.
Which, I expect, brings us back to your argument that the bible is fallible, and thus the writers could have been mistaken.
However, fallible or not (that's a whole other argument), with no evidence to the contrary and two evidences against, you would need very good evidence to prove that Jesus' stance is different to what's represented. Evidence which I have not seen, nor do I expect to; I need to get back to work.
What I am representing is a rational representation of what the Bible says based on scholarly study and historical information. Whether it is what I have been taught or not is irrelevant; it is a genetic fallacy to declare the information wrong based on where it came from. What is important is the facts at hand.
So if my 'interpretation' is wrong, I suggest you check the verses and show how.
Again, this brings me back to judging. Who would I be to judge you as wrong? Or your view as wrong? I can find technicalities and point to them, and yet I know that is irrelevent in terms of the truth.
I'm a firm believer that we all listen to the inner voice and decide for ourselves what the highest truths are--we all posses the way to LIfe's truths from within, when we choose to listen. And I believe it is important for each of us that we follow whatever path we must to find our own inner truth. I do believe that part of finding our inner truth is in judging for ourselves what is right and wrong within the spirit of truth. And yet, at the same time, I believe we are not equipped to see the truth for others, and for very good reasons.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
So this goes back to my original question: why do people, who use their religious beliefs as backing, view this "sin" as so much more unacceptable than other sins and worthy of turning this "group" into almost a second class of citizens?
No one has given me an answer I believe to be legitimate.
(The "because the homosexuals turned it into an issue" argument doesn't hold water with me, as I stated before. I respect people's right to believe that, but I disagree with it.)
jeebus didn't mention it because he took it up the ass.
he was a browneye witness, so to speak.
Why are you wasting time posting here? Certainly someone as hilarious as you should be tearing up the comedy clubs in between shoots for your new sitcom. Funny, funny stuff.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
I understand that you believe all truth is accessible through our inner selves, but my inner self firmly believes that this is not the case; and that our inner desires and beliefs are completely fallible, and often lead us down the wrong path.
To use an example: My girlfriend and I have been going out for one year today, (I've actually just returned from a trip to go boating) and we've decided to hold off on doing anything sexual until we (possibly) get married.
Now I know this makes sense, because having been in a sexual relationship before, I know the scars that it tore, and I can see the effect those scars have had on my life since. My inner truth, as it were, knows that it would be a mistake to make that mistake again.
But when we're together, every part of my body rattles against that decision, and suddenly my 'inner truth' is telling me the complete opposite to what I know.
So, in that situation, as in countless others, my thoughts from within are leading me down the wrong path, and often contradict each other: so they are not trustworthy.
I instead choose to put my trust in the words of God, because they come from the only one who is infallibly trustworthy. Those words come from without, and show me what is right even though my desires may fall a different way.
To summarise: My body and my mind are at war with each other, and whether I trusted it or not, I know from experience that my beliefs that come from within are unreliable, and clouded by all manner of situations. Only the word of God is free from those, and thus I can trust that.
It is because of that that I call judgement. Not as a judge, but as a lawyer. Rather than declaring sentence and condemning people, I show the law that stands, and endeavour to show them the correct course of action. I point people towards the law, I do not decide it.
Are you saying you call your lust your inner truth? I didn't say we consult our inner desires. The inner truth is none other than the Holy Spirit. The word of God is in us, when we choose to listen and to dedicate ourselves to it.
I have been in a celibate relationship for 8 years (the old "until marriage" deal, too--I totally get the damage irresponsible sex causes), so I can empathise, for sure. The bottom line is I know the difference between truth and lust; between intellect and spirit; between emotions and spirit. It's not always easy to learn to discern such differences, I grant you. However, when we hand the power over to those we've deemed our authority figures, we compound the problem. First off, since they are human, too, they have the exact same challenges discerning truth as we do. Also, to turn our back on God within us, I've heard and learned personally, has farrrrrr-reaching ramifications. It may seem to be the easy route to accept what the religious authority figures tell us but ultimately, that is different than listening to God, who you and I know has a voice inside us.
