Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
Infinite_Loser, you act like abomination is such a clear-cut term, biblically speaking. I'd be interested to know whether or not you consume shellfish. After all, they're an abomination too. (Lev 11:10-12)
|
Mark 7: 18-19
Acts 10:9-16
But, to answer your question, I dislike all seafood.
Quote:
|
I'm actually not sure you're comprehending anything Gilda is saying though. At the core of her posts lies one important fact: the bible has been translated over...and over...and over again. This doesn't necessarily devalue it. What it does mean, however, is that it takes a certain level of bullheadedness to claim one is certain of the message intended to be conveyed.
|
I've done more than the conventional "Go to church and read my Bible because I have to" thing. Religion happens to be one of the things in which I take the most delight in learning about (Partially because I had to and partially because history has always fascinated me). I only assert the claims which are true (And if you want to call that conceited, then go right ahead).
Quote:
|
In fact, Gilda utterly trounced your repeated claims that the bible blanketly condemns homosexuality - and I'll add nothing she stated is anything I haven't heard said before, both in my numerous classes focusing on religious studies, and from a number of clergy.
|
No, she didn't. She did, however, manage to evade a few points of mine.
A.) While it's true that Jesus never once outright mentioned homosexuality, one of the main focal points of Jesus' teachings was that he was born to fulfill the "Law of Moses"; Not to end or change it. Those people who claim that the Old Testament is no longer valid and thusly can be ignored are mistaken. While many practices of the Old Testament are now obsolete (Such as religious sacrifices and stoning), many of the moral and civil laws continue to predominate themselves in modern day Christian sects. Upon examining and studying the Old Testament, we conclude that the Biblical aversion to homosexuality stems from the "Law(s) of Moses", typically referred to as the Torah. The Torah's attitude concerning homosexuality is definite-- It's a perversion and a sin before God. In fact, the word it uses to describe homosexuality is "to'evah" (Or "Abomination", meaning "To cause to stray from"). If you don't believe me, then read it for yourself. Better yet, pick it up and read it in Hebrew.
B.) You trying to challenge the interpretation of the Bible's view on homosexuality is like me trying to challenge the meaning of "Thou shalt not steal"-- It's not up for debate. If you took a look at the original Hebrew text regarding homosexuality, you would notice that homosexuality in all forms was condemned and punishable by death.
C.) The majority of religious scholars do
NOT make that claim that perhaps the interpretation of the Torah or the Bible on homosexuals is wrong. In fact, it's quite the opposite. During the past thirty or fourty years, what you see is a number of religious groups either rejecting doctrine or trying to redefine homosexuality so it conforms with previous teachings rather than trying to redefine religious doctrine.
No offense to you or anyone else, but you're not the only person who has ever taken religious studies classes or done studies yourself.
Quote:
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you haven't gone out of your way to read each book of the bible in the original language they were written in (sometimes more than one per book!). That's OK. I wouldn't expect you to, and neither have I. However, I do recognize that there are people who HAVE studied the bible with careful consideration of both language and context, and every person I have come across that has done so has echoed Gilda's primary points.
|
Of course there will be. Those looking for change will almost always come to the same conclusion. Unfortunately, you fail to mention that there are a larger number of people who have studied the Bible with careful consideration in every language and context who do not agree with nor echoe Gilda's primary points?
You can't look at one side of the equation while utterly ignoring the other one. A one-sided argument doesn't prove much, now does it?
Quote:
|
You also conveniently ignore Gilda's point that lack of support does not equal condemnation.
|
I feel like a broken record.
Condemnation equals condemnation. Both in the Hebrew texts and the translated books of the Bible, homosexuality as a whole is condemned. You are assuming that God didn't mean all forms of homosexuality and the problem you have is that there is no evidence that this is what was meant.
Quote:
|
You're right that the bible does not expressly condone homosexuality. Seeing as how it also does not universally condemn it, it is impossible to draw a clear and certain teaching on the issue.
|
This is what gets me the most.
I suppose it's just me, but when something is called "An abomination unto God", it doesn't have a positive connotation (The accepted meaning of the word being "To cause to stray from"). Anything which causes a person to stray away from God is considered a sin and instantly condemned.
Quote:
|
However, there is one predominant thread in Christianity, and that is love. With that in mind, a well-educated person would be hard-pressed to claim the bible explicitly and universally condemns homosexuality, especially with regard to committed, monogamous relationships.
|
The love most explicitly covered in the Bible is love between a man and a woman, God's love for his children, Jesus' love for the Church and love between neighbors.
The love of which you speak would probably be more closely related to the love between a man and a woman (I suspect you're talking marriage). Marriage, according to the Torah/Old Testament is a sacred unity of a man and a woman before God and, as such, the idea of a marriage between homosexuals (Two men or two women) directly contradicts the Judeo-Christian doctrine concerning marriage.
Quote:
|
Finally, this is all setting aside the very important point that what is appropriate for Christians in one cultural context is not necessarily appropriate for Christians in another. Regardless of the debate over how clear the bible is on homosexuality and what exactly it's trying to say, there is something the bible is very clear about: women ought to cover their heads when in church (1 Cor 11). I hope you speak out against uncovered female heads in church with the same kind of dedication as it seems you speak out against homosexuality.
|
http://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings.html
I believe that explains it better than I could. Hapy reading!
Quote:
|
Of course, I'm being facetious.
|
I know.
Quote:
|
I know full well the odds are you don't believe women are required to cover their heads in church.
|
Almost all the women here do wear hats and the like when they go to church. Though, if you haven't already, read the link. It's informative.
Quote:
|
It just goes to show, no matter how explicitly clear the text of the bible is, there are other factors to be considered as well. Most significantly, cultural context. Even if we accept that the bible is clear in its condemnation of homosexuality - which it is not - it then follows that that is not necessarily a condemnation for our time. And that leads us to an entirely different debate altogether.
|
So you admit that the Bible is explicity clear on the subject, but that it might not be relevant anymore?
Quote:
|
As an aside, while I enjoy debate that has a point, the fact is there's nothing you're going to say which will convince persons such as Gilda or myself that what you are saying is correct. No offense intended to you - I'm sure you're a nice guy - but in this particular case, I frankly think your view is uneducated.
|
No offense taken, because I also find your view highly uneducated. And not because you disagree with me, but simply because you disagree with me while telling me that I'm uneducated on the subject.
By the way, there is no such thing as tolerance. Love the person, but hate the sin-- That is a paramount teaching of Christianity. Most people seem unable to grasp the concept.