August 18, 2010

  • Not a Sin

    (Timestamped for the people who seem to have missed it the first time around!!)

    The primary moral problem is not sex within marriage vs. sex outside marriage, or sex within a heterosexual relationship vs. sex within a homosexual relationship. The problem is sex as a depersonalizing force vs. sex as the fulfillment of a human relationship.
                                                                 —Helmut Thieliecke, theologian

     
    But before faith came, we were kept in prison under the law, waiting for the revelation of the faith which was to come. So the law has been a servant to take us to Christ, so that we might have righteousness by faith. But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a servant. Because you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all those of you who were given baptism into Christ did put on Christ. There is no Jew or Greek, servant or free, male or female: because you are all one in Jesus Christ. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and yours is the heritage by the right of God’s undertaking given to Abraham.
    (Galatians 3:23-29)

     
    As people who claim to follow Jesus Christ, the Bible has special authority for us. Yet this has meant many things to many people.
     
    Correcting Past Misuses of the Bible
     
    Through the years there have been many issues which threatened the unity of the church, and Bible verses have been flung across rooms like rock. Through the ages, people have often taken so-called “definitive texts” to hurl against their opponent. When it comes to these so called definitive texts, John Calvin and others advocated using the message and the spirit of the whole of Scripture as a lens through which we view these passages.
     
    For example, sometimes people in the church have taught that Ham, Noah’s son, had looked on Noah in his nakedness, and for this sin he had been cursed to servitude and slavery along with all of his progeny. And so, many churches in the South quoted Genesis 9:25-27 to justify segregation:
     
     Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers. Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem and let Canaan be his slave. May God make space for Japheth, and let him live in the tens of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave.
     
    But, thank God, the church has said that in light of the whole of Scripture, to use this passage to keep the races separate and to condemn inter-racial marriage is a false use of this passage.
     
    At the time of the Civil War, theologians and churches would quote form 1 Timothy 6:1-2 to support their position that slavery was O.K. as a human institution:
     
    Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved.
     
    But, thank God, the church has said that in light of the whole of Scripture, to use these verses to perpetuate the inhuman and degrading institution of slavery is a false use of these verses.
     
    It has been even more recent that leaders in the church have quoted from 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 to prevent women from being ministers, elders and leaders in worship:
     
    Women should be silent in churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says, if there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
     
    They would also quote form 1 Timothy:
     
                I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man. (2:12)
     
    And a bishop or a deacon must “be the husband of one wife,” meaning that no woman could be a bishop or an elder or a deacon in the church.
     
    But, thank God, the church has said that in light of the whole of Scripture that to use these passages to deny the equality of women, to bar them from leadership positions in the church and to keep them from speaking in worship or teaching in Sunday school is a false view of these passages.
     
    People have also quoted Matthew 19:8-9 where Jesus is portrayed as saying,
     
    For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.
     
    People who quoted this then said that those who divorced and remarried are not fit to be ministers, elders, deacons or even members in the body of Christ, that there is a clear moral absolute from the very lips of Jesus.
     
    But. thank God, the church has said that in light of the whole of Scripture and of the rest of what Jesus said and taught, that to exclude those form the church who have been divorced, to make an absolute and sweeping judgment against them, would be a false reading of these words attributed to Jesus.
     
    I believe that it is time to apply the same principle of interpretation, using the whole of Scriptures, to view a small select group of passages related to homosexuality.
     
    The Bible and Homosexuality
     
    What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Well, not much. Jesus, himself, says nothing, nor do the four gospels. Perhaps in all the Bible there are only five or six passages that appear in any way to deal with it. Yet, nowhere does Scripture condemn homosexuality as it is understood today. I am convinced that Jesus would not condemn same-sex relationships if they are expressions of mutual love and fidelity.
     
    Now, there are in the Bible certain homosexual acts condemned, but these are either part of a list of cultural taboos. Or homosexual acts that are condemned are certain sexual practices such as rape or pedophilia that are wrong no matter who practices them.
     
