Please stop using the bible against homosexuality

[Sturgen]

It's difficult for me to believe that someone could be "recruited" to homosexual activity if they are not oriented toward it.

 

For the sake of anonymity of friends and acquaintances I would prefer to not get into details; however I know at least 6, possibly as many as 10 individuals who have been as you say recruited to homosexuality/bisexuality. This occurred at a camp, with a predominantly female staff in the western United States. One of the individuals who worked there, although not out of the closet, was gay. This last summer several others began homosexual relationships of one nature or another. Thats as many as 30% of the camps population, a far disproportionate amount for the surrounding communities; which have a heavy Catholic and LDS influence as well as a predominantly conservative political belief. The nearest hotbed of homosexual activity, by hotbed I mean large population where homosexuals are openly accepted (like NY, LA, San Francisco, Seattle, etc.) is nearly 400 miles away. Also look at universities, even public high schools, Gay/Lesbian/Bi/Tran clubs are becoming ever more popular, to the point as which it is cool to be gay. Why do you think the current trend for male actors and musicians to look effeminate comes from? Or the increasing popularity of female musicians kissing each other on stage? Ok, maybe that last one is trying to attract a male audience. But the point still stands.

 

On a side bar, msnowman, dont worry about what others think, just state your mind, avoid posts thousands of words long filled with quotes from Plato and no one is going to be to bothered by you. Look at me, I spout off about one thing or another fairly often, I would hope that it isnt held against me, but whats the worst that can happen, some guy half way across the country thinks youre a pain in the rear, thats about it.

 

[Achilleez]

Are you going to lecture me about using only bible verses that you want to? Are you going to claim that every aspect of the bible must be followed literally? If so you are more hypocritical than I thought. Do you eat pork? Do you eat animals that are "clean" or "unclean"? Or have you disregarded those terms because you feel they no longer apply today.

 

I can understand that I will never come to full agreement on this matter since personally I do not follow the bible to strict adherence. But, you cannot allow yourself to be so blinded as to carry words two thousand years forward and expect them to have the exact same meaning as they did at the time they were written. The bible forbids homosexuality because at the time it meant fornication and disrespect for an opponent. It is possible that it also meant perversion or disrespect for God's creation, but it does not say so.

 

It is not my interpretation of the bible that permits frustration, it is yours. If this is indeed divine word inspired by an all-powerful creator, do you really think it needs you shouting at me to protect itself?

 

ps. when did I refer to myself as a being greater than god?

 

 

[Adrianvs]

"Do you eat pork? Do you eat animals that are "clean" or "unclean"? Or have you disregarded those terms because you feel they no longer apply today."

 

You have ignored the brief explanations regarding this issue. If you want to understand it better, read the Acts of the Apostles, particularly Peter's speeches in Act 10 and 15. I accept the words of Peter as the Prince of the Apostles and he whose "faith may not fail." Now I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't simply "carry words two thousand years forward and expect them to have the exact same meaning as they did at the time they were written." I am following the consistent teaching authority on the matter from the last 2,000 years.

I agree that others shouldn't present Scripture itself to nonbelievers as an infallible authority simply because it doesn't mean anything to them. But I will not accept your proclamations and interpretations regarding the authorship and inspiration of Scripture. I think that you need to give the notions of Scripture and inspiration more thought. You seem to want to understand it, but have largely given up. Don't do that; keep studying and thinking.

[Rooster7]

Achilleez,

 

"It is possible that it also meant perversion or disrespect for God's creation, but it does not say so."

 

Who are you kidding?! Have you read the Bible or just the parts that make you feel comfortable? When you're done reading Acts, read the book of Romans. Do you have a different interpretation for the words "vile" and "evil".

[Achilleez]

Rooster7,

 

After refering to a bible I have kicking around the house, I whole-heartedly admit my mistake. I now see the direct message the bible gives towards homosexuality. Although I still do not regard this as proof that we should all hate homosexuals, I see why some would.

 

Adrianvs,

 

I tried to look up your part, but couldn't find anything regarding to not eating 'clean' or 'unclean' animals. Perhaps you could give a specific passage reference. And I havn't given up. Infact I have spent a large quantity of time trying to figure out what makes people beleive that every word in a two-thousand year old book must be true. But I still can't make sense of it.

[Adrianvs]

Acts 10:9-16, 28 You should read the entire chapters to understand the context, but there are the specific parts of Acts 10. Acts 15 is more general, referring to the validity of all traditional Jewish practices. The apostles make an executive decision here, deciding what will and will not be binding on the faithful. They are exercising apostolic authority here. Read through the Acts while looking at the ministry of Peter in relation to the Gentiles. The issue of obeying Levititical law comes up several times and the apostles (usually Peter) address the issue by stating that those who wish to follow Christ are no longer bound by the Old Covenant or its laws. Again, you have to look at the Act of the Apostles, not as a series of direct commandments to the reader (ala Koran), but instead as a descriptive history of, well, the acts of the apostles at the very foundation of the church. Very important teachings regarding Levitical law are discussed here. You may also want to read Paul's letter to the Hebrews. It goes into detail regarding the two Covenants. I'm telling this to you so that you may gain understanding of the things that you talk about. The Bible is not a collection of proverbs or truisms. There are parts that consist in this. The whole is, however, a historical and chronological story with commentary along the way. I don't know how to explain this any more clearly, but you must understand that the Christian understands the Old Testament only in light of the New Testament. If you are ignorant of the New Testament, then you cannot presume to know how a Christian should or would understand any particular passage in the Old Testament.