I completely agree beliefs are fallible, hence I do not rely on the intellect and what I've been taught by human intellect to be true. The one Truth shines, when one chooses to open to it. KNOWing is different than believing. It seems that people are more busy these days denying inner truth than opening to it, though, if what people are saying in this thread is any indication.
What I propose is an integration of sorts: where we keep an open heart and mind and listen to what others tell us is the word of God. And at the same time we can accept that the way we can truly discern the level of Truthfulness of any source is by honing of our somewhat-neglected, maligned and abused, but amazingly miraculous inner voice of Truth within. If we choose to give up our inner voice of Spirit by acuiescing to the voice of another, and they lead us down the wrong path, we're accountable for our lack of faith in Spirit. And if we cannot see, much less recognise the voice of Spirit within, to me, it's an indicator that it's time to begin focussing on, and consciously activating the dormant voice of God within. Like anything, it first takes acknowledgement, then commitment, and then practise. When it is engaged it is thrilled to help us manage our challenges. When it is not engaged, it awaits our free will choice to engage so it can empower us on our perfect-for-us path.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Let me start by saying that I am with you on the splinters and planks. Matthew 7 is perhaps my favorite part of the Bible and the part I think sums up the most how we are to react to our fellow man. It is the part I think Cjristians should, perhaps pay most attention to, yet sadly enough, is, perhaps, the most ignored.
That being said, because we don't read in the gospels any direct condemnation from Jesus regarding homosexuality, doesn't necessarily mean he CONDONED the practice. It may, perhaps lead us to assume that he didn't speak of it often enough for the eyewitnesses (yes, I said eyewitnesses)responsible for the gospels to record it, but not that he held no oppinion or thought it was completely acceptable. Perhaps matthew 7 sums it up best. We simply are not to judge.
He didn't have to speak directly on every single subject. Jesus declared that God's Word is truth. That means that he endorsed God’s view of homosexuality.
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
He didn't have to speak directly on every single subject. Jesus declared that God's Word is truth. That means that he endorsed God’s view of homosexuality.
I endorse God's word on homosexuality, too. Just not infallible (edit: whoops, I meant "fallible") humanity's negative judgements of it.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I brought this from the link in harmless_little_f***'s homosexuality thread, because it was so appropriate for here:
"There are many Hebrew mores most straight christians are breaking
Nevertheless, the Bible quite clearly takes a negative view of homosexual activity, in those few instances where it is mentioned at all. But this conclusion does not solve the problem of how we are to interpret Scripture today. For there are other sexual attitudes, practices and restrictions which are normative in Scripture but which we no longer accept as normative:
1. Old Testament law strictly forbids sexual intercourse during the seven days of the menstrual period (Lev. 18:19; 15:19-24), and anyone in violation was to be "extirpated" or "cut off from their people" (kareth, Lev. 18:29, a term referring to execution by stoning, burning, strangling, or to flogging or expulsion; Lev. 15:24 omits this penalty). Today many people on occasion have intercourse during menstruation and think nothing of it. Should they be "extirpated"? The Bible says they should.
2. The punishment for adultery was death by stoning for both the man and the woman (Deut. 22:22), but here adultery is defined by the marital status of the woman. In the Old Testament, a man could not commit adultery against his own wife; he could only commit adultery against another man by sexually using the other's wife. And a bride who is found not to be a virgin is to be stoned to death (Deut. 22:13-21), but male virginity at marriage is never even mentioned. It is one of the curiosities of the current debate on sexuality that adultery, which creates far more social havoc, is considered less "sinful" than homosexual activity. Perhaps this is because there are far more adulterers in our churches. Yet no one, to my knowledge, is calling for their stoning, despite the clear command of Scripture. And we ordain adulterers.
