|
Post by Satori on Mar 8, 2005 5:33:58 GMT -5
Personally, I think if God thought it was important enough He'd have mentioned it in the ten commandments ("Thou shalt not be gay" or whatever).
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Mar 8, 2005 12:53:27 GMT -5
God does mention it in the Mosaic laws. Leviticus 20:13. More proof of how God detests the act of homosexuality. The Ten Commandments are commandments that sum up most of what else is in the Mosaic law. Just because something isn't in the Ten Commandments doesn't automatically mean that God doesn't care enough about it. And if anyone wants to know how we can know that homosexuality is still consider a detestable act in God's eyes in the new covenant, I'll refer again to the many writings of Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Mar 8, 2005 17:44:40 GMT -5
God does mention it in the Mosaic laws. Leviticus 20:13. I don't disagree that it's mentioned and even forbidden according to most interpretations of the Bible - all the more reason to cast it aside as outdated homophobic tosh IMHO. I don't think we need any more proof of how Christian Conservatism is an outdated philosophy (IMHO). Why didn't He mention it there though? Did He have a pressing engagement somewhere else? How hard would it have been for a God to inscribe "Thou shalt not be gay" as the 11th commandment? What I'm getting at is that it all appears to be a general, ongoing process of establishing laws, probably by subsequent people. That's the way it should happen, but unfortunately it stopped undergoing this process of evolution when religion became too dogmatic an institution to allow it to do so. Hence it's outdated and we should bear that in mind when attempting to apply scriptural law to present times. No need; I agree that the Bible's homophobic. Of course I don't expect you to agree with my views of the Bible being developed by human hands because you'll see the Bible as a literal intepretation of 'God's Word'. I don't see it that way of course, but I do see it as an important book because of the influence it has on our society and that's why I think Biblical analysis is important. Do you really believe that God would present us with the same laws in the same way today as He did back then?
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Mar 8, 2005 18:50:41 GMT -5
I don't disagree that it's mentioned and even forbidden according to most interpretations of the Bible - all the more reason to cast it aside as outdated homophobic tosh IMHO. Yes we should just cast it aside because we, surely, must be more advanced in our thinking today Also its not an interpretation, it's what is actually in the text of the Bible. A better question is "why does God need to make it the eleventh commandment?". God does need to put something in the "Ten Commandments" for it to still be a command. Not every law in the United States is in the Constitution. Yet, the law still remains. Correct, I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Sin is sin. I don't believe that God would suddenly say "homosexuality used to be an abomination in my eyes, but now its perfectly fine." God is unchanging from everlasting to everlasting. This also means that God is unchanging in His love. He loves the homosexual just as much as any sinner. He offers them life eternal as well.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Mar 8, 2005 19:36:16 GMT -5
Mike had already written:
And in relation to your points about Leviticus's prohibitions of homosexual activities, as has been previously stated numerous times, almost all of the other prohibitions in those verses are no longer adhered to by the Church today, such as having heterosexual sex during menstruation, eating "unclean" animals and sowing fields with mixed types of seeds. As Mike put it in regards to Lev 20:13
So referring to Leviticus (or anything else in the OT, in my opinion) does nothing to strengthen your case and is irrelevant. This debate must be placed squarely in the New Testament if we are to discuss this properly, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Mar 8, 2005 19:51:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Mar 8, 2005 19:52:12 GMT -5
So referring to Leviticus (or anything else in the OT, in my opinion) does nothing to strengthen your case and is irrelevant. This debate must be placed squarely in the New Testament if we are to discuss this properly, I think. Incorrect. That passage from Leviticus still stands because Paul affirms it several times. Mike's translation of the Greek is wrong. Plain wrong. Once again, I suggest he learn Greek first. Also, it doesn't explain what Paul writes in Romans 1:26-27.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Mar 8, 2005 19:52:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Mar 8, 2005 20:27:57 GMT -5
I disagree with this writer entirely.
Assuming, though, what he says to be true about Romans 1:26-27, how then can we read I Corinthians 6:9? Paul clearly makes a distinction there between idolaters and homosexuals. Should they not just be in one word since they are supposedly describing the same thing, according to the author's interpretation of Romans 1:26-27?
Also, translating Paul is not difficult to do at all. In fact, Romans is one of the easiest books of the Bible to translate. I also find it funny that someone who chooses to teach something outside of Christian orthodoxy (and, thus, heresy) decided to use what Peter writes even though it speaks about people such as he (IMHO).
I feel that the author also, intentionally, chooses to ignore what Paul knew, as a son of Pharisees, about Mosaic law and how it relates to the discussion in order to try to prove his point.