    Now perhaps the most quoted “definitive text” used to condemn homosexuality is from Paul’s letter to the Romans in chapter one:
     
    For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men…
     
    There are a number of things that are important for understanding this passage. First, homosexual acts were associated with violence and oppression because what often happened was that conquering armies would use these acts to humiliate and abuse the army they conquered. This is largely what happened at Sodom and Gommorra. The men at Sodom were violent and brutal, and their intent was to gang rape the guests in Lot’s house to intimidate and humiliate them. That story was not about homosexual acts per se, but about rape and violent aggression. The same thing happens in prisons. So what they were talking about was heterosexuals using homosexual acts to dominate and hurt others.
     
    It is also important to note that it was prevalent for young boys to be sold and kept as male prostitutes, especially for soldiers. So the first thing we should notice is the view of homosexuality by Paul’s culture was negative because they saw basically only these violent, abusive and exploitive examples of it.
     
    Second, it is important to note that in this passage Paul is using the language of his Jewish audience to convey an entirely different idea. So I want you to see that our verses, Romans 1:26-27 are located within this larger section, Romans 1:18-32.  And in this larger section, Paul is talking about how depraved the Gentiles are.  According to his Jewish audience, these Gentiles—these heathens—were the kind of people who did all kinds of bad stuff.

    So when Paul talks about their “shameless acts” and “unnatural sexual relations,” this was just part of a long list of things about those godless Gentiles. They worshiped images of “a human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.” Listen to what else Paul says about them:
     
    They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
     
    Whoa. Now the point here wasn’t to bash the Gentiles. This long, negative list was in the head of the Jewish listener. It was the typical though pattern against heathen depravity, and Paul is using it to set them up.
     
    So the only way we can take this passage is to see it in the larger framework of Romans 1:16-3:20.  This whole section about “unnatural relations” and how bad the non-Jews were is a set up for the punch line that comes in the very next verse. Here’s the punch line:
     
     
    Therefore, you have no excuse when you judge others. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same thing! (Romans 2:1)
     
    This whole thing plays out like this:
    Paul says, “You know those good-for-nothing Gentiles?”
    “Yeah! Yeah!” jeers the crowd.
    “You know those degenerates, idolaters, adulterers and sexual deviants?”
    “Yeah! Yeah!”
    “You know how terrible they are, right?”
    “Yeah! Yeah!”
    “Well, you are just as bad!”
    “What?”
     
    Paul is trying to make a point not about homosexuality or even about the evil Gentiles, but about grace—that all people fall short and are in need of it. He was saying that God’s saving love doesn’t come to us because of what we are but because of who God is.
     
    You could say that the whole point of the entire letter of Romans was directed toward those who thought themselves to be pure and perfect and who looked down upon others, judging and condemning them. So it’s very ironic that many Christians use passages from Romans out of context to judge and condemn gay and lesbian people, when the whole point of the epistle is not to judge others but to look in the mirror!
     
    So Paul wasn’t talking about what we call “homosexuality,” a word that didn’t exist until the 19th century and that has no equivalent in ancient Greek or Hebrew. He was talking about abusive forms of sexuality. And Paul wasn’t singling out a group of people to condemn and judge as worse than others. He was talking about how all people are in need of grace.
     
    It was also Paul who wrote words that soar with this spirit in the third chapter of his letter to the Galatians:
     
    In Christ there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one.
     
    There is no question in my mind, and in a great many in Christ’s church today, that we must add to this passage,
     
    In Christ there is no longer straight or gay, for in him we are all one.
     
    Look, pious people have taken select passages from scripture to cast judgment upon others since the time of Jesus. We must remember Paul’s statement that
     
    The letter (the written word) kills,
    but the spirit gives life. (2 Cor. 3:6)
     
    Each generation must find the spirit that’s behind the whole thing. And many of us believe that this spirit was embodied by Jesus’ life.
     