3. Nudity, the characteristic of paradise, was regarded in Judaism as reprehensible (2 Sam. 6:20; 10:4; Isa. 20:2-4; 47:3). When one of Noah's sons beheld his father naked, he was cursed (Gen. 9:20-27). To a great extent this nudity taboo probably even inhibited the sexual intimacy of husbands and wives (this is still true of a surprising number of people reared in the Judeo-Christian tradition). We may not be prepared for nude beaches, but are we prepared to regard nudity in the locker room or at the old swimming hole or in the privacy of one's home as an accursed sin? The Bible does.
4. Polygamy (many wives) and concubinage (a woman living with a man to whom she is not married) were regularly practiced in the Old Testament. Neither is ever condemned by the New Testament (with the questionable exceptions of 1 Tim. 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6). Jesus' teaching about marital union in Mark 10:6-8 is no exception, since he quotes Gen. 2:24 as his authority (the man and the woman will become "one flesh"), and this text was never understood in Israel as excluding polygamy. A man could become "one flesh" with more than one woman, through the act of sexual intercourse. We know from Jewish sources that polygamy continued to be practiced within Judaism for centuries following the New Testament period. So if the Bible allowed polygamy and concubinage, why don't we?
5. A form of polygamy was the levirate marriage. When a married man in Israel died childless, his widow was to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bore him a male heir. Jesus mentions this custom without criticism (Mark 12:18-27 par.). I am not aware of any Christians who still obey this unambiguous commandment of Scripture. Why is this law ignored, and the one against homosexual behavior preserved?
6. The Old Testament nowhere explicitly prohibits sexual relations between unmarried consenting heterosexual adults, as long as the woman's economic value (bride price) is not compromised, that is to say, as long as she is not a virgin. There are poems in the Song of Songs that eulogize a love affair between two unmarried persons, though commentators have often conspired to cover up the fact with heavy layers of allegorical interpretation. In various parts of the Christian world, quite different attitudes have prevailed about sexual intercourse before marriage. In some Christian communities, proof of fertility (that is, pregnancy) was required for marriage. This was especially the case in farming areas where the inability to produce children-workers could mean economic hardship. Today, many single adults, the widowed, and the divorced are reverting to "biblical" practice, while others believe that sexual intercourse belongs only within marriage. Both views are Scriptural. Which is right?
7. The Bible virtually lacks terms for the sexual organs, being content with such euphemisms as "foot" or "thigh" for the genitals, and using other euphemisms to describe coitus, such as "he knew her." Today most of us regard such language as "puritanical" and contrary to a proper regard for the goodness of creation. In short, we don't follow Biblical practice.
8. Semen and menstrual blood rendered all who touched them unclean (Lev. 15:16-24). Intercourse rendered one unclean until sundown; menstruation rendered the woman unclean for seven days. Today most people would regard semen and menstrual fluid as completely natural and only at times "messy," not "unclean."
9. Social regulations regarding adultery, incest, rape and prostitution are, in the Old Testament, determined largely by considerations of the males' property rights over women. Prostitution was considered quite natural and necessary as a safeguard of the virginity of the unmarried and the property rights of husbands (Gen. 38:12-19; Josh. 2:1-7). A man was not guilty of sin for visiting a prostitute, though the prostitute herself was regarded as a sinner. Paul must appeal to reason in attacking prostitution (1 Cor. 6:12-20); he cannot lump it in the category of adultery (vs. 9).
Today we are moving, with great social turbulence and at a high but necessary cost, toward a more equitable, non-patriarchal set of social arrangements in which women are no longer regarded as the chattel of men. We are also trying to move beyond the double standard. Love, fidelity and mutual respect replace property rights. We have, as yet, made very little progress in changing the double standard in regard to prostitution. As we leave behind patriarchal gender relations, what will we do with the patriarchalism in the Bible?
10. Jews were supposed to practice endogamy--that is, marriage within the twelve tribes of Israel. Until recently a similar rule prevailed in the American South, in laws against interracial marriage (miscegenation). We have witnessed, within the lifetime of many of us, the nonviolent struggle to nullify state laws against intermarriage and the gradual change in social attitudes toward interracial relationships. Sexual mores can alter quite radically even in a single lifetime.