[Rooster7]

Achilleez,

 

"Although I still do not regard this as proof that we should all hate homosexuals, I see why some would."

 

Of those who have referenced the Bible on this forum, who has ever stated that Christians should "hate homosexuals". The Bible teaches us to hate homosexuality - just like another sin such as adultery or lying. But it does not tell us to hate those who sin. If so, we'd have to hate ourselves too. That being said, we are instructed to speak the truth in love. And the truth is - God will judge those who reject Christ and refuse to repent of their sins.

 

[evmori]

Rooster7,

Excellent post! Excellent! Right on the money! Excellent!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Achilleez]

I agree, 'hate' was the wrong word choice.

 

To rephrase: "Although I still do not regard this as proof to disapprove of the act of homosexuality, I see why some would".

 

This is simply because personally biblical passages mean little to me. But I see now how Christians justify their claim that God condemns homosexuality.

[WHEELER]

In regards to those who think the Bible has no meaning because it is 2000 years old.

 

St. Paul quotes from the Bible saying "Do not muzzle the ox while he is treading the grain." He says this at ICor 9.9 and I Tim 5.18. He is quoting from Deut. 25.4.

 

He says that "It was written for our sake".

 

St. Paul says "All scripture" is to be used. Not parts and pieces of it.

St. Augustine said, "If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself."

 

Menander said the same thing, "If you judge the gods, you have become gods." (paraphrased.)

 

Scripture is the sword of truth. Why not use it?

 

Jesus was very careful to fulfill all parts of scripture that pertained to him. He said many times, "so that the scriptures may be fulfilled...." again "So that the scriptures may be fulfilled...."

 

He said, "The heavens and the earth will pass away but not any word, jot, or tittle will pass from the scriptures.

 

Jesus said, "Man does not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of God shall man live."

 

St. Paul quoted from scriptures that were 1000 years or much older than him. St. Paul used scriptures and Jesus obeyed the scriptures unlike many men today.

[evmori]

As much as I hate to admit it, I agree with Wheeler's last post!

 

It's getting cold! Brr.

[Fat Old Guy]

Okay, I'm going to play Devil's advocate here. How many of you who claim to follow the Bible's teachings would have your teenaged daughter stoned to death after you caught her doing the 'who-de-who' in the family room? How about when your son refuses to clean his room, mow the lawn or do his homework? Are you willing to have him stoned?

 

 

[evmori]

Fat Old Guy's got a point here!

I wouldn't have my daughter stoned for doing the 'who-de-who' in the family room. But there are consequences! Not stoning but consequences!

 

And BTW, we use to call it the 'Yada Yada Whoopie'.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Achilleez]

It seems confusing that in order to defend the truth of scripture, Wheeler has chosen to give me scripture quotes. Does no one realize that to someone who does not put stock in the bible, biblical quotes won't convince him of much?

[Rooster7]

FOG,

 

Am I to assume that you believe Christ wants us (his followers) to invoke such harsh punishments upon those who break the law? I realize that our duty to follow the law has not been removed But is our duty to enforce it as prescribed by the Old Testament still intact? Or, did Christ say or do something to void that obligation? I believe he did. While the New Testament does not void the law, it does have a thing or to say about forgiveness. Dont misinterpret my words. Im not suggesting that we are to ignore sin. However, I dont think we have the same obligation to punish those sinners amongst us as we once did. Christ, revealed the truth. We are ALL sinners. If we even thought about the 'who-de-who' or the 'Yada Yada Whoopie', then we stand as guilty as those have acted upon those thoughts. Thus, using Gods standards, we ALL deserve to be stoned to death (i.e., If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone...). Yes, I claim to follow the Bibles teachings, but I am trying to follow all of the Bibles teachings as they relate to one another the Old Testament with the New Testament. The Old Testament teaches me that I deserve to be stoned to death and that I ought to be. The Jews, Gods chosen people, purged themselves of those sinners (as prescribed by the law) and/or made sacrifices because they had no other way to stand before a Holy and Righteous God. The New Testament teaches me that because of Christ, I have Gods forgiveness and that I ought not seek to punish others as if I have no sins to claim of my own. Jesus allows us to stand before God even though we are sinners because His sacrifice on the cross atoned for our sins. Having said all of the above, God still wants us to acknowledge sin whenever and wherever we see it, whether it is in ourselves or someone else. Furthermore, while we should not judge harshly and/or act as if we are sinless, Christ gave authority to earthly governments to punish evildoers appropriately. I say this in closing because I know there are some folks lurking in the wings anxious to claim the Bible is inconsistent and thus not trustworthy. The Bible is consistent and very trustworthy. The problem is there are some who dont want to know the truth or worse, they want to distort the truth, so they dont read or seek to understand Gods Word in context.

 

Go see Mel Gibsons The Passion and tell me that Christ did not change our relationship with God. I havent seen it yet myself although I will soon. I have been told that it will change you, whether you are passionately devoted to Christ or just someone who is casually interested in the faith. Billy Graham, whos been around the block more than a few times, said the movie changed the way he preaches. Regardless, Christs sacrifice is not to be taken lightly.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)