A Christian's view of homosexuality

[madkins007]

There are a lot of things I was taught the Bible 'said', that upon better research on my part have tuned out to be untrue and instead were the 'spin' put on it by someone for whatever reason.

 

I am willing to re-reseach these passages in that light as well, but I admit that I have always thought about the same as Ed, etc. have stated.

 

However... I DO notice ONE little detail...

 

Homosexuality is called an 'abomination'. Proverbs 6 says this about other abominations: "16 These six things the Lord hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: 17 A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil, 19 A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren." (New King James Version). This list does not include remarriages (Deut 24:4), women wearing men's clothing (Deut. 22:5),

 

Churches often elevate homosexuality to a very 'high' sin- and somehow 'forget' that God has placed other things on the same list. Churches may exclude or remove homosexuals- but when was the last time you heard of a church taking action against a liar or a person with a 'proud look'?

 

IF we want the BSA to use God's standards (no atheists, no homosexuals, no abominations) should we then not also eliminate the proud, liars, divorcees, cross-dressers (and isn't the female version of the uniform awfully masculine?)

 

How do we justify banning one abomination while tolerating others?

[Rooster7]

TJ

 

That's progress, because a few moments ago you were convinced of what was really in my heart. (And you still seem suspect as to whether what I'm expressing in this forum is what I really believe. Very odd.)

 

As a matter fact, I dont know what is in your heart. However, I strongly suspect that you know differently than what you say. I suspect this to be true, because I know God speaks to each of us. He will not allow us to ignore Him or His truth.

 

Why question my sincerity? More importantly, you've already established there's no room for a third person's perspective between my heart and God, regardless of what you "find difficult to believe".

 

Depends on how you define a third persons perspective. I dont claim to know where you stand with God nor could I. However, I can tell you what Gods Word says as it may be applicable to you. If you tell me that youre an unrepentant homosexual then its not my judgment when I advise you that the Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin Or, that God will judge those who refuse be repentant from their sins and accept His sons sacrifice.

 

I'll concede you've spent much more time studying them than I have, though I don't see how that makes you any more of an authority on something you agree is so personal.

 

Ones relationship with God is personal on this I absolutely agree. However, His Word is universally true.

 

I disagree, I believe there is considerable likelihood for misinterpretation and translation based on cultural bias. Though I also believe in the end it doesn't matter whether the current wording of the Bible is based on an accurate translation. I see Jesus saying that the lessons and laws of the Bible are subject to change, and I see how Christianity has already changed scriptural tradition on many other things (subservience of women, etc) to reflect an evolved ethos.

 

This sounds like a sales job to me. Are you trying to convince me or yourself? Its quite possible that youre sincere, but I doubt that God will allow you believe this for long.

 

Do you believe the Word of God is subject to change?

 

No.

 

If not, how do you explain modern views that differ from ancient views on many fundamental tenants of God's Word?

 

I need more details. What views have changed? There are some modern day teachings which I disagree. There is also OT ritualistic law, which one was required to follow in order to approach God. However, Christs sacrifice on the cross enables us to seek him directly.

 

[tjhammer]

Well, let's stick with the one I brought up in the most recent post... the Bible outlines a role for women to be subserviant to man. Most of Christianity rejects this today... where do you stand?

 

 

And an extension of that example, what of the recent "edits" to the Bible to be more "gender-neutral" in the use of pronouns... do you reject new translations that refer to "people" instead of "man" or "woman"?

[Rooster7]

TJ

 

Well, let's stick with the one I brought up in the most recent post... the Bible outlines a role for women to be subserviant to man. Most of Christianity rejects this today... where do you stand?

 

My understanding of the Bible is that men should not be under a womans spiritual headship. Why? I cannot say but I believe it is clearly taught. This teaching does not speak to womens abilities or roles in relationship to men outside of spiritual leadership.

 

And an extension of that example, what of the recent "edits" to the Bible to be more "gender-neutral" in the use of pronouns... do you reject new translations that refer to "people" instead of "man" or "woman"?