11. The law of Moses allowed for divorce (Deut. 24:1-4); Jesus categorically forbids it (Mark 10:1-12; Matt. 19:9 softens his severity). Yet many Christians, in clear violation of a command of Jesus, have been divorced. Why, then, do some of these very people consider themselves eligible for baptism, church membership, communion, and ordination, but not homosexuals? What makes the one so much greater a sin than the other, especially considering the fact that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality but explicitly condemned divorce? Yet we ordain divorcees. Why not homosexuals?
12. The Old Testament regarded celibacy as abnormal, and 1 Tim. 4:1-3 calls compulsory celibacy a heresy. Yet the Catholic Church has made it mandatory for priests and nuns. Some Christian ethicists demand celibacy of homosexuals, whether they have a vocation for celibacy or not. But this legislates celibacy by category, not by divine calling. Others argue that since God made men and women for each other in order to be fruitful and multiply, homosexuals reject God's intent in creation. But this would mean that childless couples, single persons, priests and nuns would be in violation of God's intention in their creation. Those who argue thus must explain why the apostle Paul never married. And are they prepared to charge Jesus with violating the will of God by remaining single?
Certainly heterosexual marriage is normal, else the race would die out. But it is not normative. God can bless the world through people who are married and through people who are single, and it is false to generalize from the marriage of most people to the marriage of everyone. In 1 Cor. 7:7 Paul goes so far as to call marriage a "charisma," or divine gift, to which not everyone is called. He preferred that people remain as he was--unmarried. In an age of overpopulation, perhaps a gay orientation is especially sound ecologically!
13. In many other ways we have developed different norms from those explicitly laid down by the Bible. For example, "If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity" (Deut. 25:11f.). We, on the contrary, might very well applaud her for trying to save her husband's life!
14. The Old and New Testaments both regarded slavery as normal and nowhere categorically condemned it. Part of that heritage was the use of female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual toys, breeding machines, or involuntary wives by their male owners, which 2 Sam. 5:13, Judges 19-21 and Num. 31:18 permitted--and as many American slave owners did some 150 years ago, citing these and numerous other Scripture passages as their justification."
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"disgraceful sexual appetites", "detestable thing", "men kept for unnatural purposes", "Abhor what is wicked, cling to what is good"
you mean judgements on the individual, right?
Yeah, I mean I accept God's word, but not the judgment of my neighbour with the plank in his/her eye. My relationship with God is between God and I, and no one else.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
The sacrifices have not been the same - but the crux of the movement - the ideology that all are created equal and deserve equal rights under our government - are similar.
But I respect that there are different opinions...
In all of Jesus' teachings, he never spoke once about homosexuality. If it was the ultimate sin it's made out to be, don't you think he would have mentioned it...at least one time?
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
People taking the Lord's name in vain = swearing = aggression.
Working on Sunday = 24/7 economy = no rest & reflection.
These two "sins" have a huge impact on society if you ask me.
In my opinion it is too easy to say families with same sex parents have a negative impact on society just because they are of the same sex. Rather than saying the traditional family consists of a man, a woman and their children, I'd like to say the traditional family is centered around, love, respect and tolerance of others.
Yes, families are important, but so is society itself. If we raise our children perfectly, but our brothers and sisters outside the family unit are corrupted/dishonest/aggressive/etc., this is very dangerous as well, if not more dangerous.
I'm discarding all thought
I'll dry up, leaving puddles on the ground
I'm like an opening band for the sun
Not to mention that in Christianity for example, one base premise is that: we are all sinners. This means we are all corrupt. We are to humble ourselves and accept salvation by spiritual means. This does not mean we suddenly become non-corrupt--it means we own our corruptness. When we deny our own corruptness, we also deny salvation.
