Is the Bible against homosexuality? [Archive]

Marco

01-02-2007, 04:33 PM

Hi. This is my first post. :) I’m heterosexual (happily married for 28 years and home-schooling mother of six), but have recently become convinced that homosexuality is not biblically wrong. Amazing as well is that I’ve never met a homosexual, of which I know, at least. :rolleyes: But being around fundamentalist Christians all my life, I’ve heard what they say about you. You’ve heard too and have felt the resultant pain, so I don’t need to tell you again. Let me just summarize that they don’t accept your interpretations and your dismissals of the six biblical passages. How can they when their Bibles state the following? Romans 1:26-28 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. About passages like the above, I’ve read this site’s explanations and justifications, and I must admit that they are unconvincing to me as well. Additionally, even if the above passages don’t apply to you, then I’d think that you’d have to acknowledge your violation of other scriptural injunctions like those against sexual immorality (1 Cor. 6:13, 18, 2 Cor. 12:21, Gal. 5:19-21, Eph. 5:3, 1 Thes. 4:6). Perhaps you agree; I’ve observed that many of you here are turning to more tolerant religions like Buddhism.

May I offer a possible alternative? Here it is: observe the 1 Corinthian’s passage I printed above, “will inherit the kingdom of God.” I propose that the kingdom came in 70 AD, at the Temple’s destruction. (Please carefully read the following; it’s good!!!!) Jesus said that Jerusalem’s desolation was the “days of vengeance in fulfillment of all that had been written” (Luke 21:20, 22). All! The “all that had been written” included the passing of the Law (Mat. 5:17-18), the finishing of the transgression, and the ending of sin (Daniel 9:24, 26).

The resurrection (or rapture) also occurred then (Daniel 12:2, 7), not physically in the future, as Christians suppose, but spiritually in 70 AD, so that “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage” (Mat. 22:30). Therefore my belief is that neither you homosexuals nor we straights are married! At least from God’s point of view, we’re not. I think that none of us are sinning if we choose sexual behaviors outside of marriage, whether heter- or homosexual.

That’s what I think. It’s also what I believe the Bible teaches. Shocking, yes?

About the above, I’ve been writing. May I ask the favor of your literary criticism? :) :love: My writing is in the form of fiction, so I think it will be an interesting read. Do you want me to post the first couple pages?

pnggrad79

01-02-2007, 05:14 PM

Hi,
I grew up in a Southern Baptist household, and I think that speaks for itself the kind of fundamentalism in which I grew up. When I discovered I was a lesbian, or came out to myself, I had battled with it for 12 years reading the same scriptures you quoted, and condemning myself. I when I gave up the fight after begging God to take it from me ad infinitum, I did some research. You quoted at least two scriptures commonly used against us. My research, which I firmly believe in today, is nothing like what I grew up with. It is sound, biblical and quite affirming of homosexuality as we know it today.

First, when you read Romans and Corinthians, it must be read in the historical context in which it was written. Consider to whom it was addressed, and why. Paul encountered a society heavily influenced by Greek and Roman theology, and was writing to the Romans and Corinthians who battled with their knowledge of the gods and goddesses and this newfound religion of Jesus. Paul was encouraging them to leave their pagan religions-which included temple prostitution-both heterosexual and homosexual. This is historical fact, and when we in 2007 fail to consider the historical context of a 2000 year old writing, we not only skew its true meaning but we embark on the danger of making it say what WE want and not what the AUTHOR meant. It is arrogant and ignorant of anyone to take what Paul was saying as literally applicable today. The fundamentalists take it so literally that they fail to see the heart of the message of Paul and that was simply live a holy life, keep away from things that harm you and your witness for Christ.

I was raised to take things like this literally, and no one ever mentioned the historical context of these passages. In fact, if one looks at all the passages that seem to condemn homosexuality, historically, they don't condemn homosexuality at all. They condemn a specific behavior that thumbs its nose at God, and makes a mockery of him. Christian gays and lesbians do not thumb their nose at God and most are sincere in their efforts to please God.

Thank you for your post and I hope that you will read Mel White's book Stranger At the Gate and his defense of homosexuality found also on this website. I know a lot of people with a lot more knowledge and who are way more articulate will expound on this more than I have. Nonetheless God Bless you and I hope to hear more from you in the future.:)

BruceChris

01-02-2007, 05:28 PM

I find that pretty much all of the people that I meet or read here are accepting, caring, decent people, not judgemental in nature, kind of like Jesus told us to be in the Great Commandment. I would suggest that you learn more about what we believe by clicking on resources, and articles.

I hope that I am far more of a Christian, than I am a biblical scholar, and I am in NO position to discuss whether any of the events mentioned in the end times have already happened. There are others here who can do that.

Read our thoughts, meet our people, and ask some questions.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

Pacific

01-05-2007, 11:15 AM

I.

Forum-member 'Seer' writes:

"Homosexuality is an abomination to God, and a grevious sin. So why would we believe any of this?"

Then 'Coffeeshop' replies:

"My kid-brother is homosexual and I must admit that I don't trust the teachings on homosexuality in the bible at all.

Imagine, God created the universe, the galaxies, and everything, and then he becomes unbalanced by homosexuals making love? A love that can't even hurt anybody. One thinks, that cannot be true.

Somebody once said: we all know how homosexuality became condemned in the bible: Moses had something against homosexuality, and therefor God had something against homosexuality. The prophet taking too easily his own will for the will of God.

And let's look what the Bible actually says about the source of homosexuality. It is punishment for sin. Here is the part.

21] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

[22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

[23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

[24] Wherefore God also gave them

(He himself gives them up to this! So he has a part in this too!)

up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

[25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

(That Amen tells me that Paul is not at all sure about his way of 'reasoning' here.)

[26] For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:

(Again, God is at least partner here.)

for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

[27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

[28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

[29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

[30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

[31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Gay people are all that? Some of the finest people on earth, like Plato and da Vinci and Michelangelo? Without natural affection? Inventors of evil things?

[32] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

So (32) God punishes men for their sins with the homosexual act. And for that act they have to be punished again? I think that only works for homophobic people.

I think I know what is going on here. This is Paul who wants to save the demand for the death penalty of the Old Testament, and who doesn't understand why there can be an omnipotent God who hates homosexuality, and a gay-life at the same time. And hence the terrible mess in Romans.

And on top of this: the letters claim that the New Testament is merely a vehicle for alchemy (and they say homosexuality is a requirement for alchemy). Now, we don't know whether that is true, but it explains the, let's say, sligthtly unheterosexual Jesus is in the Gospels (fiction, alchemical fiction, according to the Paris 4).

On top of that, you can get anything from the Bible. What about Jonathan and David for instance? That's not merely about friendship... "

Taken from the CE2 article

www.world-mysteries.com/PhilipGardiner/forbidden_letters.htm;)

Kissa

01-05-2007, 06:45 PM

novaseeker

01-08-2007, 11:00 AM

Has anyone read "The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love" by John Shelby Spong? There's a whole chapter on what the Bible says about homosexuality. I found it absolutely fascinating. I am not Christian myself, but I used to be and my family is, so it's nice to be able to defend my view using the same source they do. (Should the opportunity ever arise.) I really do recommend that book if you are interested in the topic.

It's an interesting read, but I think that Spong's take isn't the most helpful, simply because he isn't speaking from a position that is considered "orthdodox" by the vast majority of Christian believers. In many Christian circles, Spong isn't considered really to be "Christian" any longer (and not only fundamentalists think that, really ... many mainstream, liberal, "mainline" Protestants and middle of the road RCs have no time for Spong's ideas). SO while I like to read some of his things simply because the perspective is interesting, nevertheless I do think that his books are not really going to convince most Christian believers, because the source of them -- Spong -- has been long since discredited in their eyes.

matthewspeed

01-19-2007, 01:22 AM

I am a Christian who happens to be gay. I was heavily involved in the ex-gay movement. I was with an affiliate of Exodus International, probably THE
"mother" of all national ex-gay ministries. I saw, first hand, the mishandling of the scriptures as they apply to gay individuals.