    A New Day
     
    If we take the Bible as a whole, it is clear that God sides with those who are oppressed, exploited, rejected and neglected. Who can deny this? It is tragically ironic how the Bible has been used to justify hurting and putting down these groups of people
     
    And the ethic of Jesus, it seems to me, is to love and to care for all. It is to embrace the leper, those who have been shunned, ostracized or excluded. As Bishop John Spong said, “God loves every person my prejudice would reject.” Jesus embodied this love.
     
    You know, when we say that something is sinful, it seems to me we imply that there is a choice. And our modern culture is becoming more aware that homosexuality is not a choice. Medical and scientific communities affirm that sexual orientation is fixed genetically and hormonally before birth or very early in childhood development. It is like being left-handed. It is not a disease, an illness nor a condition to be pitied.
     
    In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of personality disorders, indicating the naturalness of that orientation. Efforts to “reorient” sexual preference almost never works, and although certain sexual behaviors may change, there is no significant or lasting effect upon the sexual feelings and desires. Homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom and throughout human history in all cultures and societies. Instead of condemning it, we should simply accept it as a natural variant to human sexuality.
     
    If even if there is an element of choice there is nothing whatsoever to make any sexual orientation sinful in itself. Helmut Thieliecke, a fairly conservative theologian put it like this:
     
    The primary moral problem is not sex within marriage vs. sex outside marriage, or sex with a heterosexual relationship vs. sex within a homosexual relationship. The problem is sex as a depersonalizing force vs. sex as the fulfillment of a human relationship.
     
    We need to use the whole of scripture—the spirit behind the words—to discover the ethic of Jesus and what the nature of sin truly is.
     
    And when we do this, I believe that we find that sexual orientation has nothing to do with sin, and that we should apply the same standards for loving relationships for gay and straight relationships alike, standards such as respect, gentleness, faithfulness, responsibility and love.
     
    Just as the church discovered these standards with respect to slavery, segregation, women and divorce, it is only a matter of time it will discover them with respect to sexual orientation. For as Martin Luther King said, “The arc of the universe bends toward justice.”
     
    Shalom

Comments (43)

  • Amen. This is the best explanation on this I’ve ever read! :)

  • I’ve pointed out many times to christians who try to use the lot’s guests example to “prove” being gay is wrong, ignoring the fact that they were angels (which would make it bestiality, not homosexuality) and it was rape, not consensual sex. But every time I try to explain this they still find it more reasonable that god was offended by the proximity of two penises than that he was offended by angel rape.

    To quote george bernard shaw, “No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.”

  • “I am convinced that Jesus would not condemn same-sex relationships if they are expressions of mutual love and fidelity.”

    I am sorry to say you have been thoroughly deceived, K. How is our understanding of homosexuality today any different from the understanding people had thousands of years ago> It’s people of the same sex having sex. Don’t you think God knew and fully understood the “medical” or “biological” reasons for it when he prohibited it?

  • @agnophilo - The homosexuality would be the in the intention, not the execution. If they took the form of men then the people that intended to screw them were intending homosexual activities, not bestiality. Also, whether it was rape or not wouldn’t factor in for the people that intended the sex. Again, the issue was that the men intended to have sex. Whether the party would be receptive to that or not is what defines rape and is also the least relevant if we’re discussing the person executing the action.

    Also, not saying I researched this one because I haven’t had cause to in my discussions on xanga yet, God seemed pretty pissed in that charlton heston movie when everyone started commencing with the wild sexing. Just saying.

    I’ll counter that quote by saying that that is true of all reality. The information your brain takes in doesn’t validate your beliefs about reality. Your beliefs about reality validate the information your brain takes in. Or rather, your beliefs about reality help establish a strong basis for how your brain will sort the information it accepts and the information it discards when giving you your perspective on reality.

  • I like the quote with which you ended this entry.

  • Like another commentor has stated, you’ve been deceived. Jesus didn’t do away with the laws, he even stated that.