What people tend to do is to deny their own corruption and imperfection by passing it off on the next guy. It doesn't matter what the reason is--the reasons to make the other guy wrong are quite incidental, actually. We've got a bunch of blind people trying to lead one another, while forgetting their own blindness. It's quite ugly at times.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Otherwise, it makes for good fiction.
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
I personally hear this line as meaning something quite different. The Law is the Law forever more (ask farfromglorified and he'll tell you about gravity, universal Law and jumping off of cliffs). The Law IS the Law, "as is", and is different than man's ideas of the law, imo. The prophets did speak truths, and it sounds like Jesus meant to fulfill the divine truths that were told of.
Apparently you assume as such. I do not.
What is your evidence that Jesus was against homosexuality? Last I heard you were going on an assumption.
I wonder why judging everybody wasn't the point of the gospels.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ooops......too much sense......so much sense being made, in such a simple sentence. Oh my.....my head tis' about to explode.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I know....I know.... your interpretation is fact and any one else's is false.
You're right, I'm wrong. Your assumptions=facts
:rolleyes:
Let me start by saying that I am with you on the splinters and planks. Matthew 7 is perhaps my favorite part of the Bible and the part I think sums up the most how we are to react to our fellow man. It is the part I think Cjristians should, perhaps pay most attention to, yet sadly enough, is, perhaps, the most ignored.
That being said, because we don't read in the gospels any direct condemnation from Jesus regarding homosexuality, doesn't necessarily mean he CONDONED the practice. It may, perhaps lead us to assume that he didn't speak of it often enough for the eyewitnesses (yes, I said eyewitnesses)responsible for the gospels to record it, but not that he held no oppinion or thought it was completely acceptable. Perhaps matthew 7 sums it up best. We simply are not to judge.
Now, there are a few other areas of the bible where homosexuality is criticized, and again they are almost always read out of context. For example, the statements against homosexuality in Romans have little to do with homosexuality itself and everything to do with differentiating the fledgling religion that would become "Christianity" from the dominant "pagan" religions in the area in which same sex relations were relatively common.
And, remember, we're talking about the time of the Roman Empire here. Homosexual relationships were incredibly well established, even among those who were not biologically homosexual. The same can be said for the Egyptians and the Greeks. Anyone who has studied a little history knows of the Spartan penchant for homosexual relationships among their men."
I read this post on another board having the same discussion, and a light bulb just dinged, and it all made since to me....I could not have said it better myself, so I just copied the post here and credited it.
-originally posted by SecretMethod70 @ tfproject.org.
Um... thanks for that...
SHeesh.
It says in the bible that you must wait three days before circumcising an infant after birth. Because when babies are born theit blood does not have the ability to clot, and the babies would die....it takes three days to develop the coagulant. Nowadays a shot is given to the babies, but back then, no such luck.
I totally agree with you. It MAY lead us to ASSUME....etc. it doesn't NECESSARILY mean he condoned the practise, etc. I would be loathe to put words into Jesus' mouth, one way or the other.
Two things leap to mind for me: first, yes, we're all so 'human' and flawed that to think we are close enough to God to judge is a prospect that is best not undertaken lightly. I say we are all fully entitled to listen to our inner spirit and find what is the truth for us. But the minute we project our ideas onto others, that is about our own judgments of others, and not about the truth.
The other thing is that assumptions and our best guesses must be acknowledged for what they are, including the potential for reading in flaw and distortion. I take this very seriously.
To some it may be obvious that I'm a bit on this tangent about how people see religion at the root of evil--and it's a well-deserved projection, considered what has been done in God's name. When humans are so fallible, and so not-God it's very clear how easy we can distort truths. What prophets have said, and what is God's law is sometimes worlds away from what the masses take and run with. I'm now seeing how people are misconstruing verses with assumptions and other mental processes that further remove the truth from the facts.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
If you want to find absolutes where they are not, that is fine. If you have much more to your process--such as guidance of the spirit--that is not logical and rational and pertinent in this type of debate, that I accept as well. I can't discount what you know or what you see. However, considering how the truth is misconstrued, and often, I only accept evident absolutes as absolutes for me. The room for error and the consequences are serious to me.