My main point is the hypocrocy with which most Christians are guilty of. Of the many examples of Christian hypocrocy, I will talk about Divorce and remarriage. If you are going to say homosexuality is worthy of death (spiritual death= hell), than all christians who are divorced and remarried, are going to be in the front of the line ahead of homosexuals down that hell and brimstone trail. Jesus, Himself, said that to be divorced and to remarry is to commit adultry. (Funny, He did not say anything about homosexuality). As a literal translation, the bible says adulterers along with homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. Now, I have been in Assemblies of God churches, conservative Lutheran churches, non-denominational churches, Pentacostal churches, etc. All these conservative, bible believing denominations have many divorced/remarried people as members and as leaders within the church - Pastors, deacons, lay clergy, sunday school teachers, etc. According to Jesus , these people are hell bound. That would mean that their children from their second marriage are bastards. Their second wives or husbands are living with them as adulterers. They are living an abomination.

But all that is justified in spite of the literal theology they profess to believe. You will hear church leaders say. "well due to the fact that Harry was not a good husband, drank a bit too much, did not have an affair, but was a lazy bum, never went to church, or what ever, he had "abandoned" the marriage and it was a type of "adultry" and they were "unequally yolked." (after all, only with adultry is an acceptable reason for divorce in God's eyes, but many divorces in the church have nothing to do with adultry). Now, if you are going to take the scriptures to the extreme literal interpretation as the right wing fundamentalists do, then divorced people who re marry are going to hell. Period. You would think that is what they would teach. But that, for some reason, is not translated as a literal interpretation in their eyes. Church leaders dance around that one, making up stupid reasons as to what Jesus "really" said. But when we, as gay christians, have something to say as to what the bible "really" says about homosexuality,,,,, OH NO!!! HOW DARE WE MISINTERPRET THE LITERAL WORD OF GOD!!! "The bible says homosexuality is a sin. Period!" "No discussion!" Well then, as response to that, I can say the bible says remarried divorced people are guilty and are not worthy of Gods Kindgdom, no discussion!!

Do you see how the right wing fanaticals live in this world of hypocrocy and hatred? I have mentioned this hypocritical example to my conservative friends. They really are stunned and can't say much, becuase they know I am right! One more thing- the Old testament book "Song of Solomon." That is the X-rated book of the bible - talking about a womens body, her supple breasts (you lesbians, get ahold of yourselves!! sorry, a little joke here). I can guarantee, that if that book was missing from the bible, and some poor farmer in the middle East found that missing ancient writing in some cave in 2007, the right wing Christians in America would be saying "God would never have such pornographic ideas in His holy scriptures!" Christians would fight that and would treat it like the DaVinci Code! Seriously. It would take years of fighting and struggle just to get that added to the scriptures all because of narrowmindedness and judgement and predjudices.

Many say that the rise of Homosexuality in this generation is the sign of the end times and the fall of this current empire in America. I believe the judgement, hypocrocy, predjudice,homophobic attitudes of the church is the sign of the end time destruction. I was never one to quote exact scriptures, even though I have read 90% of the bible approximately, but there is a scripture in the Old Testament I believe that says. Judgement FIRST falls on the house of God.

I apologize for any incorrect grammar or spelling. Thank you for allowing me to voice my words. I love this forum!

- Matthew Speed

Pablo Rafael

01-19-2007, 08:05 AM

Matthew,

You have made an excellent point. The pharisees in the time of Jesus had done a very similar thing. They took God's Word and turned it into a set of regulations that became a stumbling block to the people who wished to follow God's ways. The pharisees were the "Christian right" of the time. They made a point of being holier than anyone else.

One of my favorite books of all time is What's So Amazing About Graceby Philip Yancey. He speaks of cultures of "Grace" and Un-Grace". Grace is how God shows his love for us. Connected to that is how we show that love to ohers. When we condemn, we show a spirit of "ungrace", legalism that seeks to build ourselves up by cutting others down.

I find that in conversations with people that so many Christians are hung up on the idea that homosexuality is a sin. Instead of arguing about that point, I sometimes like to say in essence "So what?" Since all have sinned, all need the grace of God. Did not forgiveness come from God flowing from the cross?

Is not greed a sin? The entire capitalist economy is based on it. Is gossip a sin? I see gossip running rampant among those who call themselves Christian. Is divorce a sin? But what about those in abusive relationships; isn't remaining in the relationship a sin? What about pride? If homosexuality is a sin (and I don't think it is), it is certainly only one of many, (and not a major one at that.)

I believe that God's laws are meant to help us live in a culture of "grace". They are to help us live in harmony with each other. They work to encourage us to help others and look out for those less fortunate. They are meant to build up the people of God, not cut down. If our application of the law does not come from love, it is wrong.

On another forum there was a discussion with a legalistic person. I talked about the high suicide rate among gay teen-agers. I asked if he thought ridicule, self-loathing and hatred were part of God's plan for gay teen-agers. His response was in essence, "Why are you gays always whining? Gay teenagers are sinning, they deserve what they get." It was a perfect example of "ungrace".

I for one am glad that God does not give me what I deserve, but comes to me with His free gift of grace. How to respond? "Let us love one another for love is from God" - 1 John 4:7

Tu Amigo, Pablo

superhippy7890

01-19-2007, 12:31 PM

Well I can only give people a Jewish perspective.

BronzDragon

01-20-2007, 11:29 AM

Let me just summarize that they don’t accept your interpretations and your dismissals of the six biblical passages. How can they when their Bibles state the following? About passages like the above, I’ve read this site’s explanations and justifications, and I must admit that they are unconvincing to me as well.

» Thom says: ☛ Begin with these premises, if you will.

First, unless you are reading the Testaments in their original languages, with knowledge of the original meaning of words and phrases as used in the days they were put to paper, can you really be so sure the Bible says this and not that? Hebrew would be interesting, because the original cannon did not use vowel markings, and one word could mean two things, depending on those vowels (Oracle and Serpent, Naked and Wise, David standing up, or standing with an erection before Saul). Greek is also poetic, and in known to employ puns and near-synonyms to get a point across. Also, Gnosticism has a way of expressing, not the truth itself, but the relationships between the truth and the truth seeker. If you do not understand the language of Gnosticism, you might think “Serpent” rather than “Wisdom.”

Second: When the Authorized Version was finally Authorized, the English it was translated into was different from the age that Authorized it. (The bishop’s bible was already in circulation for about a century, and is the primary source of the Authorized bible. The Bishops was in turn born of Tyndale’s and Wycliff’s efforts.) A hundred years ago calling a girl homely was a compliment; it meant she was the kind of girl you wanted to come home to. What does it mean today?

In King James’, even Queen Elizabeth I’s day, calling something Evil «OE: yfel» (Having qualities that are harmful, disagreeable, unfortunate, bad, or of odious nature.) did not necessarily damn it to hell. A smell might be evil, or a mountain. It simply meant the evil thing was unacceptable. This would be more in keeping with the Hebrew Word that is usually translated as “Unclean” and the Greek that is translated as “Unnatural.” It simply means, “We wouldn’t do it that way; We don’t like it.”

Language changes, evolves, as do the people who read and write it. This is the strength that Gnosticism has that Literalism does not. For the Gnostic, the truth is immanent and present, and is personally explored and actualized. For the Literalist it is set in stone, in an age that is long gone, and we may not even remember why they use a phrase (like άρσενοκοīται) that they did.

So, in all respects, read your scripture with the first thought, “God is love, how does this reflect on that?” I believe that inspiration falls on the intellect of those who write and read scripture, not on the ink and pictures themselves. I believe that inerrancy rises within the soul of the reader and the source of that scripture, not in carbon on paper.