Lastly, the author assumes that anyone who interprets Scripture as I have (as well as any other in orthodoxy) must be a hater of homosexuals. Let me state clearly that it is not the homosexual that I hate. It is the act of homosexuality that I hate. There is a very large difference. Homosexuality is a sin just like any other (lying, stealing, murder, etc.). The homosexual needs the love of Jesus just as much as you and I.
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Mar 8, 2005 20:39:23 GMT -5
Also, Shiggy, I'd like for you tell me why you think that two millennia of Christians, guided by the Holy Spirit, the author of the Bible, have never noticed supposed "errors" in interpretation that, suddenly, many non-Christians (for it is they who have started and led the movement for the Church to "revise" its doctrines to make them more "palatable" for today's cultural) who have no relationship with the Holy Spirit have "discovered". Why is it that the venerable Polycarp and the other disciples of the apostles interpreted it this way? I feel that this point needs to be raised. Do not mistake what I'm saying to be "non-christians can't criticize the Bible". It's, "why are we giving them so credit and not the millions of faithful believers who have never seen these things that supposedly exist?"
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Mar 9, 2005 3:38:55 GMT -5
Yes we should just cast it aside because we, surely, must be more advanced in our thinking today Not necessarily 'more advanced' (although that's partly true), just living within a different society. Societies change and their morals change along with that. It was once considered 'okay' to burn witches, but we moved on from that; maybe we should move on from this too. All of the Bible's an interpretation, beginning with the original author's interpretation of what God wanted through to various interpretations and translations throughout history. Granted there will be much that appears fairly straightforward to interpret, but evidently there is a lot that isn't otherwise we'd just have one sect of Christianity with a single Biblical intepretation (don't tell me - your interpretation happens to be right and all the others are wrong - thought so! ) 'Need' has nothing to do with it. This is God we're talking about - why didn't He just make it clear? He is meant to be omnipotent and omniscient after all - surely it wouldn't be too much trouble. True, and laws are modified with time. Well we're obviously gulfs apart in our beliefs there. But He did do that. When He gave Moses the 10 commandments homosexuality was fine. Then more laws were supposedly passed down that made it a sin. Clearly God can change His mind (assuming for one ludicrous moment we believe these laws to be direct from God). Alternatively, maybe whoever invented the 10 commandments wasn't homophobic and whoever added the other laws was. That sounds a more likely explanation; I can't imagine an omnipotent God needing to pass the laws down in dribs and drabs. I mean, He could carve it all in 100ft letters on a mountain for all to see if He wished. Mysterious ways I'll bet. So, you think that God would send someone up a mountain today (alone) to get His 10 commandments too? Today's Moses would just come back down again and say " look, God and I had a chat up this mountain and I have these laws we must all follow" and we'd all just go " excellent, you must be right - we all believe. Nice ark by the way.". I doubt it. The only reason most religion survives today is because virtually all religious 'events' happened thousands of years ago and can't be proven one way or another. Of course it fills a need too: the need for something 'more', the need to avoid death etc., and that's a powerful force which makes people want to believe. Hence the power of religion and the way it can make people do things they wouldn't normally. Good people will perform kind deeds and bad people will perform evil deeds, but to get good people performing evil deeds needs religion.
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Mar 10, 2005 17:20:47 GMT -5
'Need' has nothing to do with it. This is God we're talking about - why didn't He just make it clear? He is meant to be omnipotent and omniscient after all - surely it wouldn't be too much trouble. Once again, He did make it clear. The Lord declared homosexuality to be an abomination in Leviticus 18:22. Entirely. Incorrect. Homosexuality was still wrong. Once again I would reference the fact that God's truth and character do not change. Also, there is still the issue of Sodom and Gomorrah, which was destroyed before the Mosaic law was given. Are you invoking the documentary hypothesis here? If so, I reject that completely as well and would encourage you to use that hypothese on other pieces of literature from the past such as Beowulf. There is no need for that today, because He's already revealed His truth through the Scriptures. But if you were the Israelites, who had recently been freed from Egypt by the plauges sent by God, had been saved from Pharoah's army by the opening and closing of the Sea of Reeds, and provided with Manna and water from the rock, I think you just might say something like to that to God's prophet. Well, I think that there is a lot of historical evidence that affirms several things that are written in the Bible. It's not like it's completely of base, historically speaking, when discussing the histories of Israel and Judah. I think there are other religions, such as Mormanism, that have less historical backing for their holy books (like the "Book of Morman", in this case). Also, I agree with you that Christianity fills a human need. I believe that human nature has a giant hole in its soul that can only filled with a relationship with God. And although it can't be "proven" by scientific means, I think that the supernatural transformation of lives by the Holy Spirit is a testament to that fact.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Mar 10, 2005 18:08:38 GMT -5