This is all good and fine as your understanding of the interpretations of the bible that you've been taught. However it means little to me. For me to accept any part requires faith in a fallible human being and what he's been taught by other humans. There are so many leaps of faith, and while I don't say they are wrong, my personal relationship with God and what I learn from it are what I trust 100%.
It's interesting that no one has been able to prove Jesus' anti-homosexuality stance, and yet entire religions back it. Besides, my thing is that I see a ton of human error around me all the time, I go out of my way to walk that fine line and not be condescending, because I know for me to look down on others in judgment is not my right. So even if homosexuality were wrong, to give one's self permission to talk down to others remains inexcusable.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Again, this brings me back to judging. Who would I be to judge you as wrong? Or your view as wrong? I can find technicalities and point to them, and yet I know that is irrelevent in terms of the truth.
I'm a firm believer that we all listen to the inner voice and decide for ourselves what the highest truths are--we all posses the way to LIfe's truths from within, when we choose to listen. And I believe it is important for each of us that we follow whatever path we must to find our own inner truth. I do believe that part of finding our inner truth is in judging for ourselves what is right and wrong within the spirit of truth. And yet, at the same time, I believe we are not equipped to see the truth for others, and for very good reasons.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
So this goes back to my original question: why do people, who use their religious beliefs as backing, view this "sin" as so much more unacceptable than other sins and worthy of turning this "group" into almost a second class of citizens?
No one has given me an answer I believe to be legitimate.
(The "because the homosexuals turned it into an issue" argument doesn't hold water with me, as I stated before. I respect people's right to believe that, but I disagree with it.)
Why are you wasting time posting here? Certainly someone as hilarious as you should be tearing up the comedy clubs in between shoots for your new sitcom. Funny, funny stuff.
I have been in a celibate relationship for 8 years (the old "until marriage" deal, too--I totally get the damage irresponsible sex causes), so I can empathise, for sure. The bottom line is I know the difference between truth and lust; between intellect and spirit; between emotions and spirit. It's not always easy to learn to discern such differences, I grant you. However, when we hand the power over to those we've deemed our authority figures, we compound the problem. First off, since they are human, too, they have the exact same challenges discerning truth as we do. Also, to turn our back on God within us, I've heard and learned personally, has farrrrrr-reaching ramifications. It may seem to be the easy route to accept what the religious authority figures tell us but ultimately, that is different than listening to God, who you and I know has a voice inside us.
I completely agree beliefs are fallible, hence I do not rely on the intellect and what I've been taught by human intellect to be true. The one Truth shines, when one chooses to open to it. KNOWing is different than believing. It seems that people are more busy these days denying inner truth than opening to it, though, if what people are saying in this thread is any indication.
What I propose is an integration of sorts: where we keep an open heart and mind and listen to what others tell us is the word of God. And at the same time we can accept that the way we can truly discern the level of Truthfulness of any source is by honing of our somewhat-neglected, maligned and abused, but amazingly miraculous inner voice of Truth within. If we choose to give up our inner voice of Spirit by acuiescing to the voice of another, and they lead us down the wrong path, we're accountable for our lack of faith in Spirit. And if we cannot see, much less recognise the voice of Spirit within, to me, it's an indicator that it's time to begin focussing on, and consciously activating the dormant voice of God within. Like anything, it first takes acknowledgement, then commitment, and then practise. When it is engaged it is thrilled to help us manage our challenges. When it is not engaged, it awaits our free will choice to engage so it can empower us on our perfect-for-us path.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
He didn't have to speak directly on every single subject. Jesus declared that God's Word is truth. That means that he endorsed God’s view of homosexuality.
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
"disgraceful sexual appetites", "detestable thing", "men kept for unnatural purposes", "Abhor what is wicked, cling to what is good"
you mean judgements on the individual, right?
