Interesting stuff Vickles, and i dsid not get through it all yet. HOWEVER....
I did read some of the "reviews of biblical passages", and they raise some of the same questions I asked in the other thread concerning the Romans Ch. 1 verses.
I have always questioned whether those verses are meant as condemnation of homosexuality per se, but rather a sin of burning in lust, (verse 25 speaks of worshipping the creature (creation? maybe)
do all the following verses (28-32) refer specifically to homosexuality or to anyone who commits these affronts to God's will?
Backbiters? proud? boasters? are these traits peculiar to homosexuals? I don't believe so. I see them amongst ewven the straightest of christians.
Hap, I got out if the same as you did. I don't believe that those verses meant to specifically point out homosexuality but verses changed through time through religous beliefs.
I found this site to be very interesting and a whole new take from a religous point of view.
I still haven't read through it all either, it will take time for me to digest some of this stuff and to study it.
Vickles, thanks for the link. I've read similar stuff on other sites, pointed out to me by a gay ex-twi person whom I knew and respected and liked when we were both innies, and who is still a Christian believer.
On your link I read a post that could be enlightening, for those willing to consider another point of view (my comments are in bold):
quote:
Nine biblical citations are customarily invoked as relating to homosexuality. Four (Deuteronomy 23:17, I Kings 14:24, I Kings 22:46
and II Kings 23:7) simply forbid prostitution, by men and women.
Two others (Leviticus 18:19-23 and Leviticus 20:10-6) are part of what biblical scholars call the Holiness Code. The code explicitly
bans homosexual acts. But it also prohibits eating raw meat, planting two different kinds of seed in the same field and wearing garments with two different kinds of yarn. Tattoos, adultery and sexual intercourse during a woman's menstrual period are similarly outlawed.
And those who hold to the levitical laws, are you likely anytime soon to stone your children to death when they disobey you?
There is no mention of homosexuality in the four Gospels of the New Testament. The moral teachings of Jesus are not concerned with
the subject.
To me this is a biggie. If this were such a big honkin' deal to God, don't you think Jesus might have mentioned it--at least once?
Three references from St. Paul are frequently cited (Romans 1:26-2:1, I Corinthians 6:9-11 and I Timothy 1:10). But St. Paul was concerned with homosexuality only because in Greco-Roman culture it represented a secular sensuality that was contrary to his Jewish-Christian spiritual idealism. He was against lust and sensuality in anyone, including heterosexuals. To say that homosexuality is bad because homosexuals are tempted to do morally doubtful things is to say that heterosexuality is bad because heterosexuals are likewise tempted. For St. Paul, anyone who puts his or her interest ahead of God's is condemned, a verdict that falls equally upon everyone.
And lest we forget Sodom and Gomorrah, recall that the story is not about sexual perversion and homosexual practice. It is about inhospitality, according to Luke 10:10-13, and failure to care for the poor, according to Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." To suggest that Sodom and Gomorrah is about homosexual sex is an analysis of about as much worth as suggesting that the story of Jonah and the whale is a treatise on fishing.
The same Bible that the predecessors of Mr. Falwell and Mr. Robertson used to keep white churches white is the source of the inspiration
of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the social reformation of the 1960s.
The same Bible that anti-feminists use to keep women silent in the churches is the Bible that preaches liberation to captives and says that in Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free.
And the same Bible that on the basis of an archaic social code of ancient Israel and a tortured reading of Paul is used to condemn
all homosexuals and homosexual behavior includes metaphors of redemption, renewal, inclusion and love -- principles that invite
homosexuals to accept their freedom and responsibility in Christ and demands that their fellow Christians accept them as well.
Just a thought...
Rob
Fr. Robert H. Havican, O.S.F. [Reformed Catholic Priest/Texas Police Officer]
Religion through out time has always had to be dragged along kicking and screaming. Sometimes for centuries those who defy the church are killed and/or made to suffer. Then when it can no longer justify the dogma, through some decree or letter, it reverses the practice or belief, and washes itself clean of all the death and destruction inflicted.
The church believed the earth was the center of the universe for centuries. Today we scoff at the idea, but when science challenged this belief, many were put to death.
Just in my life time the changes have been dramatic. As a boy if you ate a piece of meat on Friday and died, he was damned to hell. Can you image how I felt when my uncle died on Saturday, after seeing him eat a hamburger on Friday at a company picnic? Our whole family was distraught knowing he was in hell forever for this sin. And then a few years later the rule was changed to allow eating meat on Fridays. If he had just lived a couple more years he would be enjoying life in heaven with God instead of eternal torment in hell with the devil.