  • If this is was the case, then how do men and women reproduce? As my pastor said you don’t see male and male animals producing babies. Christ spoke of the law several times. Of this was the case, then we must do away with the entire old testament and loose the precious stories of faith conquering etc. We must get rid of it. If it was supposed to be done away with, then why do we still have it? Yes Christ redeemed us of the law but he still referred to it. And so should we. Just saying.

  • @striemmy - So if in the story they wanted to rape a woman and got got pissed and smote them, you would interpret that as meaning that heterosexual sex is evil?

    @Celtic_haven - So, how many gay men have you executed this month?

    @GodlyWoman83 - So people who can’t reproduce shouldn’t be allowed to have sex or get married?  Does that include the elderly and infertile, sterile men and women who have had ovarian cancer?  Or just fags?

  • @agnophilo -I was wondering the same thing that you asked GodlyWoman83. I know a few couples that are married but can’t have kids. Maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to have sex.  Or what about the married couples that decide not to have children. shouldn’t they be allowed to have sex?

  • @Kristenmomof3 - If someone I didn’t know said that I wouldn’t be able to tell if they were kidding.  But yeah, it’s just a shallow excuse.  

  • Interesting.

    In Islamic tradition the people to which Lut (Lot) (as (upon him be peace)) was sent as a Prophet were wicked as they can get. However in regards to homosexual acts it wasn’t just caravans passing by, they would have orgies with each other during the day. When the beautiful angels visited others had rushed to confirm in a state that was, well, disgusting/shameful iirc. In particular their homosexual activity is described as something noone (no human) before them had done. While homosexuality in and of itself isn’t sinful, acting on it is. Also Lut’s wife had been condemned along with the rest because she had condoned it. Very important case of hate the sin, not the sinner (sad history of AIDs being labeled the product of homosexual lifestyle, then the bottom of the barrel drug-dwellers, it was the affluent homosexual community themselves that had to do all the fighting). 

    It’s not really something that can be fought in secular courts though imo. “God said so” doesn’t hold any water there. Any other reasoning e.g. GodlyWoman83′s (I find Muslims say some of the same stuff) but really that’s not the reason let alone touch on the divine wisdom behind things (as with any religious junction, if you’re doing it for any other reason before faith then well there’s a lot to learn).   

  • @agnophilo - In Christian doctrine the angels were raped?

    Islamically angels can take the form of humans, when they do so they’re beautiful, utterly clean. I would assume they become the same species. However I don’t really know if they become the same exact species sans free choice. Whether they or aren’t I think is not really a point that can be made if those details are absent.

  • @agnophilo - If that didn’t already contradict biblical precedent and the natural order of things, maybe. Speculation is nice, isn’t it? Useless, but nice.

    :edit: nvm. see versatil’s first comment.

  • Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” I think that is pretty clear and simple.

  • @versatil - They said something like “bring them here so we may know them”, know in the “biblical sense” meaning fuck them.  I don’t think they actually got raped, but the fundamentalist interpretation is that god smote them because two penises were involved, as if attempted angel rape wasn’t egregious enough on it’s own.

    @striemmy - Natural order of things?  Wtf are you babbling about.  The nature of a homosexual is to be attracted to and fall in love with members of the same sex.  What you mean is what you decide the natural order of things is regardless of the evidence, so ultimately you are saying that it’s wrong because you don’t agree with it, with no basis.

    And I wasn’t speculating, I was performing a reductio ad absurdum on your premise in the vain hope of showing you what an ass you are being.

    @sdbenfam - ”If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” (leviticus 20:13)

    So, how many gay people have you executed this month?  Since it’s perfectly clear?

  • @agnophilo - That’s fucking stupid. I’m saying on the basis of the fact that sexual interaction, the sole purpose of which is to propagate the species, between members of the same sex does not result in impregnation, that it isn’t in line with the natural order of things. The purpose of it, much like the purpose of many of our other bodily functions, has been bastardized to fit current purposes. stfu.

  • @striemmy - So it’s a sin for sterile men or barren women or the elderly to have sex or get married?