PS:
μαλακος I Corinthians 6.9; 1 Timothy 1:10
soft, tender, sickly;
Mild, gentle; tender, delicate; effeminate, cowardly; careless, remiss; Luxurious, wonton

άρσενοκοīται I Corinthians 6.9; 1 Timothy 1:10 (Composite, euphemism)
Man-with-child (pedophilia) sensual intimacy
’άρσην Male, Manly, Vigerous, Strong
κοιταīς laying in bed
κοίτη, κοīτος going to bed; sleep; couch, bed; marriage-bed; embryo; offspring

matthewspeed

01-24-2007, 11:33 PM

Pablo,
Thank you for taking the time to read my words and commenting. I really like how you explained living in Gods grace. It's so refreshing to hear about Gods grace through a fellow gay mans perspective. Because many gay men and women have such a negative outlook on Christianity, which is understandable - due to how many have used such a beautiful religion as a weapon for their own agendas. That is the work of Satan, to tempt christians to use the love of God as a curse on a group of people! So many gay individuals are missing true fellowship with Christian believers because of how so many in the church have pushed them out. I am finding, in this journey of life, so many loving, forgiving, God fearing christians who happen to be gay. I have to admit, I am still in the process of unlearning years of brainwashing I have received within the conservative christian movement. I sometimes question my homosexuality. Not as much, but I have these feelings of guilt that come over me, and at the same time, I have a sense of freedom to be who I am in Christ! I guess when I see the oppressive attitudes many right wing christians possess, then I think of how I finally came back out of the closet after going back in due to pressure from my religious brainwashing, I see how free I really am. How blessed I am. I am getting better. I now understand how people can get brainwashed in dangerous cults. I now understand how many people who have escaped dangerous cults have years of therapy and healing. My situation is not that much different then, let's say, the "Jim Jones cult" of the 70s' The one thing different, is I didn't drink any poisonous Kool-aid!

I don't mean to make light of such tragedy, I am merely attempting to make a point. One thing to remember, Jesus said that we will know believers by their fruits. I know I have a long way to go as I attempt to live in grace by Jesus' standards, but I am on my way!! - God Bless, - Matthew

revcobb

01-25-2007, 12:43 AM

Marco,
Each of the passages you quote is in the middle of an argument condemning idolatry. Without that context, you do violence to the text. As a pastor, I have strong feelings about abusing the Bible. But when you pull a passage out of context, that's precisely the line you cross.

Sexual orientation wasn't the issue in any of these passages. Nor was same-sex behavior between consenting, loving adults. Frankly, gay relationships as we know them today weren't on the early Christians' radar. Culturally, if there was an issue Christians had with same-sex behavior in the 1st century it was either (a) that it was a liturgical practice associated with worshiping other gods, or (b) that it was a form of exploitation, namely pederasty. Christians condemned the first because it was a denial of the oneness of God. They condemned the second because it's wrong for the powerful to abuse and exploit the young and weak. When Jesus said, "let the children come to me and forbid them not for to such as these belong the kingdom of God," he wasn't saying, "let the children come to me so we can exploit them." His was a radical stance against the abuse, sexually and otherwise, of children.

Porneia, the word that translates to "sexual immorality" in the passage you cite has a variety of meanings and is ordinarily translated as such with a variety of words. All of those meanings seem to refer to power relationships. None of those meanings refers to being glbt. If there's a person in mind when the term porneia is used, it's likely to be a straight one. Of course, glbt folks can also be guilty of sexual immorality, but it's not by virtue of their gender or orientation. Rape is wrong regardless of orientation. So is infidelity.

Arsenokoitai, the word your Bible has translated "homosexual" is an ambiguous word in Greek that shows up nowhere else in scripture. Scholars really don't have any idea what it means precisely, but there is speculation that it is a word Paul invented to get at what he understood to be the form of service offered by male temple prostitutes in the Corinthian civil religion. Malakos (translated in your bible as effeminate) is another that we just don't know how to apply. To take an ambiguous word whose meaning isn't clear and apply it to what we know today of homosexuality is too much of a stretch. It makes the Bible say something it doesn't really say. There's a slogan in my tradition: "Speak where the Bible speaks; remain silent where the Bible is silent." Frankly, the Bible's silent on homosexuality. It's got a lot to say about idolatry and abuse of power.

As for the end-times stuff and rapture-resurrection connection, I suspect none of that would have made sense to the first readers of the writings that became the New Testament. They had no concept of rapture--that's an imaginative 19th century invention that sadly has been repeated until some people think it's a fact. It's no more found in the Bible than many of Ben Franklin's proverbs from Poor Richard's Almanac. And your claim that sexual behavior outside a committed relationship (your word was marriage) is not sinful because we're living post-70 A.D., sounds a lot like the sort of porneia the early Christians did condemn. They were the ones who decided what should become scripture, after all. If a reading wouldn't have made sense to the original hearer-readers, then we should be cautious about lifting it up today.

andrewlittle

01-25-2007, 07:56 AM

Each of the issues raised by Marco, and addressed by you, have been discussed in a variety of threads here in Soulforce, not to mention many other places.

revcobb, you summarized the arguments admirably. Nice work.

Marco, Bader said, "The greatest obstacle to new learning often is not the student's lack of prior knowledge but rather, the existence of prior knowledge."

When we are so used to reading scripture in one of the modern translations, we forget that there was a time, place and language in which it was written in the first place. When we then attempt to delve into the meanings of difficult passages, the prior learning sometimes provides a distorting lens that interfers with hearing what was truly said.

Bible study is just that - it is studying the Bible, using all the resources available to us. Regurgitating passages, and then transporting current attitudes back in time a couple of thousand years, is not studying the Bible. The Rapture is a case in point.

As even the belief of a very limited number of people, it will only be 100 years old in 2009.
You see in 1909, an American lawyer by the name of Cyrus Scofield published a bible study guide, the Scofield Reference Notes, which happened to be the first time the concept of “the Rapture” appeared in print in the U.S. He had learned about “the Rapture” while in law school, from an old professor of his in England, J.N. Darby. Darby had learned about “the Rapture” from a stiff old Scottish Presbyterian minister – you know the frozen chosen kind – Rev Edward Irving.
Where do you suppose Irving got the notion? It all goes back to a 15 year old Scottish girl, Margaret McDonald. In a church service led by an acquaintance of Rev Irving, Margaret had a conversion experience. She had a vision.
According to Rev Irving’s dairy, the minister who had told him the story had preached on Mark 13 and, after the sermon, Margaret became very agitated and began to describe what has become known as an End Times vision. How did Rev Irving describe Margaret’s appearance in his diary – you got it – he said she appeared to be in rapture.
In our times, this rather obscure view of the coming Reign of God has become quite widely accepted – thanks in large part to the enormously popular, and enormously profitable, books by Tim LaHaye. It is so intertwined with popular culture that people think that the Left Behind books are largely based on scripture.
The truth is, however, that they are largely based on a very active, very prolific, imagination. To base a theology on this revisionist crappe is abhorent.

To then take this modern notion and project it back on scripture, even if it is to say that it has already occurred, is just misguided. It uses scripture to prove a point that is unscriptural in the first place. It uses scripture to justify a bad theology. We've had several centuries of that going on, already, leading to a wide proliferation of non-scriptural ideas justified with misinterpreted and misunderstood snippets of scripture.

Break the mold, Marcus, study the Book. Really study the Bible.

Daniel

01-25-2007, 11:17 AM

Andrew and Revcobb- you both warm my heart. Excellent posts! And the info on the origin of the rapture itself is fascinating. Reminded me of these words from the literary source turned movie- The Lord of the Rings as spoken by the character of Galadriel:

The Ring passed to Isildur, who had this one chance to destroy evil forever, but the hearts of men are easily corrupted. And the ring of power has a will of its own. It betrayed Isildur, to his death. And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History became legend. Legend became myth.

Life imitating Art.

revcobb

01-25-2007, 04:46 PM

Pablo Rafael

01-25-2007, 05:44 PM

Why is it that we as gay Christians always end up trying to prove a negative. The challenge always seems to be, "Of course the Bible condemns homosexuality; prove that it doesn't." According to logic the challenge should be, "Prove that it does."

None of us should have to prove that the story of Sodom doesn't condemn healthy homosexual relations; the other side had to prove that it does.
Why should we have to prove that "arseokoitai" and "malakos" don't apply to loving homosexual relationships; it is incumbent on the other side to prove that they do.

It isn't good Biblical practice to have a doctrine that, instead of being proven by Scripture, has to be disproved by Scripture. That is a "cart before the horse" type of logic.