Most all of us have personal examples of how the church has changed it doctrine to 'keep up with the timess'. Woman's issues come to mind. Being able to work on Sundays are another. I remember when a Christian shouldn't dance. Fertilizing a woman's egg outside the womb was unthinkable to a church person a few years back....now most Christians look at it as a miracle.
Sometime in the future a person stumbling across this thread will wonder what all the big stink was back in '05 about homosexuals? Someday it will be as acceptable as a person being left handed (that used to be a real no no). It will just take the church, again, a while to 'catch up' with the rest of society. And when it does, they will open their arms and act like nothing ever happened.
I have been wondering since the events surrounding the tsunami how some people can believe that God can be so bothered about homosexuality whilst he *apparently* shows much less concern about the wholesale destruction of human life caused by natural events?
Which, in reality is the more destructive? Even the Archbishop of Canterbury has stated that such an event must make one at least question the existence of God.
How many hail mary's do you have to say to get forgiveness??? Can I just send a check to TWI? :D-->
Seriously, I haven't had time to delve into the link, but it is very interesting and I know many gay people who make TWIts look 100 times worse than the evil mongrels that they are. AND I'm glad they have a church here that they can go to who accepts and loves them for who they are and not whatever lifestyle choices they make.
Thanks you guys for responding so well. It does make you wonder why there is so much hatred about this subject.
While in twi there was so much dislike against gays. And to be honest there are a lot of religions that feel the same way. I really felt that if God was suppose to be loving, why would this be such an abomination? It was really hard to understand.
While looking on the internet and finding this stuff it seemed like it all came together for me. Things, I guess I knew but didn't totally understand the whys and wherefores.
My hope for ones that are in the hate em category can take a look at this with an open mind. Whats the harm in just looking?
I wonder why so many people are set to say that homosexualty is a sin? As you said eating meat on fridays used to be considered a sin. But you didn't get people hating you for it.
I don't believe that it is a sin. I have a hard time with people that say in one breath that its ok if they are gay and then on the other hand say that God forgives them and looks on their heart. To me, its a backhanded way of saying that they believe its a sin.
I wonder why so many people are set to say that homosexualty is a sin? As you said eating meat on fridays used to be considered a sin. But you didn't get people hating you for it.
Eating meat on Friday was only sin In the Catholic church. It had no biblical basis it was a Catholic tradition not shared by other denominations. Homosexuality on the other hand is not exclusive to a single denominations doctrine and has a biblical basis. A totaly different thing. it's not apples to apples so to speak. Christianity as a whole does not endorse meat eating or non meat eating on Friday because there is no biblical instruction one way or another. However most Christian churches do recognize scripture as being non supportive of homosexuality. Thats the reason for the difference.
So why then is the evidence/results/facts in real life not conducive according to the aforementioned 'biblical injunction'? Where is the verifiable negative results that have been proven to result directly from homosexuality.
Like the so-called threat to the family unit and marriage. How has that 'threat' been proven true?
See, thats the essense of things real and true. The results are according to the claim. ... And not just based on "It is Written" and that's it.
Like the so-called threat to the family unit and marriage. How has that 'threat' been proven true?
I am not aware of any biblical threats like you mentioned to be proved. Like eating meat or not on Friday that would appear to be a personal opinion which of course may or may not be proven. I dont see those ideas in any bible chapter.
Does anyone have a copy of that letter pointing out all the other silly "abominaitons" of the old testament?
It went a little like "Dear Rev. soandso, Thank you for point out how homosexuality is an abomination. I have also stopped letting my wife roam free during her time of menstration...etc, etc."
Anyone know the one I'm talking about. It's approprioate for this thread.
All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
Fowl...with four legs...I'm thinking. Can't think of any. Can you? Oh, I think I got it. Gods talking about fairies. You know "the gays". lol. That's got to be it.
opinion that the homophobic section of Romans chapter 1 was lacking in the earlier (now lost) texts of that work. That this section that had been accepted by so many as "the Word of God" is a later production - not coming from Paul- or from God.
I knew it was added but I really didn't understand why until this past year.
Controversies throughout the Roman Empire concerning "Gay Marriage" and ideals of masculinity raged throughout the second and third centuries.
From the article, "The Origins of Marriage"
(pg.13, The Week, April 2, 4004, vol4, issue 150):
quote:
"Gay marriage is rare in history - but not unknown. The emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome , homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. "Look -a man of family and fortune - being wed to a man!" Juvenal wrote. "Such things, before we=re very much older, will be done in public." He mocked such unions, saying that male brides "would never be able to hold their husbands by having a baby." The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342..."