 

I reject any translation that is inspired by political correctness. I read English translations that attempt to keep the integrity of the authors original words and meaning. Translations that attempt to do more than that are of no value to me.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[tjhammer]

Then, in your view, throughout the Bible where it says "man", it means that quite literally? If that's the case, then it would sure seem likely verses can be found that place women into subservience in ways beyond just spiritual leadership.

 

I get the picture.

[Rooster7]

Then, in your view, throughout the Bible where it says "man", it means that quite literally?

 

Why do you presume that to be true? The intended meaning needs to be interpreted within the context of the verse and chapter, and in a consistent manner with the rest of Scripture.

 

If that's the case, then it would sure seem likely verses can be found that place women into subservience in ways beyond just spiritual leadership.

 

Perhaps...but as I said, interpret within context. Can you provide some examples?

 

I get the picture.

 

I suspect that you will draw whatever picture that suits your purpose but that is not likely to reflect reality.

 

[tjhammer]

Of that we are both guilty, no doubt.

[Rooster7]

Perhaps - as the Bible says,

 

The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? Jeremiah 17:9

 

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Homosexuality could be a choice and a genetic trait at the same time but then it would no longer be a choice but the outcome of a personal struggle.

 

In the Genesis story at Sodom, the deliverance of Anybody to the door for sex is a clear violation of one's choice and can not be interpreted any other way than for rape. Nobody directly involved was asking for permission to have sex and nobody that was to be directly involved was going to grant it. Look at the definition of rape. This was not a Halloween visit either. "Trick or Treat give me a person for sex."

 

Today's many versions of the Bible is the result of the same search for truth that has permeated the Christian Church from the beginning until this day. The Church has continually tried to bring people in line with their one and only truth by using every manner of evil deed that can be thought of by mankind over the centuries. They have had Ecumenical Councils, purges, beheadings, tortures, Inquisitions, burnings, on and on and on to make people "accept" their one and only way to truth. The problem now is that people have the freedom to understand and an education to think for themselves. They do not need the church to tell them what they should think and that has given the modern church much to fear and more to hate.

 

We have good records to show that over the centuries, God spoke to individuals and one individual would find a truth that the next God believing individual thought to be wrong. God was not unjust or small minded or contradictory in either revelation. It has always been man that was unjust, small minded, and contradictory. It is up to each man to open up to God and it is God that teaches the individual. There are many denominations today and they all can't be right and they all can't be wrong. But moreover, it may be that we have a God that is so infinite in wisdom and knowledge that the individual is God's one central focus. It may be that God really does have many rooms in his mansion for those individuals.

 

 

FB

[evmori]

FB,

I would have to disagree about rape. It seems men having sex with men became the norm in Sodom. That is probably why women reverted to the same thing.

 

TJ,

When the Bible was written, women, save a few, had very little standing. It was written to men. At the Sermon on the Mount the number of men served was 5,000. Add women & children & the number probably doubles. Just because the Bible was written to men doesn't mean it isn't for everyone. It is. And when some versions make the language gender neutral, the meaning is lost.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[OldGreyEagle]

Just a thought, what if, and I mean just what if, the women and children at the sermon on the mount and at the miracle of the loaves and fishes were enumerated but during the dark ages and medeval times the person(s) translating the texts decided it wasnt important to know how many women and children were there. Not malaciously, just that the translators were merely writing for their audience, not worrying about a literalist 1000 years later. There are lost books talked about, what if these texts talked about womens rights and acceptance of all people and the reason they were not included is because the translators felt that universal acceptance and womans rights were such a given, it didnt have to be written down.

 

Back when I was in the seminary, we heard about the story of the inquisitive monk. Seems this monk came to the bible translation/copying abbey and the first thing he asks the Abbot is have the original texts ever been checked against the translation versions, and have the copies ever been checked against the original. The Abbot pooh-poohs the monk, telling him this is the most accurate, most advanced biblical translation/copying Abbey in the world. 5 years later, the inquisitve monk sees the Abbot again, and again asks about the accuracy of the texts, again, he is rebuffed. Finally 10 years later, the monk sees the Abbot and again asks his questions, The Abbot, fed up with the inquisitive monk, says OK, I will go downstairs where we keep the original, and check it against a copy, but after than, no more talking about this topic.