    Or just people you don’t like?

  • @agnophilo - I didn’t say that, did I? Although that would be a matter of the right equipment in the right place with defects.

    You have two choices here. Either you’re going to stop making assumptions about me fuckface, or you’re going to shut the fuck up. You make the choice dude.

  • @agnophilo - Straw-manning me doesn’t win you any brownie points. 

  • @striemmy - It isn’t a strawman you douchebag, it’s a reductio ad absurdum.

    If it’s immoral to fuck for any reason other than procreation then it’s immoral for straight people who can’t have kids too.  But you don’t believe that, showing you to be a total hypocrite who just doesn’t like gay people regardless of how many holes your position has.

  • @agnophilo - It is a strawman or you’re just an idiot because you obviously didn’t read what I wrote. I said it wasn’t in the natural order of things and I capped off the discussion relating this entire thread to the original posting by stating that it went against biblical precedent. Let me make this easy for you since you seem to have developed a touch of illiteracy. NOT ONCE DID I MENTION THE MORALITY, OR LACK THEREOF, OF ANY ACTION OR ACTIONS, MORON!

    Go back and read you fucking fool. Don’t foist your emotional stake in this issue onto me.

  • @striemmy - I’m pretty sure whatever the issue actually was all the substance of it has been diluted by the vulgar language you submitted with the rest of your speech. Resorting to ad hominem is only useful to call someone out on their insincerity.

    I don’t get how if one person’s homage is to rationale/truth and another to god how that should let either of them treat each other as inferior. it’s not like the lack of belief of the former has sucked out his human spirit or that the belief of the latter has dissolved his mind. we’re all still equipped with what we are. 

    sorry for the digression but you’re both on someone else’s blog at which and to whom presumably religion is an important thing. at least try to keep it civil.

  • I lol’ed when I saw the question being posed to me. There’s a difference in being infertile (which my husband and I are dealing with!) and being gay. Medically we have the technology that we didn’t have a few yrs ago. Biologically and psychological studies have proven that it’s a mindset. A lot of people who are gay have a lot insecurities due to something happening to them that was dramatic. I can’t believe that the secular psychologists have treated this as “you’re born that way”. That is so not true. It’s a choice to be gay not be born that way. The Levitical law says not to lay with a man like a woman with another man. Vice versa. Hate me but I’m just stating a couple biological facts along with the Bible

  • @agnophilo - ”So, how many gay people have you executed this month?  Since it’s perfectly clear?”
    “When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them,
    “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a
    stone at her.” -John 8:7

  • @striemmy - So you’re saying that homosexuality isn’t any more or less moral than asperin or air conditioning or contact lenses, since these things are “unnatural”?  Are you saying that homosexuality isn’t immoral?  And if so what then is your point?

    As far as an “emotional stake”, I called you a douchebag after you distorted what I said and called me fuckface.

    @GodlyWoman83 - And what, straight people don’t have insecurities and never experience traumatic events?  To suppose that all gay people are just fucked up by their childhood is no more reasonable than to suppose all straight people are just “that way” because of their childhood.  And infertility just comes up when people try to justify anti-gay positions by saying that sex that doesn’t produce offspring is a sin, which is of course hypocritical since they’re only ever singling out gays.

    @sdbenfam - Yes, the bible does contradict itself a lot.

  • @agnophilo - not a contradiction, it’s just part of the change over from going from law to grace. 

  • @sdbenfam - Mystical mumbo jumbo aside, yes it’s a contradiction.

  • @agnophilo -  ok so I’m an idiot for bringing up the reasoning to why most gays use when they’re asked yet it’s not the same for heterosexuals. What you just said is contradicting on itself. Never did I single anyone one of you out. My world never. Half the gays that are out there have had the same issues as heterosexuals do. My husband was molested at 13 but he had to make a choice then. Life is full of choices and being gay is a choice and a sin. And my curiosity has kicked in…… Give me a few examples where the bible contradicts itself.