Bryn Mawr Classical Review 1999.11.05; review of Craig A. Williams, Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Pp. xii, 395; 12 pls.; Reviewed by Bruce W. Frier, University of Michigan:
quote:
* cinaedi [from the beginning of this article]- In Rome of the early Empire, there were many men who threw off the conventions of traditional Roman manhood and instead assumed an "effeminate" appearance and manner, thereby, in the usual case, advertising their eagerness for sexual encounters with other males. These were the "softies" (molles), the cinaedi.
Conversely, is it fanciful to suggest that the golden age of the cinaedi may have occasioned a perceptible sharpening in the Roman ideology of public manhood, with consequence especially in the squalid prescriptive codes of the second century A.D. (emphasis mine)
To which I might add, the "prescriptive" material found in Romans ch.1 - which perfectly mirrors controversies of the second century AD, long after Paul had died?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
6
10
3
Popular Days
Jan 4
18
Jan 3
11
Jan 2
8
Jan 5
7
Top Posters In This Topic
TheInvisibleDan 8 posts
vickles 6 posts
WhiteDove 10 posts
markomalley 3 posts
Popular Days
Jan 4 2005
18 posts
Jan 3 2005
11 posts
Jan 2 2005
8 posts
Jan 5 2005
7 posts
HAPe4me
Interesting stuff Vickles, and i dsid not get through it all yet. HOWEVER....
I did read some of the "reviews of biblical passages", and they raise some of the same questions I asked in the other thread concerning the Romans Ch. 1 verses.
I have always questioned whether those verses are meant as condemnation of homosexuality per se, but rather a sin of burning in lust, (verse 25 speaks of worshipping the creature (creation? maybe)
do all the following verses (28-32) refer specifically to homosexuality or to anyone who commits these affronts to God's will?
Backbiters? proud? boasters? are these traits peculiar to homosexuals? I don't believe so. I see them amongst ewven the straightest of christians.
Whatcha think?
~HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I'm related to some, I work with some, and I get along with all.
;)-->
(but it's an interesting site!)
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
Hap, I got out if the same as you did. I don't believe that those verses meant to specifically point out homosexuality but verses changed through time through religous beliefs.
I found this site to be very interesting and a whole new take from a religous point of view.
I still haven't read through it all either, it will take time for me to digest some of this stuff and to study it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Vickles, thanks for the link. I've read similar stuff on other sites, pointed out to me by a gay ex-twi person whom I knew and respected and liked when we were both innies, and who is still a Christian believer.
On your link I read a post that could be enlightening, for those willing to consider another point of view (my comments are in bold):
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
Religion through out time has always had to be dragged along kicking and screaming. Sometimes for centuries those who defy the church are killed and/or made to suffer. Then when it can no longer justify the dogma, through some decree or letter, it reverses the practice or belief, and washes itself clean of all the death and destruction inflicted.
The church believed the earth was the center of the universe for centuries. Today we scoff at the idea, but when science challenged this belief, many were put to death.
Just in my life time the changes have been dramatic. As a boy if you ate a piece of meat on Friday and died, he was damned to hell. Can you image how I felt when my uncle died on Saturday, after seeing him eat a hamburger on Friday at a company picnic? Our whole family was distraught knowing he was in hell forever for this sin. And then a few years later the rule was changed to allow eating meat on Fridays. If he had just lived a couple more years he would be enjoying life in heaven with God instead of eternal torment in hell with the devil.
Most all of us have personal examples of how the church has changed it doctrine to 'keep up with the timess'. Woman's issues come to mind. Being able to work on Sundays are another. I remember when a Christian shouldn't dance. Fertilizing a woman's egg outside the womb was unthinkable to a church person a few years back....now most Christians look at it as a miracle.
Sometime in the future a person stumbling across this thread will wonder what all the big stink was back in '05 about homosexuals? Someday it will be as acceptable as a person being left handed (that used to be a real no no). It will just take the church, again, a while to 'catch up' with the rest of society. And when it does, they will open their arms and act like nothing ever happened.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Nicely said, STL!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
An interesting and useful resource.
I have been wondering since the events surrounding the tsunami how some people can believe that God can be so bothered about homosexuality whilst he *apparently* shows much less concern about the wholesale destruction of human life caused by natural events?