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
"There are many Hebrew mores most straight christians are breaking
Nevertheless, the Bible quite clearly takes a negative view of homosexual activity, in those few instances where it is mentioned at all. But this conclusion does not solve the problem of how we are to interpret Scripture today. For there are other sexual attitudes, practices and restrictions which are normative in Scripture but which we no longer accept as normative:
1. Old Testament law strictly forbids sexual intercourse during the seven days of the menstrual period (Lev. 18:19; 15:19-24), and anyone in violation was to be "extirpated" or "cut off from their people" (kareth, Lev. 18:29, a term referring to execution by stoning, burning, strangling, or to flogging or expulsion; Lev. 15:24 omits this penalty). Today many people on occasion have intercourse during menstruation and think nothing of it. Should they be "extirpated"? The Bible says they should.
2. The punishment for adultery was death by stoning for both the man and the woman (Deut. 22:22), but here adultery is defined by the marital status of the woman. In the Old Testament, a man could not commit adultery against his own wife; he could only commit adultery against another man by sexually using the other's wife. And a bride who is found not to be a virgin is to be stoned to death (Deut. 22:13-21), but male virginity at marriage is never even mentioned. It is one of the curiosities of the current debate on sexuality that adultery, which creates far more social havoc, is considered less "sinful" than homosexual activity. Perhaps this is because there are far more adulterers in our churches. Yet no one, to my knowledge, is calling for their stoning, despite the clear command of Scripture. And we ordain adulterers.
3. Nudity, the characteristic of paradise, was regarded in Judaism as reprehensible (2 Sam. 6:20; 10:4; Isa. 20:2-4; 47:3). When one of Noah's sons beheld his father naked, he was cursed (Gen. 9:20-27). To a great extent this nudity taboo probably even inhibited the sexual intimacy of husbands and wives (this is still true of a surprising number of people reared in the Judeo-Christian tradition). We may not be prepared for nude beaches, but are we prepared to regard nudity in the locker room or at the old swimming hole or in the privacy of one's home as an accursed sin? The Bible does.
4. Polygamy (many wives) and concubinage (a woman living with a man to whom she is not married) were regularly practiced in the Old Testament. Neither is ever condemned by the New Testament (with the questionable exceptions of 1 Tim. 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6). Jesus' teaching about marital union in Mark 10:6-8 is no exception, since he quotes Gen. 2:24 as his authority (the man and the woman will become "one flesh"), and this text was never understood in Israel as excluding polygamy. A man could become "one flesh" with more than one woman, through the act of sexual intercourse. We know from Jewish sources that polygamy continued to be practiced within Judaism for centuries following the New Testament period. So if the Bible allowed polygamy and concubinage, why don't we?
5. A form of polygamy was the levirate marriage. When a married man in Israel died childless, his widow was to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bore him a male heir. Jesus mentions this custom without criticism (Mark 12:18-27 par.). I am not aware of any Christians who still obey this unambiguous commandment of Scripture. Why is this law ignored, and the one against homosexual behavior preserved?
6. The Old Testament nowhere explicitly prohibits sexual relations between unmarried consenting heterosexual adults, as long as the woman's economic value (bride price) is not compromised, that is to say, as long as she is not a virgin. There are poems in the Song of Songs that eulogize a love affair between two unmarried persons, though commentators have often conspired to cover up the fact with heavy layers of allegorical interpretation. In various parts of the Christian world, quite different attitudes have prevailed about sexual intercourse before marriage. In some Christian communities, proof of fertility (that is, pregnancy) was required for marriage. This was especially the case in farming areas where the inability to produce children-workers could mean economic hardship. Today, many single adults, the widowed, and the divorced are reverting to "biblical" practice, while others believe that sexual intercourse belongs only within marriage. Both views are Scriptural. Which is right?