  • @GodlyWoman83 - No, being gay is not a choice unless you’re bisexual.  And gay people being more traumatized (for things other than being in a country filled with people who think their mere existence is offensive that is) is a stereotype, it doesn’t reflect on reality.  If gay people have it harder it’s because of religion and being in a minority, not gayness itself.

    So far as biblical contradictions, off the top of my head there are two versions of judas’ death, two people claimed to be jesus’ non-biological father, genesis 1 and 2 give very different versions of the creation account.  Here is a good video on the subject.

  • Excellent post, and very enlightening!

  • @versatil - Vulgarity does not bastardize arguments. People either incapable or unwilling to comprehend something beyond the use of vulgarity bastardizes arguments. No one thinks less of Chuck Palahniuk because of his use of vulgarity. They appreciate his writing on a level above and beyond the surface, which is what you’re fixating on if you think that my particular word choice has marred my argument. Moreover, an ad hominem attack uses vulgarity in the -place of an argument. I added vulgarity to an already existing one. To boot, the conversation continued on after that comment unhindered. 

    Though you’re grievously wrong in the first part of your comment, I at least have taken into consideration the fact that this is someone else’s blog and though I may respect the person and their writing I am not deterred from expressing myself in the manner that I please. 

  • @agnophilo - I’m not making moral claims about homosexuality at all. You went down that road, not me. My only intent was to respond to your initial comment. Every step of the way I haven’t been constructing a different argument or expressing a belief but responding to comments individually. Why you saw fit to try and put that all together, with much added nonsense that I never said or implied, is completely beyond me. My point was that what you were saying wasn’t correct. 

    So, you mean you called me a name after I took something that you said and made it seem like you were saying something else? You mean after you strawmanned me to death? Yeah, that tends to be rather upsetting and sometimes results in name-calling. 

  • @striemmy - When someone says “so you’re saying x?”, it’s a question, not a strawman you tool.

    And you don’t seem to be saying much of anything.

  • I have to respectfully disagree w/ you on this post Kristen.  

    What is sin?  Sin in Hebrew literally means “to miss the mark”  as in shooting arrows at a bulls eye and missing the target.  God has laid out what is sin and what it is not…this cannot be changed.   The most important commands are to love God and our neighbors as ourselves…to not do so is missing that mark (aka sinning).   Every command that God has laid out, whether  “positive” or “negative”  (“do” or “don’t) goes back to either loving God more than ourselves or loving our neighbors more than ourselves.    Even the command loving our neighbor as ourselves is contained in loving God.   “If you love me, you will keep my commands” are the words of Yeshua/Jesus.   We can’t do these things on our own BUT through Messiah Yeshua (Jesus) we can do all things.

    I know a lot of LGBT people say that they can’t help it AND I believe them!    Of course they can’t…BUT God can!   There’s nothing more “wrong” w/ them than what is wrong with straight people who are lost and don’t know Messiah Yeshua/ Jesus.  I’m not saying that an experience with Messiah would instantly change their feelings of same sex attraction, it’s a process but with God ALL things are possible…we have to have faith and submit to what degree that we have been given faith.     As Bad Penny says “Focus too much on the sin of the lost, and
    Christ is lost.   Christ, not sin, should always be our focus, because
    He can remove all the sin.”

    I know this is true, I’ve seen it in mine and my husband’s lives firsthand.  I don’t suppose I ever told you were Jason stole his first kiss from me???  A gay bar in our town…”and now you know the rest of the story.”  ;o)

    **With that being said though I am in favor of LGBT community in our country having equal rights with everyone else.**  

    Love in Messiah,
    Angela

  • @agnophilo - “What you mean is what you decide the natural order of things is regardless of the evidence, so ultimately you are saying that it’s wrong because you don’t agree with it, with no basis.” -you

    Stfu you invertebrate. I caught you in your bullshit. Deal with it and move on. 

  • @striemmy - As I said, you haven’t said much of anything.  You just implied what your position was, then when I responded, bashed me for assuming you meant what you implied and pretended some central thesis of my position which you hadn’t even addressed had been defeated.