Once again, He did make it clear. The Lord declared homosexuality to be an abomination in Leviticus 18:22. Okay, so tell me why He didn't include it in the 10 commandments if indeed they were written by God? Doesn't the whole 'emerging laws' situation logically lead you to see that these laws were developed by human hands, over a number of iterations? (rhetorical question there I guess, because evidently you can't see that!) Hmm, they seem to as far as I'm concerned. We'll just have to accept that we have differing views on that. I'm just saying that that's the way it appears. There is some scholarly disagreement about who wrote the Pentateuch. To many linguists it appears to be written by four different hands and just from what we're discussing here it seems probable that at least two writers are involved. Then again there's little point in arguing this as you believe this 'God's Hand' stuff anyway, so it probably wouldn't matter to you if it was written by one hand or many (although I'd guess you think it's probably all written by Moses). How convenient. Nothing now as it could be challenged much more effectively. Yep, I can see how the Israelites would believe pretty much anything their leader told them. I can also see how the God that Moses chose was appropriate and effective at the time. LOL, I was actually talking about the Ark of the Covenant, not Noah's Ark. Yep, I agree. Of course they have 'less historical backing' - they don't suit your views do they?! Possibly, but I'm not sure the Abrahamic God's the right one for the job these days. I think that transformation is achieved despite religion not because of it. Religion is merely a tool and I think those wishing to transform their lives can and do use other tools (and indeed other religions) just as effectively. Actually I can see that a large portion of society still does need religion (I guess I'm one of them), but I'd like to see society developing their religions a bit more, allowing them to progress. Unfortunately that puts me at odds with a lot of religion as it is often dogmatic, rooted heavily in past superstitions and unwilling to change for fear of losing its control. You see this is where we will never agree. I believe religion is created by Man and I believe the 'personas' we attribute to God are ones we invent ourselves. God, if such a thing even exists, is ethereal and not sitting in judgement over Man (which to me is merely a 'keeping us in line' strategy for religious leaders). To me the Bible describes a mixture of myth and history. It shows how the Abrahamic religion was invented and does a fairly good job of depicting the reasons why it was successful. I'm dubious about the 'goodness' presented in the OT, although I can see more evidence of that 'goodness' in Jesus of course (if not in the likes of Paul). Have no doubt that I have the greatest respect for Jesus and what he tried to do, but Son of God? Nah, not in the sense that it's generally portrayed. Thanks for the pleasant discourse though. I'd like to think I've learnt a little bit more as a result.
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Mar 10, 2005 19:29:42 GMT -5
Okay, so tell me why He didn't include it in the 10 commandments if indeed they were written by God? Again, I don't think He needed to. His word is law, whether its specifically in the 10 commandments or if it's somewhere else. No, it doesn't. I agree that scholar's believe that. I would suggest, again, that the hypothesis should be just as critical to other pieces of ancient literature, if it's to be taken seriously. True to the first point, yes to the second. Again, another point of disagreement between due to our beliefs about the origin of the Bible and the religions of Judaism and Christianity. I would say that Moses didn't choose a god, but God chose Moses. Obviously you would disagree. Haha, yeah I deleted that comment a minute after I posted it, because when I reviewed what I had written, I considered that. Still, the Ark of the Covenant wasn't brought down from the mountain when Moses delivered the Ten Commandments to Israel. No, that's not why I said that. Once again, there has been historical evidence found in the region of Palestine that confirms the existence and accomplishments of certain kings of Israel, etc. In the case of the Book of Mormon, I haven't heard any archaelogical digs recently discovering Nephite remains in America. I mean, if you have, then I'd like to hear about it. As far as I know, though, no such evidence exists. What do you feel He tried to do? Also, was Jesus a pathological liar in your opinion? He claimed to be the Son of God. Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Mar 11, 2005 0:34:47 GMT -5
Areopagite, I have actually enjoyed this discussion. I stand by my acceptance of homosexuality in Christians. I don't agree with your view at all, but I am glad that it seems to be based mainly on what you sincerely believe to be textual. My anger is directed at ignorant people who enjoy power trips, to which the Church is an undeniably complacent and hospitable institution.
Everyday people have diverse Biblical interpretations which are verified, to them, by (among many other things, including education and logic) spiritual experience and emotion. This cannot be challenged (I realise, due to its inherently illogical nature), but it is spiritually real nonetheless and God does not step in to let people know if their views are "wrong"; they continue with passion and experience in people's lives without contradictory divine interruption. This is one reason why I don't believe it's all as simple as objective truth.
|
|