Can anyone prove there isn't intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy? One can only prove if there is; you can't prove there isn't, nor does one need to try.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

Daniel

01-25-2007, 06:03 PM

You quoted from Lord of the Rings: "And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History became legend. Legend became myth."

The only trouble I have with this quote is that it plays into the hands of those who think myth means something misleading or false. If there's one thing I'd want to shout from the mountaintop, it's "Love each other." Right behind it would be the second: "Myth gives meaning to life. Tell your story!"

I see your point. I guess that would depend on how one reads it! Seeing that you're talkin' to a Joseph Campbell kinda guy (his book Power of Myth has been readin several times in our house), I believe, like you, that the stories we tell ourselves, consiously and unwittingly, have a profound effect on us and the people we love.

My original intent was to further your thought, that being that true understanding comes from a knoweldge of history, context and content. Wisdom can all too often get lost.

andrewlittle

01-25-2007, 06:09 PM

It just dawned on me that I should check to see what MARCO has been up to since joining. This is her(?) only post (Jan 2), and her last visit was on Jan 2. I'm thinking we're discussing this with ourselves. Of course, that may not matter, I guess.

Daniel

01-25-2007, 06:20 PM

Well....the house may be empty...but I see that the frig is full, and full of stuff to chew on. No harm pulling up a chair, sitting down and having a nice conversation. We can clean up after ourselves before we leave.

superhippy7890

01-26-2007, 11:13 AM

Are there any cokes in the fridge?

BronzDragon

01-27-2007, 12:10 PM

The only trouble I have with this quote is that it plays into the hands of those who think myth means something misleading or false. If there's one thing I'd want to shout from the mountaintop, it's "Love each other." Right behind it would be the second: "Myth gives meaning to life. Tell your story!"

» Thom says: ☛ Myth (a true story whose truth is not the story itself). Sometimes Myth is the Medicine that makes a difficult truth go down easier (Difficult, either because it transcends words, or because the ears are not ready to hear). Sometimes myth is a conveyer of truths, such as ethics, religion, pneumonic, that are easier to remember that way. Myth is never a false story, nor is it ever a true story. Myth is just a story that conveys a truth.

dsdrane

01-28-2007, 02:35 AM

BronzDragon

01-28-2007, 10:23 AM

Why is it that we as gay Christians always end up trying to prove a negative.

It isn't good Biblical practice to have a doctrine that, instead of being proven by Scripture, has to be disproved by Scripture. That is a "cart before the horse" type of logic.

» Thom says: ☛ It is true that in logic, proving something does not exist is impossible. Religion is inherently irrational, though, and does not always appeal to the intellect. This can be a good thing, until the religion is under the control of those who are unjust, inclement, and believe Nature put them on Earth to serve God, and all else to serve them. It is for this reason that ZarathUshtra and Buddha abolished the gods, and Akhenaton took a partial measure toward that end. It wasn’t that the gods were good or bad, just that they had become puppets of cruel misers.

In Logic, it is not possible to prove something does not exist. Within religion, we can appeal to alternate orders of reality, some of whom exist solely in the mind of them who are striving to prove something. The best we can do is appeal to reason, persuade through education. For example:

Can anyone prove there isn't intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy? One can only prove if there is; you can't prove there isn't, nor does one need to try.

» Thom says: ☛ No, we can neither prove nor disprove there is life on other planets in this great universe until we go there and see it for ourselves. We can, however, pose a convincing argument (Logic: Premisses proving an opinion). Specifically, we can look all over this wondrous planet that we do live on and see where life thrives: The coldest of arctic waste lands and marine environments, to the hottest of volcanic vents, to the great depths of the oceans to the heights of atmospheric strata. Then, we need only surmise that, because Nature creates the code for life in the same nursery as hundreds of stars, then rains down on planets as they cool, why could there have never been life on Mars? What if we were to troll the atmosphere of Jupiter and find protozoa, or even eukaryotes thriving, maybe even multicellular colonies or life-forms?

Finally, given that the universe is rather flat; things clump together but on average everything seems fairly average: and if the Eternal One is so powerful, why wouldn’t or couldn’t she make life a regular fair in the galaxies? Or even outside them? What do we know: That life is pervasive and tenacious. What don’t we know: that there is or is not life anywhere but Earth. What does that prove? Only the value of agnosia.

Daniel

01-28-2007, 11:46 AM

Finally, given that the universe is rather flat; things clump together but on average everything seems fairly average: and if the Eternal One is so powerful, why wouldn’t or couldn’t she make life a regular fair in the galaxies? Or even outside them? What do we know: That life is pervasive and tenacious. What don’t we know: that there is or is not life anywhere but Earth. What does that prove? Only the value of agnosia.
What a great word!

Agnosia, from the Greek "not knowing," describes a collection of disorders where the ability to recognize objects or sounds or retrieve information about them is impaired, in the absence of other perceptual difficulties, including memory, intellectual capabilities, and the capacity for communication. The disorder can affect visual, auditory or tactile object recognition, but visual agnosia is the most common form of the condition, and most often expressed as an inability to recognize people.

Sounds like what you are getting is in not physical, but pychologcial agnosia. The same could be said for those who do are unable to posit a world where gay people exist and have intrinsic worth. This gets at Pablo's question of why gay people are always having to do the 'explaining': those blinded by their own fear an ignorance cannot see what is staring them in the face.

They'd rather someone else do their seeing for them.

dsdrane

01-28-2007, 11:55 PM

Marco --

Not quite sure how you found this place, but I'm so glad you did and bothered to take part.

I'm coming to realize how blessed I am that I didn't have to deal with a conservative, religious family during my coming out process. Don't get me wrong: I still thought I might be dis-owned. I've always tried to convey this to straight people: I tell them to try to wrap their heads around being ready to have their parents disown them. You're not telling them you got arrested, or that you're in jail, or that you knocked up the neighbor; you're telling them them that you sleep with guys/gals. OMG!! OMG!! OMG!!

What's the big deal? Mom, I sleep with guys. I fall in love with guys. I'm still the boy you know; nothing's changed. You simply know something you didn't know before. They get it eventually!

scott snedeker

01-29-2007, 02:21 AM

Maybe the question should be turned around?

"Do you feel that you are turning against homosexuality when you read passages from the Bible?"

Perhaps If you do then it is an indicator that you need to clean up your personal inventory?

Can printed word on paper with dubious accuracy and context be so powerful?

Or is it a perniciious negative emotional escrow within you that is activated by a catalyst?

Perhaps these passages in the Bible are tests for this spiritual poison within you? And how you react is your barometer of emotional and spiritual wellness?

I think I like this approach. Makes me feel self-affirmed, trvializes the negative impact on my feelings. Trivializes the righteousness of those who use these passages against me too! Perhaps they merely scored poorly on this test of spiritual hygiene and don't realize it yet!

dsdrane

01-29-2007, 08:11 AM

Spiritual hygiene...excellent phrase, Scotty!

ds(cott)drane

godloves12

03-12-2007, 05:59 PM

nmwolfboy

03-12-2007, 06:20 PM

My aunt is divorced and is probably going to get remarried. She is dating someone new. Are you saying that if she remarries and doesn't repent she will burn forever in Hell?

Just say it. I won't get mad. This means that many people that you know would also go.

Reading through Matthew's post it seems clear to me that he's pointing out the general hypocrisy of the Biblical literalists he's encountered. Namely, Christians who preach adherence to a literal application of the Bible yet insist that some passages apply while they conveniently disregard others.

If someone is going to insist that the holiness codes in Leviticus apply, then why don't they insist all the codes must apply? Including the ones about not wearing clothing made of two different fabrics, not sowing different types of seed in the same field, not eating certain foods, etc. However, those rules rarely get mentioned by folks who insist that homosexuality is an abomination; some of whom i'm sure are wearing poly/cotton blends while they're busy condemning gays.

While i can't speak for Matthew, considering what he's written i strongly doubt that he's advocating the condemnation of people who are divorced. i certainly don't think of divorce as a sin. Divorce is, however, a handy comparison when considering religious perspectives toward homosexuality. For example, Christ never condemned homosexuality; according to the Gospels He did clearly condemn divorce. Many Christian leaders who vociferously condemn homosexuality would never dream of condemning their divorced supporters. If it looks like hypocrisy, and sounds like hypocrisy....

i do think Matthew makes a good point, though. It's hypocritical of literalists to pick & choose what parts of the Bible they apply, to others or to themselves for that matter.