  • @agnophilo - Ok, I’m kind of tired of talking in circles with you. My last comment just explained that my comments were in response to your individual comments. Now, in what way does that imply a position of my own and/or even touch upon your ‘central thesis’ of your position? Again, cut the crap. You came at me sideways thinking I was a ‘phobe or a bigot or whatever else you wanted to throw around without any basis and now you’re trying to cover yourself. Let’s be as clear as possible since you seem to be sticking with your intentional lack of comprehension. If you say something and I say “well, no, that’s not quite correct and here are the ways in which it isn’t”, that is not an expression of a position necessarily, so much as it is a critique of your own. No matter how many more instances of that you add on after the first, it does not add up to constitute a position. No number of critiques is going to make what I say a position on an issue. You’re right, I haven’t really said much, save for the fact that you were wrong and why you were wrong, which is why it’s absolutely ridiculous AND contradictory for you to speak of the implication of a position, of which there is none, and then to say that you didn’t strawman me, when the fact that I didn’t have a position but you constructed one for me and then bashed me for it and then shot the imaginary position down says exactly the opposite. Moreover, you’re taken to the thought that the bible is an absurd document, which I well knew at the time of the comment, so of course you were going to be successful in attempting to reductio ad absurdum If the bible is an absurd document then it really doesn’t matter whether a proposition put forth to defend it ends in an absurd consequence. It isn’t necessarily held to the laws of reason in that manner. A consequence which on the surface appears to be absurd, like ‘so jesus could have made enough food out of those bread loaves and fish to feed the entire planet?’, is expected. If we’re discussing an interpretation within the system though it becomes an issue of whether it’s absurd for the context. So perhaps it’s absurd for jesus to make enough food to feed the entire planet, unless you’re in the context of a biblical demi-god. Not so absurd. But beyond even that, you didn’t perform it correctly because the system in question is too complex for such a small change in the story to change the meaning in a equivalent way. Like I pointed out, that you totally frickin ignored, the issue of biblical precedent and of one story supporting another, supporting another, supporting another, wouldn’t make the proposition you tried to put out as an absurd consequence a realistic interpretation, hence my maybe and the rest of my comment. 

    But no, it’s okay, it’s not like you should have thought of all of that yourself instead of resorting to calling me a bigot. Really, it’s cool. 
    Are we done here? 

  • This makes a lot of sense. Religion and ideas evolve, just as they should. I’m glad you’re one of those people that thinks so too! As I said, I’m not religious, but whenever I think about this I find it unlikely that a higher power would punish something that is not chosen. I feel like love is beautiful and that’s all that would matter to God/any deity. Great post :)

  • nah this is a weird post because: A) the thing about the women, that wasnt a sin. however, homosexuality is. god makes that clear in many ways. he hates sexual imorality.

    that is not to say that god does not love them, and it doesnt mean that he doesnt want them to be saved “god wishes that none may perish”

    but that doesnt change the fact that homosexuality is quite definilty, a sin.

  •  1 Corinthians 14:34-35 — I’m glad you brought this one up, as I studied it recently and learned quite a bit. Is it true, or do you know, that when read in full historical context, this means something very different than what the modern church often reads it as?  My understanding (read: someone far more educated in this chapter of history told me about it) is that in Corinth during this time period, the dominant religion of the region was goddess worship (I forget which one offhand). The temples there were thus female-dominated to the point that men were the ones expected to be submissive — to the point where a priestess could summon a male from the congregation to come up to the front for public, ritual sex. So then you’ve got the church in Corinth, notorious for being influenced by the surrounding pagan religions of the day, similarly elevating women above men in the church. In this context, Paul wasn’t saying “women should always be silent”, but truly, it was more “uh, hey guys…stop that.”  The women in THAT church did need to be quiet, as their ego-trip had gone far enough. Leave it to the modern church to read this out of context and create a butt-backwards problem, ironically. Of course, this is second-hand history for me, so I have a lot more research and study to do on my own to confrim this, but it certainly strikes me as very interesting.

