Good information on 'Born Gay' Studies

[artsylady]

Second Eve:

I understand what you are saying.

I think the difference is the punishment. Adultry was wrong then and is still wrong - it's just that things were much harsher back then. God commanded what he did to preserve the Jewish race as one who didn't get distracted into the kind of society we have today. I'll bet there wasn't much adultry back then with such strict laws. And as a result, we still (miraculously some say) have the Jewish people and the book they preserved over the thousands of years.

The verse condoning homosexuality doesn't say what mere men should do to 'punish' people. It actually says in the New Testament not to judge, but it still tells us what is right and what is wrong.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

You know what I'd love to see? Someone come out and say that the Biblical verses against homosexuality need to be taken in context, about the fact that they were referring to a specific tribe under blah conditions - perhaps mentioning that homosexuality was condoned in Greek society, and the Jews and Gentiles historically weren't on great terms - and so, arguably, the whole mentioning of the idea isn't so much against being gay as against being Greek. Or something.

I mention it only because - in my mind, anyway - this type of logic is identical to the kind used by many Christians I've met on the boards to say that the commands to stone adulterers (for instance) or for the Israelites to take women slaves from the tribes they captured weren't really saying that these things should be done, always - that instead, they shoul be situated in a broader social/political context rather than being meant for us to carry on literally today. Because from where I'm sitting, it all just looks like a pick'n'mix interpretation to keep various injunctions and smooth over others which it would now be impossible to obey or, in some cases, to intellectually condone.

Wow, great post. I can relate to your sentiments exactly.

[Floatingaxe]

You know what I'd love to see? Someone come out and say that the Biblical verses against homosexuality need to be taken in context, about the fact that they were referring to a specific tribe under blah conditions - perhaps mentioning that homosexuality was condoned in Greek society, and the Jews and Gentiles historically weren't on great terms - and so, arguably, the whole mentioning of the idea isn't so much against being gay as against being Greek. Or something.

I mention it only because - in my mind, anyway - this type of logic is identical to the kind used by many Christians I've met on the boards to say that the commands to stone adulterers (for instance) or for the Israelites to take women slaves from the tribes they captured weren't really saying that these things should be done, always - that instead, they shoul be situated in a broader social/political context rather than being meant for us to carry on literally today. Because from where I'm sitting, it all just looks like a pick'n'mix interpretation to keep various injunctions and smooth over others which it would now be impossible to obey or, in some cases, to intellectually condone.

Wow, great post. I can relate to your sentiments exactly.

No one who truly knows the Word and the One who wrote it, would ever say that. We, as Christians are salt and light to this dark and infected world. If we watered down the Message, then what good would we be?

[Oh Hamburgers!]

FA, I seem to remember a very long drawn out debate on these boards last week that took up 2 to 3 threads, and eventually all got locked, concerning women in the church. Now, many on these boards had NO PROBLEM taking all of the biblical texts in and out of context, reviewing greek and latin wordings and phrasings of the word "man", "deacon", "pastor" etc etc. There were two adamantly opposed camps on the topic, and do you want to know why? Because both sides wanted their views to conform with the bible. So the issue never got resolved. People got angry, and threads got locked.

There was a time in this country that we used slaves. Slavery was acceptable, and slavery was legal. And what's more, slavery was accepted by people because they used the bible to justify their actions. But nowadays, we once again look at the bible, and say slave didn't really mean slave, it meant "worker", "employee". We once again are conforming what the bible says to what we want it to say.

Now what secondeve is saying, and I wholeheartedly agree with, is that that when it comes to homosexuality, it is not given that "chance" to be reviewed, to be analyzed, to be interpreted, and to be made the way people want it to be. Why? Because currently, their views already conform with the bible. Why would we need to argue it?

I would be willing to bet that after I pass away, this country will view homosexuality as an acceptable sexual preference. What's more, once people grow up with this mindset, they will take the bible, and interpret it and take it in and out of context, and find a way in which it states that homosexuality wasn't really viewed as a sin, at least not in the way that we view it today.

Is that corruption? Is that misinterpretation? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But while we today argue that slavery was not "slavery", and women preaching and speaking in church isn't really what the issues were in the Bible, you must take a look at our cultural stances today, compared to the historical situation back then. Back then giving women the same rights as men was completely absurd. Even today we can see culture that oppresses women. It seems quite clear in many passages in the bible that women were NOT to be considered the same as men, and that they had a different role to play in the society. At the same time, slavery was a common practice back then, especially when concerning prisoners of war. Slavery was used as a labor practice, and in some areas was probably necessary for survival, considering they did not have the same tools that we have today. Again, it seems quite clear that the bible accepts slavery as a common practice, and something that was allowed as long as the slaves were treated "ok".

I'm just saying, either you take the whole bible literally, or you don't. If you enforce your literal interpretation on others, then you must look at EVERYTHING in the bible, and accept it as literal truth. I know that you attempt to do this, which is ok, but I strongly recommend you reflect on what the bible says, and what you want it to say. Sometimes what you want something to be isn't what it is, and no matter how much you attempt to "make" it what you want it to be, it won't.