Btw, i wish your Aunt well. It can be hard to keep your heart open after a relationship doesn't work out, but doing so is the only way to keep love in your life!

Pax,

scott

godloves12

03-12-2007, 06:49 PM

Reading through Matthew's post it seems clear to me that he's pointing out the general hypocrisy of the Biblical literalists he's encountered. Namely, Christians who preach adherence to a literal application of the Bible yet insist that some passages apply while they conveniently disregard others.

If someone is going to insist that the holiness codes in Leviticus apply, then why don't they insist all the codes must apply? Including the ones about not wearing clothing made of two different fabrics, not sowing different types of seed in the same field, not eating certain foods, etc. However, those rules rarely get mentioned by folks who insist that homosexuality is an abomination; some of whom i'm sure are wearing poly/cotton blends while they're busy condemning gays. :smashy:

While i can't speak for Matthew, considering what he's written i strongly doubt that he's advocating the condemnation of people who are divorced. i certainly don't think of divorce as a sin. Divorce is, however, a handy comparison when considering religious perspectives toward homosexuality. For example, Christ never condemned homosexuality; according to the Gospels He did clearly condemn divorce. Many Christian leaders who vociferously condemn homosexuality would never dream of condemning their divorced supporters. If it looks like hypocrisy, and sounds like hypocrisy....

i do think Matthew makes a good point, though. It's hypocritical of literalists to pick & choose what parts of the Bible they apply, to others or to themselves for that matter.

Btw, i wish your Aunt well. It can be hard to keep your heart open after a relationship doesn't work out, but doing so is the only way to keep love in your life!

Pax,

scott

I just want to know what Matthew Speed thinks on that. Does he think that or not? That's all I'm curious about.

u-dog

03-12-2007, 07:47 PM

It is not divorce that Jesus condemns in the Gospels, its remarriage. He lays out an understanding of marriage in which people are fundamentally joined in substance when they marry and therefore if they RE marry they are committing adultery
Matthews point is that if you are going to hold Gay and lesbian people to a literal understanding of scripture then you MUST hold EVERYONE to it.

keltic63

03-12-2007, 10:33 PM

I just want to know what Matthew Speed thinks on that. Does he think that or not? That's all I'm curious about.

Perhaps you could use our handy Private Message feature here, and ask him yourself.

btw, please note that we really do encourage our members to post a "hello" thread in the "hello my name is" forum. :D

ladyinred

03-23-2007, 02:24 AM

On Paul's writings on homosexuality. I think it said that man left the natural use of a woman... but I didn't think women were just there for a man's sexual pleasure. I personally don't like or agree with Paul's writings on women in general. His interpretation of the truth.. but that doesn't fit everyone's indidvidual truth... Because of his writings about women being silent in church and submissive, this too has brought about the oppression of women... Frankly Jesus said no such things about women.. So I would say that it is safe to say that Paul's writings are not necessarily coming from the mouth of Christ.. He was also a pharisee with traditional views toward women. Biblical writings reflect the times, the heritage ,traditions,the past,not necessarily the present.. How does homosexuality fit into the bible ,well it wasn't a word until the nineteenth century.. How the bible has been translated throughout the centuries also leaves doubts... A certain word in hebrew might have a totally different meaning today... As far as persecuting and oppression of gays, it is like anything else, it does not speak of love or compassion...GLBT do not tell or dictate to married couples what they do in their bedroom so why should we take it from them to dictate to us how we shall live our lives. They seem to think mandatory heterosexuality is God's plan, but most of the apostles were not married... nor had children. Not that I'm saying being celibate is an ideal but I seriously doubt If God cares what you do in your bedroom as long as you aren't harming someone by your actions.. People have varying beliefs regardless what is taught in the bible. I say listen to your own truth and your own heart and what beings you peace and joy... then you will follow the path you need to follow.Other people can judge your actions... but they can't know what is in your heart.. and really the judging is more about them than you.

ladyinred

03-23-2007, 02:45 AM

I heard on tv where 60% heterosexuals have strayed from their marriages.. and the bible frowns on that, so according to their standards they are judged as well.They can easily be called the pot calling the kettle black but none of them are perfect in their lives either...People living in glass houses should not throw stones...Why does the bible say judge not... ? They can quote the so called few passages on homosexuals but there are thousands aimed toward married couples and how often do they fall short of their own ideal..or standards, which they supposedly aspire to live toward.There seems to be a myopic scope in terms of trying to demonize gays and make them the brunt of all of societal woes and ills, they would do well to keep their eyes on their own plate and own marriages, and own families instead of focusing obsessively on what GLBT people are doing.Dobson has an obsessive preoccupation with gays that is abnormal.. ,who knows, he is probably a repressed gay... I just don't see why being gay would be so threatening if a straight person were so secure in their own sexuality. Perhaps his obsession with gays is a projection and mirror of his own inhibitions and "demons." I find that people who are abnormally focused on gays have something to hide or deal with within themselves... it just doesn't make sense to be that preoccupied with gays...Why that kind of obsession ,why such a focus on gays as a threat to families,(Perhaps he sees his own repressed gay tendacies as a threat to his family?What is this guy mirroring that is going on inwardly.Something is...)something is not right in that man's psyche...I don't notice most people incessantly talking about gays or what they are doing, most people have a life, and may at times discuss it but not obsessively...Fundamentalists seemed to be obsessed with gays... that is not normal and there is some deep problem at the root of their own fears.Something not right in their own lives... perhaps they have no sense of inner peace...Many of these people probably need psychotherapy themselves. The bible doesn't really focus obsessively on gay people... because again homosexuality was not a word until the nineteenth century. I think the new testament focuses more on love and not being judgmental.Those who judge others are often their own worst enemies.they often don't realize that it often turns back to them to point a finger. Most of the new testament scripture focuses on love, forgiveness and nonjudgment... a few scriptures that are based on questionable interpretation or translation should not be the focus of religion for that matter..Everytime I see Pat Robertson or someone like him on tv, I turn it off.. A few evangelists I do respect, but again it depends alot on what they are saying.

ladyinred

03-23-2007, 03:11 AM

I would be wary of any religious leader who professes to know it all and be a expert on such matters as sexuality The APA has basically said that it's not the orientation but the deep seated feelings that one has about it that must be addressed. These fundamentalists proclaim to know the road to heaven and salvation but that is a very personal matter. We for one don't know alot about human sexuality but it seems the one size fits all mentality does not work well on this planet as to say if you are married and heterosexual you are living a Godly life.. And we see a planet that is overpopulated with more and more of the earth's resources being depleted and dwindled as time goes by , in effect that may be the downfall and ruination of mankind. How many people do we see dying of starvation, famine, war, poverty.. In countries like Thailand there are those who sell their children into prostitution , because they can't afford to keep and support them... God wills this?How many cities are so polluted from overcrowding. I lived in Seoul ,Korea and i could tell you stories about overcrowding, pollution and poverty.. People would beg for money, lived in tin and cardboard houses... have poor health care..rotted teeth.As if the answer is to be married is to follow God's plan and will?We now hear of global warming and we see what is happening to the environment... the ocean is being depleted of it's resources.. after all said and done, if we don't do something about it we may be fighting over food and resources because they have been dwindled beyond capacity to sustain the planet or it's population...God's plan? I guess in the world of moral absolutes. Everyone should be married and have children... But oftentimes we see the tragedy of overpopulation and lack of human care and support for things that really matter.Life doesn't fit into a world of moral absolutes because everyone is different and unique in their own way and what they are and have to offer . We talk about aids but ten million children are left orphaned in Africa to aids.. and it isn't predominately due to homosexuality but heterosexuality... they had parents....The fundamentalists will scream and yell that aids is a punnishment from God for homosexuality.Do those children deserve to be orphaned?Apparently heterosexuals are dying from it in large numbers that out number gays in general..Being straight they probably thought they were immune to the disease, how tragic that they have to learn a lesson that the same disease affects them too. Enough said.

ladyinred

03-23-2007, 03:37 AM

In the larger scope of things, and on a world wide scale...social and familail problems.. GLBT being the forefront issue on people's minds who claim to be religious.. doesn't make alot of sense. Not that I'm against heterosexual families or marriage.. but to focus on such a minute detail. When we as a human race are dealing with larger problems and issues does seem insane.They name call and claim gays are so-called pedophiles. For all they know their married next door neighbor could be one, or their favorite teacher who is straight, or even the football coach... Yeeeeeesh.. The fear mongering distorts reality.Watch desperate housewives and you see a thirty something woman having an affair with a teenage boy and they totally normalize this..even glorify it in media , as is the case with Mary Letourneau. Our society is basically sick, and dyfunctional and I mean on a large scale.. this is not small stuff, even their religion is fear based and toxic with shame and guilt....Most people have no clue how to have peace and joy in their lives , because they want to follow a doctrine or a mandate....or preconceived ideals of what life should be like in the world...I would even argue that I don't see many married couples I call happy... they might exist but I haven't seen them in my lifetime.... because most of them don't have spiritual values..and tend to be materialistic.. The nice house, the fancy cars, trophy wife to die for,the kids with their hundred dollar shoes and the impression they try to make on others... Why on earth would we care what they think... are they examples to follow? I mean if you see someone who is basically happy with their life.. I think you would want to know what road map they are following to find out how you can be happy too.. Most of these people have no clue. does their religion bring happiness and peace of mind.. I doubt if most people following the fundamentalist view could really be called happy, mostly insecure and fearful of those whom they perceive as different..I say follow a philosohy for your life that will bring happiness and joy...Life is too short to worry about other people who are too dysfunctional in their lives to know any better,who hope one day they will get to heaven and find peace but don't have it now.What is important is to have it now.. Heaven can wait but your life can't.If you try to live it for others for fear of what they think of you you will never have it.

Diane Vera

03-23-2007, 08:12 AM

Well I can only give people a Jewish perspective.

I would be interested to hear that.

Here in New York, ultra-Orthodox Jews are among the main sources of organized opposition to gay rights.

Luckily they are concentrated in compact neighborhoods, so their impact on the state legislature is relatively small.

I would be interested to hear how you would respond to anti-gay ultra-Orthodox Jews. (There are plenty of more liberal Jews who don't seem to have a problem with gays.)

Diane Vera

03-23-2007, 08:59 AM

It's so refreshing to hear about Gods grace through a fellow gay mans perspective. Because many gay men and women have such a negative outlook on Christianity, which is understandable - due to how many have used such a beautiful religion as a weapon for their own agendas.

I don't think it's just a matter of people deliberately scheming to use Christianity to further some personal or political agenda (although there do exist people who use Christianity in such a manner). It seems to me that there's an inherent tendency in the more literalistic forms of religion (not just fundamentalist Christianity, but fundamentalist-like branches of any religion) to have what can perhaps be described as a superstitious approach to morality. That is, morality is understood not as something to think about for oneself, but as a matter on which one should just blindly defer to the perceived commandments of God. As one fundamentalist/evangelical bumper sticker puts it, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." This attitude discourages thinking, which in turn has the effect of encouraging a reflexive endorsement of the prejudices one was brought up with, whatever those prejudices might be. It induces a terror of questioning those prejudices, over and above the normal social pressures to conform to them.

That is the work of Satan, to tempt christians to use the love of God as a curse on a group of people!

So, do you believe in the traditional Christian concept of the Devil? If so, I would be interested to hear your take on it.

Diane Vera

03-23-2007, 09:08 AM

The Rapture is a case in point.

As even the belief of a very limited number of people, it will only be 100 years old in 2009.
You see in 1909, an American lawyer by the name of Cyrus Scofield published a bible study guide, the Scofield Reference Notes, which happened to be the first time the concept of “the Rapture” appeared in print in the U.S. He had learned about “the Rapture” while in law school, from an old professor of his in England, J.N. Darby. Darby had learned about “the Rapture” from a stiff old Scottish Presbyterian minister – you know the frozen chosen kind – Rev Edward Irving.
Where do you suppose Irving got the notion? It all goes back to a 15 year old Scottish girl, Margaret McDonald. In a church service led by an acquaintance of Rev Irving, Margaret had a conversion experience. She had a vision.
According to Rev Irving’s dairy, the minister who had told him the story had preached on Mark 13 and, after the sermon, Margaret became very agitated and began to describe what has become known as an End Times vision. How did Rev Irving describe Margaret’s appearance in his diary – you got it – he said she appeared to be in rapture.
In our times, this rather obscure view of the coming Reign of God has become quite widely accepted – thanks in large part to the enormously popular, and enormously profitable, books by Tim LaHaye. It is so intertwined with popular culture that people think that the Left Behind books are largely based on scripture.

Not just Tim LaHaye, but also other popular evangelical Christian writers. Back in the early 1970's, I remember Hal Lindsay as one of the more popular Christian end-times writers. Back then, if I recall correctly, Tim LaHaye was more interested in bashing "secular humanism" than in talking about the end times.

Diane Vera

03-23-2007, 09:22 AM

» Thom says: ☛ In Logic, it is not possible to prove something does not exist.

This isn't quite correct. In some cases, one can prove that something does not exist by proving that its existence would be self-contradictory. For example, it can be shown that it's impossible to write a computer program which can 100% reliably detect whether any program in a given language has an infinite loop. (This is the famous "halting problem.") Such proofs are common in pure math. However, they are harder in the real world.

keltic63

03-23-2007, 09:35 AM

Not just Tim LaHaye, but also other popular evangelical Christian writers. Back in the early 1970's, I remember Hal Lindsay as one of the more popular Christian end-times writers. Back then, if I recall correctly, Tim LaHaye was more interested in bashing "secular humanism" than in talking about the end times.

My parents had this morbid record when I was a kid. It's a dramatization of the "rapture" in which the christians are taken to heaven on a supersonic jet. I hated that record!
It was evidently recorded by a Rev. Forrest McCullough

http://i5.ebayimg.com/05/i/000/91/ed/faf4_1.JPG

Your attention please. I am thy captain. The flight thou art making today is the same which Abraham, Moses, John, Peter, Paul, and all of those redeemed before have made. Enoch and Elijah joined us in mid-flight, without passing through the Gate of Death. We shall be flying today at altitudes unlimited and at a speed never known to thee before. Flying time to the New Jerusalem is not considered, for thou are now in the realm known as Eternity, where Time is no more. As we left the Earth, the weather was stormy with heavy overcast, but the report from the New Jerusalem is, as it always will be, a beautiful day without a cloud.

read a little more about it here, if you so desire: http://www.unpleasant.org/2006/12/09/rev-forrest-mccullough-flight-f-i-n-a-l/
it appears to have an excerpt too.....

Diane Vera

03-23-2007, 09:36 AM

Marco --

Not quite sure how you found this place, but I'm so glad you did and bothered to take part.

I'm coming to realize how blessed I am that I didn't have to deal with a conservative, religious family during my coming out process. Don't get me wrong: I still thought I might be dis-owned. I've always tried to convey this to straight people: I tell them to try to wrap their heads around being ready to have their parents disown them. You're not telling them you got arrested, or that you're in jail, or that you knocked up the neighbor; you're telling them them that you sleep with guys/gals. OMG!! OMG!! OMG!!

I'm not sure which is worse, actually: Having a conservative religious upbringing, or having more mainstream parents with strong but inarticulate and totally baseless anti-gay prejudice. It seems to me that the latter might be, in some ways, even harder to deal with, due to its sheer inarticulateness.

To other readers who may be catching up on this thread (and especially to superhippy7890, matthewspeed, and andrewlittle): Please see my posts at the bottom of the previous page, if you have not looked at them already.

BronzDragon

03-23-2007, 11:43 AM

On Paul's writings on homosexuality. …

» Thom says: ☛ There are basically two classifications of Pauline writings, those most likely written by him, and those least likely written by him. In the normal order of Canon, I think the ‘least likely’ begin with Timothy.