Which, in reality is the more destructive? Even the Archbishop of Canterbury has stated that such an event must make one at least question the existence of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Gays and Religion....Hmmmm, well, there are gays in religion...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Honestly, if I did not understand the two spiritual kingdoms I might be at a loss too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Tattoos and sex during menstruation are WRONG????
How many hail mary's do you have to say to get forgiveness??? Can I just send a check to TWI?
:D-->
Seriously, I haven't had time to delve into the link, but it is very interesting and I know many gay people who make TWIts look 100 times worse than the evil mongrels that they are. AND I'm glad they have a church here that they can go to who accepts and loves them for who they are and not whatever lifestyle choices they make.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
Belle, peek at your PT please.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Got It, Shellon!
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
No. Only if you have a hot dog w/o a bun with condiments.
Now THAT is wrong.
Thus speakest Hank!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
Thanks you guys for responding so well. It does make you wonder why there is so much hatred about this subject.
While in twi there was so much dislike against gays. And to be honest there are a lot of religions that feel the same way. I really felt that if God was suppose to be loving, why would this be such an abomination? It was really hard to understand.
While looking on the internet and finding this stuff it seemed like it all came together for me. Things, I guess I knew but didn't totally understand the whys and wherefores.
My hope for ones that are in the hate em category can take a look at this with an open mind. Whats the harm in just looking?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
I wonder why so many people are set to say that homosexualty is a sin? As you said eating meat on fridays used to be considered a sin. But you didn't get people hating you for it.
I don't believe that it is a sin. I have a hard time with people that say in one breath that its ok if they are gay and then on the other hand say that God forgives them and looks on their heart. To me, its a backhanded way of saying that they believe its a sin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Garth:
"Tattoos [during] ... sex during menstruation ... [on] a hot dog with/out a bun [but] with condiments ... is wrong"
Only if the sex also includes wearing a snorkle mask, swimming fins, and uses a feather.
Galen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Eating meat on Friday was only sin In the Catholic church. It had no biblical basis it was a Catholic tradition not shared by other denominations. Homosexuality on the other hand is not exclusive to a single denominations doctrine and has a biblical basis. A totaly different thing. it's not apples to apples so to speak. Christianity as a whole does not endorse meat eating or non meat eating on Friday because there is no biblical instruction one way or another. However most Christian churches do recognize scripture as being non supportive of homosexuality. Thats the reason for the difference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
So why then is the evidence/results/facts in real life not conducive according to the aforementioned 'biblical injunction'? Where is the verifiable negative results that have been proven to result directly from homosexuality.
Like the so-called threat to the family unit and marriage. How has that 'threat' been proven true?
See, thats the essense of things real and true. The results are according to the claim. ... And not just based on "It is Written" and that's it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Like the so-called threat to the family unit and marriage. How has that 'threat' been proven true?
I am not aware of any biblical threats like you mentioned to be proved. Like eating meat or not on Friday that would appear to be a personal opinion which of course may or may not be proven. I dont see those ideas in any bible chapter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Does anyone have a copy of that letter pointing out all the other silly "abominaitons" of the old testament?
It went a little like "Dear Rev. soandso, Thank you for point out how homosexuality is an abomination. I have also stopped letting my wife roam free during her time of menstration...etc, etc."
Anyone know the one I'm talking about. It's approprioate for this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Fowl...with four legs...I'm thinking. Can't think of any. Can you? Oh, I think I got it. Gods talking about fairies. You know "the gays". lol. That's got to be it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
You can scoff at the wisdom of the immutable laws of God if you like, but I, for one have always honored His will by observing Ex. 23:19,
"Thou shalt not boil a kid in his mother's milk"
To this day I've never committed that transgression. So there...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
I've been boring people for years with my
opinion that the homophobic section of Romans chapter 1 was lacking in the earlier (now lost) texts of that work. That this section that had been accepted by so many as "the Word of God" is a later production - not coming from Paul- or from God.
I knew it was added but I really didn't understand why until this past year.
Controversies throughout the Roman Empire concerning "Gay Marriage" and ideals of masculinity raged throughout the second and third centuries.
From the article, "The Origins of Marriage"
(pg.13, The Week, April 2, 4004, vol4, issue 150):
And from http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1999/1999-11-05.html
Bryn Mawr Classical Review 1999.11.05; review of Craig A. Williams, Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Pp. xii, 395; 12 pls.; Reviewed by Bruce W. Frier, University of Michigan:
To which I might add, the "prescriptive" material found in Romans ch.1 - which perfectly mirrors controversies of the second century AD, long after Paul had died?
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
sincere thank you for boring me, danny !!!!!!!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.