    It is interesting — and more importantly, very fortunate — that our modern understanding of Scripture has evolved so that we no longer condemn interracial marriage or support slavery. Regardless of whether one concludes homosexuality is a sin or not scritpurally, I think all should agree that persecution of homosexuals IS a sin. No two ways about it.

  • @The_James_Blog - very very true. Great comment!

  • THE 7th COMMANDMENT: Jesus said:

    “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust [Gk: epithumeo,Neg. 'covet, desire, lust after'] after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:27-28).

    Likewise, one breaks the 7th commandment if a woman lusts after a man, or a woman lusts after a woman, or a women lusts after a little boy, or a man lusts after a man, or a man lusts after a little boy, or a little girl. If the “lust” itself BREAKS the commandment, what in the world do we think the actual “act” BREAKS?

    “THE 10th COMMANDMENT: Paul said:

    “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust [Gk: epithumia, 'a longing (for what is forbidden), concupiscence {a strong sexual lust}, desire, lust'] except the law had said, You shall not covet [Gk: epithumeo, Neg. 'covet, desire, lust after']“ (Rom. 7:7).

    Okay then, if we can all walk and chew gum at the same time, we should not have a problem in putting these two Greek words together. Jesus said that “epithumeo-covet, desire, lust after” breaks the 7th commandment against adultery. And Paul said that the reason that “epithumia-a longing for what is forbidden, concupiscence {a strong sexual lust}, desire, and lust” is wrong is because the 10th commandment states “You shall not covet”-epithumeocovet, desire, lust after.” But wait, there’s more.

    The 10th commandment goes on to say:

    “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is your neighbor’s” (Ex.20:17).

    Now then, let me spell it out for you: Believers in Christ Jesus are NOT to covet [epithumeo-"covet, desire, lust after"] his neighbor’s:

    WIFE-neither men nor women are to covet one’s neighbor’s wife.

    MANSERVANT-neither men nor women are to covet their neighbor’s manservant, whether they be 9 years old or 29 years old.

    MAIDSERVANT-neither men nor women are to covet one’s neighbor’s maidservant, whether they are 9 years old or 29 years old.

    OX OR ASS-neither men nor women are to covet one’s neighbor’s ox or ass whether for production of meat or to have sex with them.

    The teaching of the Old Testament, the New Testament, the 7th commandment, the 10th commandment, the teachings of the Apostle Paul, AND our Lord Jesus Christ, ALL condemn homosexuality as SIN. This subject is completely book-ended-there is no wiggle room left for justifying the practice of homosexuality in any form.”

    “For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain [remain sexually pure and virtuous], let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn [Gk: puroo-'inflamed with lust']“ (I Cor. 7:7-9).

    Back up a few verses for God’s answer as to who should be married to whom:

    “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication [Gk: porneia], let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (I Cor. 7:2).

    Paul knew about “women with women and men with men” when he wrote his epistle to the Romans (Rom. 1:26-27). Such unions against nature are clearly not acceptable solutions to burning with inflamed sexual emotions, and a way to “avoid fornication/porneia.” Peter warns against being willingly ignorant, and Paul sternly warns against “Believers” who “willfully sin?”

    “For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries” (Heb. 10:26-27).

    Paul could not have been more clear. To avoid the sin of porneia, we are to [1] MARRY, [2] MEN marry a WIFE, and [3] WOMEN marry a HUSBAND. Men marrying men and women marrying women are not legal options. Men and women who have vile affections, and BURN in their lust, women with women and men with men… are worthy of DEATH (Rom. 1:26-27 & 32).

    How many homosexuals would dare insinuate that their passion for one another of the same gender is not coveting/lust? Are believers to think that they can continue living in such sin and somehow be covered by the “the grace of God?”

    Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? Rom 6:2 God forbid

    Have a nice day. 

Post a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *