Is the Bible against homosexuality?

[Marco]

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. 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? 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]

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]

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]

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

http://www.world-mysteries.com/Phili...en_letters.htm

[Kissa]

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.

[novaseeker]

Originally Posted by Kissa

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]

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]

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]

Well I can only give people a Jewish perspective.

[BronzDragon]

Originally Posted by Marco

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!"

[Pablo Rafael]

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]

Originally Posted by revcobb

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]

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]

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]

Are there any cokes in the fridge?