Now, understand, in that day, they accepted it as normal for people to argue a point as if they were you, if and only if you had argued that point in just that way. Given that in that day Christianism was really a loose collection of assemblies, some isolated and insular, others less so, someone might argue a point as if they were Paul, be approved by that assembly, but not have the broader peer review a Greek scholarly society would expect.

Then, there is the point of canon under Constantine, when those who had the power wanted to make sure they kept it. So, Mary Magdalen gets relegated into being a repentant whore instead of a leading apostle, they relegate women in general to Roman custom of second class humans, and so forth, ad nauseam.

ladyinred

03-23-2007, 05:42 PM

Dianna I like your ideas about questioning rather than conforming, even if people are Christian they must remember that Jesus did not conform to the rigid rules of the pharisees on the sabbath and numerous other things. When they were about to stone a woman which was approved of in the old testament when someone commits adultery, what did Jesus do when confronted with that situation...?He did not conform to the old testament norms that did state anyone who committed adultery should be stoned to death.. Jesus often confronted the pharisees with their thinking and beliefs and religious views and they often condemned him for breaking the rules on the sabbath day which in the old testament stated that those who worked on the sabbath day shall be stoned.. There were numerous rules and regulatoins in the old tetament that Jesus did not adhere to and he did not teach violence or hatred toward any group of people... But we must remember how people discern God actually has to do with their view points and angles on life.. People who are filled with hatred often see God as vengeful rather than merciful,unloving rather than loving,judgmental rather than forgiving... What comes from God inspires peace and Unity and harmony... People who question antiquated beliefs have a reason to do so.. to challenge misconceptions and ideas that don't follow or make sense today... we are not living in ancient history... Perhaps in the old days of the old testament there were reasons fo following certain traditions or regulations or ideas.. but what makes sense today? If someone told me to stone a child of mine who was rebellious or back talking like it does in the old testament ,would I do it...? Does that seem to make sense today and would a person who honestly loved their children prescribe to such beliefs? Of course not.. We'd have alot of dead children then... Not to be morbid.. but merely stating that these were old biblical rules and concepts.. that most people would not adhere to today... when we are dealing with antiquated concepts and ideals , perhaps we should do as Jesus did... follow his own heart to God. Would Jesus have stoned a rebellious child like the old testament commanded to do, of course not.. in his words, suffer not the children, let them come unto me...Would Jesus have sacificed animals as a form of worship as they did in the old testament ,of course not.... Would Jesus have lifted a sword to slay pagans as they did in the old testament , of course not... Jesus brought about a new way...

ladyinred

03-23-2007, 06:42 PM

in the bible especially in the old testament there are ordiances and laws on everything, many people would get stoned for adultery, for rebellion against their parents, for breaking the sabbath and working... Let's look at the example of Jesus, did he fit into these laws. Again, when a woman was about to be stoned for adultrey what happened? what did he tell the people who were about to stone her? On the sabbath, how many times did Jesus break the law of Sabbath to help , to heal and to teach.... how many verses in the texts even talk about so called homosexcual behavior, while many talk more about behaviors of heterosexuals in their marriages and affairs?What other rules of the old testament do we not follow? We don't slay pagans, sacrifice animals among other things. Do we practice polygamy? Yet other religions actually do condone pologamy and having more than one wife.. and the old testament even acknowledged it and said it was blessed of God for Solomon(How on earth could he keep up with that many wives and concubines.....?)So those who believe that the bible is infallible have to follow it's texts to the tee and perfectly and to the letter of the law. If you think that all knowledge and truth are in the bible think again, it lies in the our own spiritual being and guidance from within. Not that the bible doesn't have beautiful and inspiring passages, but how can you think that every verse breathes of authenticity, when you read it's texts there are many incongruencies and contradictions? Not to say that that the bible can't be a source of inspiration and beauty and wisdom in many passages, but who wrote the texts. men, could they have been flawed in their reasoning and biases as well? The bible is a history of written works but were those texts accurately translated. does man have perfect knowlege and insight into the Mind of God... Doubtfully. Again we are dealing with history , tradition, tribal mentalities, among other things... What might have been right back then may not apply today. WE cannot live in the past or future but only in the present moment.... On whose authority do we trust and rely upon then...? Does a preacher, or person in authority who proclaims to know the truth or states he knows the way to heaven or salvation give creedence and power over your life... Where and what is truth? It is always within... your truth may not correspond with mine, my path may not correspond with yours... but we each have a path.... that is unique to our own wellbeing and personal growth. does it mean if you are buddhist or hindu or other than Christian you are wrong? No... Call it diversity... Did God make all flowers or trees the same... Or even two snowflakes the same? Are all animals the same? What would happen if everyone was exactly the same, thought the same , acted the same? B-O-R-I-N-G

ladyinred

03-23-2007, 09:50 PM

Pablo, in response to your response to the man who said that gay teenagers deserve what they get, let me relay a story from my ex's teenage nephews who were going to high school here in Texas.. They had had a blood drive at that school and many participated. What was astonishing was that a third of those who had particpated had stds from sexual activity, the majority of these are heterosexual kids. And her nephews were talking about how disgusting it was. Well the relgious right has spread lie about aids being a predominately homosexual disease, they seem to think heterosexuals can't get the disease...but science has refuted this and we know about heterosexual people who get aids and the widespread aids in Africa and other countries whose majority is hetrosexaul. What about the 10 million children left orphaned to the aids epidemic? Did they deserve to be left homless and parentless? See how relgion can spread distortion and lies about things. They are the ones sayings aids is a punnishment of God toward gays. What explains it then when heterosexuals get it? They are not only spreading lies and tall tells but are actually doing a grave diservice to the straight community and their youth by portraying aids as a gay disease... And what happens if a straight teenager believes this and decides he is immune to the disease? And gay youth get what they deserve. Spreading lies and misinformation about the GLBT community does not serve the straight community at all. What they call a gay disease is a universal problem and often related to cultural ignorance. For example in Africa , women are discouraged from using contraceptives thus making them more vulnerable to getting aids if their male partner is promiscious and gets aids...The man you were talking about is apparently blind to the fact that many of their children are just as vulnerable to societal pressures, premature pregnancies ,drug and alcohol use, dangerous activities, even suicide.many of todays youth is disturbed...The lies that the religious right tell and spread serve to destroy their own community as well. Gays deserve what they get? Perhaps you should have asked him if his child committed suicide would he want to believe that he deserved what he got and is going to burn in hell forever?Or if his teenage daughter gets raped or knocked up, she got what she deserved? Yes so when these negative things happen to their children what would they say then? God's punnishment ?These people waste too much time hating, they don't know the truth...they can't even be honest about their own problems in their family. What would happen if the same man had a child who was gay who committed suicide I wonder, what would he think about losing that child, if he was any kind of decent parent, it would be heart breaking, no parent who really loves their child would want the worst to befall their children.. No parent who loved their child would want them to be harmed either.. unless they aren't a fit parent what so ever...When people choose their religion over loving their children. How are they then in the love of God. Did God command them to hate or disown their children. Such people are more concerned with appearances and what other people would think. Like I such people are incapable of loving or showing compassion because they are convinced they know the truth about someone else's life...If they weren't so consumed by their toxic religion and fear and hatred they might know that God is mercy and love...Irregardless of whatever they think , it doesn't prove it comes from God...

ladyinred

03-23-2007, 10:46 PM

Again I don't understand this narrow focus on the gay community by the religious right, how it serves their agenda.Irregardless of what you read into the bible there seems to be a simple truth ,love others as yourself and love does no harm to a neighbor. How is being callous and cruel to the glbt community then serving God..
Throughout centuries we see what violence and hatred and fear bring about. the oppression of certain groups who were considered different, were often persecuted, we've seen it with the holocaust, we've seen it with women ,we've seen it with the inquisition and other crusades,We've seen it intolerance and lack of compassion for the suffering of others...we see in violence throughout our society. Families are not suffering because of the GLBT community whom they perceive as the threat to their families, they are suffering from the lack of spiritual values in their own homes, money and possessions,and other things have displaced the warmth and caring of human relationships..They have made things such as fancy cars , big homes, their financial worth more important than love and caring for each other.If you don't look right, wear the right clothes, look a certain way, have a certain body image, income, etc, then you are not in vogue.. They are more interested the status quo and maintaining a certain image more than anything...Their religion is more about superficial externals rather than the matters of the heart.You can't blame their problems on the gay community because they reside with themselves.

My personal opinion to know God is to know love, how you express that in your individual and unique way is up to you. I received an email from a lesbian couple who adopted a bi racial and blind baby. Can you say their love is wrong then? How many people would honestly race to adopt such a child..I remember seeing a program on tv about two men in Florida who adopted children who were HIV positive among other things. Those children thrived under their care and love and became healthier.
All of a sudden they were denounced as unfit parents because of being gay. Now that the children were healthier they were up for grabs. But who nurtured those children back to health with their love and care? These children lived in a safe and loving environment and now the couple were judged as unfit parents?Those children had no problem living with the couple and did not want leave their two dads..
Would they have received the same love from a heterosexual couple , I don't know, but before these men took these children it was apparent that no one else wanted them.... These children did not want to be taken from the only home and security they had. Who loses because of the bigotry against GLBT people. In this case the children obviously would lose... they were old enough to make their own choices and they wanted to stay with the only parents they knew, They weren't ashamed of them, they didn't care what society at large said about their home life.. They wanted to keep the parents they had.What were these children learning in their home environment,and getting from it? Obviously this couple was doing something right...

Pablo Rafael

03-24-2007, 08:53 AM

Again I don't understand this narrow focus on the gay community by the religious right, how it serves their agenda.

I don't understand it either. Even if one believes (which I don't) that the Bible speaks against homosexuality, one would have to admit it is a very minor issue in the Bible. Hardly worth very much attention.

Also, how can gays be the downfall of a civilization? We are a very small percentage of the population. If one locked all LGBT individuals in prison, would the problems in society go away? How are we any threat at all?

The only thing I can figure is any organization needs an evil enemy to make themselves look like the hero. (The focus of Mel White's Religion Gone Bad) What better group to villify than a small group that doesn't have the numbers to put up much of a fight.

How about the religious right taking a stand against materialism? Certainly the Bible speaks a lot about that. But that would effect the churches and the millions and millions of dollars that they collect and spend every day, wouldn't it?

Tu Amigo, Pablo

andrewlittle

03-24-2007, 09:06 AM

BruceChris

03-24-2007, 01:36 PM

But also to this thread, and to JacoBison's "What if Missionaries came.....

It occurs to me that my definition of an "Institution" has become that of a group of people who were founded in the service of a belief or idea that they felt met a very powerful need. And, that over time, the actions of that institution have turned 180 degrees, and are now piously working Against the original belief and need.

Jesus said, somewhere near the end, to beware of those who come preaching in my name, yet are preaching misleading doctrines, or words to that effect(Concordance below)

Matthew 24:4-31
4 Jesus answered them, "Beware that no one leads you astray. 5 For many will come in my name, saying, "I am the Messiah!' and they will lead many astray. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet"

(Odd, how this seems relevant to our time and place)

Other examples of such Institutions would be the government in George Orwell's 1984, and possibly other governments more close at hand, and many churches.

I cannot argue with the Evangelicals who take up the Great Commission, to go out and spread the Word of God, or the Teachings of Christ, but central to that message is the teaching of the Great Commandment. To preach a gospel of hate and fear, when the message is clearly one of Love and Forgiveness is clearly beyond Apostacy and Heresy, it has become Blasphemy. -- (I'm expecting the rocks to start coming thru the window, any minute)

Thoughts? -- Bruce Chris

kara speltz

03-24-2007, 01:46 PM

How about the religious right taking a stand against materialism? Certainly the Bible speaks a lot about that. But that would effect the churches and the millions and millions of dollars that they collect and spend every day, wouldn't it?

Tu Amigo, Pablo

Absolutely. You make an outstanding point there Rafael. I sincerely believe that one of the greatest dangers Americans face as a people is their consumerism and its effects on the rest of the world. We Americans are at best 15% of the population, consuming 85% of the world's resources. It is that disproportion that creates the anger and the wars. And yet, not a single spiritual institution will address that issue.

Kara

ladyinred

03-25-2007, 12:42 AM

Kara I agree with you. We need to think about the long term effects this has on the planet and what we are doing to it. There are not an unlimited supply of resources.. The earth ,I was reading, can barely sustain the population as it is now. Some countries have 90%+ poverty and we are considered the richest nation on earth...I was reading where rainforrest are being dwindled and they are rich in resources and provide as much as 25% of the oxygen to this planet, oceans are being depleted of their resources and the overfishing is causing certain species of fish to become extinct...or their populations severely depleted. I remember watching a documentary on a fishing village in Canada, that had been around for several hundred years...They worked with the laws of nature and fished during certain times of the season and allowed the fish population to reproduce and build back up again, but they always had abundance and the village did well and thrived for several hundred years by applying this law of nature in to effect. It wasn't until a larger fishing industry with it's technology came into the area and virtually wiped out the fish populations and left the village destitute and they finally lost their livlihood. Our resources on this planet are not unlimited... and the more we deplete them the more we lose...As these resources are dwindled and squandered there will be less to go around for everyone. We might find ourselves in the future fighting wars in competition for resources. We may be in for more global catastrophes
I remember watching a documentary on the great civilizations and it stated one of the primary reasons these civilizations fell was because they squandered their resources while accumulating wealth for themselves.
Consumerism is the primary force that drives the US economy but where will that economy be twenty- thirty years from now... What we do to the planet and to it's resources will ultimately come back to us...It's like karma....The law of cause and effect... We may live comfortably now.. with the luxuries and nice homes and all sorts of material goodies, but what will happen to future generations... If we in the US keep squandering the resources we have without thought or consequences of what we will reap tommorrow , we may end up like countries like India.
Scary thought. Did you ever see the movie Soylent Green? It seems like Science fiction. But the bible even contains stories of famines and draughts and people cannabalizing...even eating their own children.. The movie may be science fiction but perhaps it is more science than fiction..

ladyinred

03-25-2007, 12:51 AM

http://www.ishaah.com/index.cfm?action=Seattle A native American website full of spirtual wisdom. The Indians believed in being one with nature and they did not squander or destroy the resources for their own pleasure, but used what they needed and lived basically simple lives in harmony with nature.

ml1

03-30-2007, 06:31 PM

Howdy. Someone up there posted this question:

"Imagine, God created the universe, the galaxies, and everything, and then he becomes unbalanced by homosexuals making love? A love that can't even hurt anybody. One thinks, that cannot be true."

You are correct. The Universe was not unbalanced by homosexuals making love. It was unbalanced by Adam & Eve's sin. The results of this "unbalancing" are pain, toil, and suffering.

So all sin is a result of ALL of us having a fallen, sinful nature, inherited from Adam, and only justified by the atoning work of Christ on the cross.

u-dog

03-30-2007, 10:20 PM

... and one of the graces that we have from God that enables us to live in this world of pain, toil, and suffering is our sexuality. the ability to bond with another human being physically, emotionally, and spiritually. To join our lives with another person in order to face the realities of a fallen world. To hold hands with another person and walk into the future together. to have someone sitting at our bedside when we are ill or at the end of life.

God said of Adam that it "is not Good for the man to be alone" but the animals (the ones who were different from him) did not constitute an "azer" (partner as a helper). It was only when god drew out a rib and created one who was "bone of his bone" that Adam felt "not alone".

Many of us here have been told that we are sinful and abominable because our hearts and bodies draw us toward the "wrong" person. That the words of God to Adam notwithstanding, it is better for us to be alone than to find our "Azer" the one who is bone of our bone. it is a lie -- a great, hideous, hateful, violent, lie.

So... yes.... we are all sinful. All of us have fallen short of the Glory that God intended for us. And yes, it is only through the grace of God in Jesus Christ that we are made whole again. But our attractions, our love, and our life commitments are not sinful. They are blessed. they are the gift of a loving God. They deserve to be recognized by the Church and by the State and they deserve to be honored in the same ways that straight marriages are.