 

Three days later the Abbot comes screaming upstairs, at the top if his lungs he shouts, STOP THE PROCESS, ITS CELEBRATE, NOT CELIBATE!(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[stlscouter]

Even with all of the translations etc and citing verses and their interpertations I still feel the need to go back to the place where God decides that it is not good for man to be alone and then provides a woman-not another man. In this context by one translation Adam "knew" Eve. Others translate that as merely hving relations or having intercourse-knowing someone is alot more involved than just physical relations and IMHO getting to know someone of the opposite sex is a lot more difficult and challenging than underanding someone of your own. Maybe God wishes us to truly challenge ourslves in that way and at the same time provide a vehicle (children) to pass along the best of both sexes.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Even before Lot made his choice of abode he knew that the inhabitants of Sodom as being exceedingly wicked. When the two angels visited, Lot was insistent that they spend the night in his home and not in the street. Prior to their going to sleep, the men and boys of the city surrounded Lots house and shouted for Lot to bring the men (angels) out so that they could have intercourse with them. Lot called to the throng and said, Friends, do not be so wicked. He offered his two virgin daughters for intercourse because of the dictum that one must at all costs protect any who visit. (*This offer was not extended lightly nor made because Lot knew that the inhabitants didnt like women.) They called Lot an alien and spoke of Lots personal prejudicial judgment against them. The mob decided to smash the door in but the angels pulled Lot inside, closed the door and blinded the intruders so that they could not find the door. The next morning, the angels insisted that Lot and his family leave prior to the destruction of the city. Lot could not believe that God would destroy it but he accepted the warning and left with his family. Upon leaving, they were warned not to look back. Lots wife was not just smitten with curiosity but also with disbelief so she was iodized.

 

*check this story with a similar one in Judges 19: 16-30. It was decidedly rape because consent was not obtained and force was the object.

 

Gomorrah and several other towns (and the Plain) were also destroyed in Gods judgment, Jer. 49:18, it was done in a moment and nobody was even worried about it, Lam.4:6. The remains of Sodom, Deut. 29:23, the land that is burnt up with brimstone and salt, so that it cannot be sown, or yield herb or green plant,desolate, Isa. 13:19. a pile of weeds, a rotting heap of saltwart, a waste land for evermore, Zep. 2:9. Sodom never again shall be inhabited, no man shall dwell there through the ages, nor pitch a tent, or watch their flocks, and animals will not live there (although Jackals, marmots and Desert Owls will, Jer.50:39) but Gods nation will own it, Zep. 2:9. If you visit today, that is what you will find even after 6,000 years, not a bad prediction.

 

I summarized the story. It does not sound much like a welcoming party and one must also consider Gods judgment which to my knowledge has always been known to be fair.

 

The deeds of Sodom are brought up again in Deuteronomy (32:32). The results of their actions were poisonous, venomous, and cruel. God remembers their actions and has set aside a particular punishment for them.

 

In Deut. 23:17, both Israelite women and men are cautioned against becoming temple prostitutes. (which they had done and continued doing)

In 1 Kings 14:24, Judah under Rehoboam had erected shrines and had male prostitutes. God disapproved of these practices because he felt they were abominable and these were the practices of the nations God dispossessed in favor of Israel.

Later Kings ridded themselves of the shrines and the male prostitutes.

The reason:

Lev. 18: 22, 23- You shall not lie with a man as with a woman: that is an abomination.

Lev, 20: 13- If a man has intercourse with a man as with a woman, they both commit an abomination.

 

The act and the warning are clear but the practice has been around from the earliest of recorded times and in all societies.

 

 

FB

[scoutldr]

She was turned into a pillar of Iodine????? Man, I missed that translation!

[Fuzzy Bear]

sct,

Salt of the earth just wouldn't do in today's world.

FB