[Floatingaxe]

FA, I seem to remember a very long drawn out debate on these boards last week that took up 2 to 3 threads, and eventually all got locked, concerning women in the church. Now, many on these boards had NO PROBLEM taking all of the biblical texts in and out of context, reviewing greek and latin wordings and phrasings of the word "man", "deacon", "pastor" etc etc. There were two adamantly opposed camps on the topic, and do you want to know why? Because both sides wanted their views to conform with the bible. So the issue never got resolved. People got angry, and threads got locked.

There was a time in this country that we used slaves. Slavery was acceptable, and slavery was legal. And what's more, slavery was accepted by people because they used the bible to justify their actions. But nowadays, we once again look at the bible, and say slave didn't really mean slave, it meant "worker", "employee". We once again are conforming what the bible says to what we want it to say.

Now what secondeve is saying, and I wholeheartedly agree with, is that that when it comes to homosexuality, it is not given that "chance" to be reviewed, to be analyzed, to be interpreted, and to be made the way people want it to be. Why? Because currently, their views already conform with the bible. Why would we need to argue it?

I would be willing to bet that after I pass away, this country will view homosexuality as an acceptable sexual preference. What's more, once people grow up with this mindset, they will take the bible, and interpret it and take it in and out of context, and find a way in which it states that homosexuality wasn't really viewed as a sin, at least not in the way that we view it today.

Is that corruption? Is that misinterpretation? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But while we today argue that slavery was not "slavery", and women preaching and speaking in church isn't really what the issues were in the Bible, you must take a look at our cultural stances today, compared to the historical situation back then. Back then giving women the same rights as men was completely absurd. Even today we can see culture that oppresses women. It seems quite clear in many passages in the bible that women were NOT to be considered the same as men, and that they had a different role to play in the society. At the same time, slavery was a common practice back then, especially when concerning prisoners of war. Slavery was used as a labor practice, and in some areas was probably necessary for survival, considering they did not have the same tools that we have today. Again, it seems quite clear that the bible accepts slavery as a common practice, and something that was allowed as long as the slaves were treated "ok".

I'm just saying, either you take the whole bible literally, or you don't. If you enforce your literal interpretation on others, then you must look at EVERYTHING in the bible, and accept it as literal truth. I know that you attempt to do this, which is ok, but I strongly recommend you reflect on what the bible says, and what you want it to say. Sometimes what you want something to be isn't what it is, and no matter how much you attempt to "make" it what you want it to be, it won't.

Why are you addressing me? I don't know why! I take the Bible in the way it was meant to be taken...with a renewed mind in Christ, I can understand what He is saying to my heart.

Psalm 119:105...

Your word is a lamp to my feet

And a light to my path.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

I apologize, I tend to drift into a universal "you" when I type, although it looks like I am addressing one person alone, when that isn't my attempt.

I meant to address you in the first sentence (with the FA), and I meant to address you in one of the last sentences "I know that you attempt to do this, which is ok, but I strongly recommend you reflect on what the bible says, and what you want it to say."

All of the other times I mentioned "you", I meant it in a universal sense. Sorry, I'm afraid I need to work on my phrasing sometimes .

[Floatingaxe]

I apologize, I tend to drift into a universal "you" when I type, although it looks like I am addressing one person alone, when that isn't my attempt.

I meant to address you in the first sentence (with the FA), and I meant to address you in one of the last sentences "I know that you attempt to do this, which is ok, but I strongly recommend you reflect on what the bible says, and what you want it to say."

All of the other times I mentioned "you", I meant it in a universal sense. Sorry, I'm afraid I need to work on my phrasing sometimes .

Okley dokley!

[artsylady]

"I would be willing to bet that after I pass away, this country will view homosexuality as an acceptable sexual preference. What's more, once people grow up with this mindset, they will take the bible, and interpret it and take it in and out of context, and find a way in which it states that homosexuality wasn't really viewed as a sin, at least not in the way that we view it today. "

I don't know how old you are, but I don't think I'll die a traditional death. I think we are in the end times.

[eric]

I will echo Artsy's response to what Hamburgers said,

would be willing to bet that after I pass away, this country will view homosexuality as an acceptable sexual preference. What's more, once people grow up with this mindset, they will take the bible, and interpret it and take it in and out of context, and find a way in which it states that homosexuality wasn't really viewed as a sin, at least not in the way that we view it today.

Well, Ham as long as people go along with agreeing with unbelievers and atheists, like 2 Eve, instead of standing on the word of God of the bible, people will undoubtably grow up with this mindset, as you call it.

The bible wasn't intended to be taken literally. The bible is a whole mass of scripture that needs to be studied to be understood. There are certain passages that are literal, parabolic,figerative and metaphoric, just to name a few instances. Jesus said that his audience had to eat His flesh and drink His blood before they could see the Kingdom of God.

Literally?..............

If the bible says that homosexuality is an abomination to God.....then it is an abomination to Him and it doesn't matter a snip if it's okay with man...not yesterday.....not today and not in the future when as you said, after you pass away. And that is one part of the bible that is literal.

[eric]

Paulo's response to me,

You might want to re-read Ham's post... made sense to me:

Well maybe you would like to highlight the points that make sense to you, as far as homosexuality goes. as this thread was opened about info on born gay studies.