7. The Bible virtually lacks terms for the sexual organs, being content with such euphemisms as "foot" or "thigh" for the genitals, and using other euphemisms to describe coitus, such as "he knew her." Today most of us regard such language as "puritanical" and contrary to a proper regard for the goodness of creation. In short, we don't follow Biblical practice.
8. Semen and menstrual blood rendered all who touched them unclean (Lev. 15:16-24). Intercourse rendered one unclean until sundown; menstruation rendered the woman unclean for seven days. Today most people would regard semen and menstrual fluid as completely natural and only at times "messy," not "unclean."
9. Social regulations regarding adultery, incest, rape and prostitution are, in the Old Testament, determined largely by considerations of the males' property rights over women. Prostitution was considered quite natural and necessary as a safeguard of the virginity of the unmarried and the property rights of husbands (Gen. 38:12-19; Josh. 2:1-7). A man was not guilty of sin for visiting a prostitute, though the prostitute herself was regarded as a sinner. Paul must appeal to reason in attacking prostitution (1 Cor. 6:12-20); he cannot lump it in the category of adultery (vs. 9).
Today we are moving, with great social turbulence and at a high but necessary cost, toward a more equitable, non-patriarchal set of social arrangements in which women are no longer regarded as the chattel of men. We are also trying to move beyond the double standard. Love, fidelity and mutual respect replace property rights. We have, as yet, made very little progress in changing the double standard in regard to prostitution. As we leave behind patriarchal gender relations, what will we do with the patriarchalism in the Bible?
10. Jews were supposed to practice endogamy--that is, marriage within the twelve tribes of Israel. Until recently a similar rule prevailed in the American South, in laws against interracial marriage (miscegenation). We have witnessed, within the lifetime of many of us, the nonviolent struggle to nullify state laws against intermarriage and the gradual change in social attitudes toward interracial relationships. Sexual mores can alter quite radically even in a single lifetime.
11. The law of Moses allowed for divorce (Deut. 24:1-4); Jesus categorically forbids it (Mark 10:1-12; Matt. 19:9 softens his severity). Yet many Christians, in clear violation of a command of Jesus, have been divorced. Why, then, do some of these very people consider themselves eligible for baptism, church membership, communion, and ordination, but not homosexuals? What makes the one so much greater a sin than the other, especially considering the fact that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality but explicitly condemned divorce? Yet we ordain divorcees. Why not homosexuals?
12. The Old Testament regarded celibacy as abnormal, and 1 Tim. 4:1-3 calls compulsory celibacy a heresy. Yet the Catholic Church has made it mandatory for priests and nuns. Some Christian ethicists demand celibacy of homosexuals, whether they have a vocation for celibacy or not. But this legislates celibacy by category, not by divine calling. Others argue that since God made men and women for each other in order to be fruitful and multiply, homosexuals reject God's intent in creation. But this would mean that childless couples, single persons, priests and nuns would be in violation of God's intention in their creation. Those who argue thus must explain why the apostle Paul never married. And are they prepared to charge Jesus with violating the will of God by remaining single?
Certainly heterosexual marriage is normal, else the race would die out. But it is not normative. God can bless the world through people who are married and through people who are single, and it is false to generalize from the marriage of most people to the marriage of everyone. In 1 Cor. 7:7 Paul goes so far as to call marriage a "charisma," or divine gift, to which not everyone is called. He preferred that people remain as he was--unmarried. In an age of overpopulation, perhaps a gay orientation is especially sound ecologically!
13. In many other ways we have developed different norms from those explicitly laid down by the Bible. For example, "If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity" (Deut. 25:11f.). We, on the contrary, might very well applaud her for trying to save her husband's life!
14. The Old and New Testaments both regarded slavery as normal and nowhere categorically condemned it. Part of that heritage was the use of female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual toys, breeding machines, or involuntary wives by their male owners, which 2 Sam. 5:13, Judges 19-21 and Num. 31:18 permitted--and as many American slave owners did some 150 years ago, citing these and numerous other Scripture passages as their justification."
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
wife wants to see Superman....booo
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!