On homosexuality, many Christians get the Bible wrong

  Page: 1

Joined in 2005
February 16, 2013, 15:20

Interesting Blog piece from the Washington times

One of the things that I think causes thinking people to leave fundamentalism eventually is that that of consistency

If you apply a technique to one verse – then you should apply the same technique to ALL comparable verses… (this is where prophetic interpretation is so interesting because many schools of thought skip from treating one verse literally then the next apocryphally – with no clear reason for the change other than it fits the explanation they WANT it to fit but that's NOT a valid technique).

This Blog makes some interesting points

Lincoln noted that at the center of the conflict over slavery were very different interpretations of the Bible. Lincoln said of the two sides in the war, “Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other.” Southern preachers and slave owners believed the many references in the Bible permitting and regulating slavery (well over 100 verses), in both the Old and the New Testaments, were clear evidence that the institution was a part of God’s social and moral order. Abolitionist preachers argued in their sermons that the verses related to slavery in the Bible were a reflection of the cultural context and times in which the Bible was written and did not reflect God’s endorsement of slavery. They argued that there were “weightier” scriptures on justice, mercy and love that superseded those on slavery.

So now we have the dilemna – whether they like it or not those who argue that you cant treat bible verses as a reflection of cultural context – and thus Homosexuality is a sin – are therefore actually arguing FOR slavery – there are hundreds more verses on it in the bible than there are on homosexuality. Other wise they have to go through every single verse on slavery and show why it should be treated unlike the clobber verses – that some how they are inherently different to the clobber verses – (and NOT just in their opinion) despite the fact there are far less of them… Many fundamentalists Ive discussed this with – Ignore this inconsistency –

Heres the Blog

What do people think ?

Joined in 2012
February 17, 2013, 10:40

This is what I think about it:

I was born this way and just because I happen to be gay, doesn't mean I have to be celibate as some of those crazy Christians say gays have to be. Why should I be punished for being myself? I don't see the bible condemning heterosexuals claiming they must stay celibate for being born heterosexual. Likewise, it really annoyed me with some of the comments on that page and in the pictures of various churches talking about the 'homosexual lifestyle', implying it's a choice. And don't get me started on that picture of a sign outside a church saying 'a true marriage male and female and god'. So many unchristian people in society today… it's really sad.

Joined in 2005
February 17, 2013, 11:24

Hey Jordon

You actually touch a good point… In actual fact if you really want to obey the bible – then Jesus teaches heterosexuals – that its BETTER to be celibate and not marry

So if the Church really thought the bible taught was important – they would teach what Jesus said that if you can be Celibate – do ! – and dont marry – but how many churches teach that to the general population ?

“For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can” (Matthew 19:12).

and of course many churches like to ignore what Jesus said and Focus more on what Paul said – but he says

Now I say to those who aren't married and to widows– it's better to stay unmarried, just as I am” (1 Corinthians 7:7-8 NLT).

and also

“The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33 but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband” (1 Corinthians 7:32-34).

But as you say – many (but not all) churches are much more worried about the sex lives of LGBTI people – than they are actually worried about the actual teachings of the bible.

Ann Maree
Joined in 2008
February 18, 2013, 19:28

Hi Shadow Boxer

You said:

But as you say – many (but not all) churches are much more worried about the sex lives of LGBTI people – than they are worried about the actual teachings of the bible.

Yes sadly that seems to be true. Sounds quite perverse doesn't it?


Ann Maree

Joined in 2005
February 18, 2013, 19:49

Anne Maree

I think one of the articles I posted earlier articulated it well (quoting – I might add – an evangelical)

Evangelicals, Boyd writes, think we: "may be divorced and remarried several times. We may be as greedy and as unconcerned about the poor and as gluttonous as others in our culture; we may be as prone to gossip and slander and as blindly prejudiced as others … These sins are among the most frequently mentioned sins in the Bible. But at least we're not gay!"

In other words they have chosen that as a sin they can denounce because they think they are safe from it… (although its surprising how many Major tele evangelists in the USA seem to have struggled with same sex attraction… although I suspect in those cases they denounce it so that they wont be found out !)

Not to mention the vast amount of research that shows the more homophobic someone is – the more same sex attraction they tend to feel in tests. Jesus commands us to be honest – but many church leaders find that a little inconvenient. The End justifies the means and all that.



Joined in 2005
February 19, 2013, 12:36

Another article on the same Meme

Far from their 1967 argument that "every type of discrimination" must be "eradicated," America's Catholic bishops are now arguing that "the federal government is not constitutionally bound by, and should not be held hostage to, redefinitions of marriage that are adopted in some states."

The bishops have gone from making a strong moral and religious case for ending interracial marriage bans in the 1960s to making a largely political argument in 2013

In 1967, ….Catholic bishops and archbishops …. [argued] to the Supreme Court that interracial bans on marriage were a violation to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of the laws. The group also argued the bans violated the constitutional "right of privacy" and "freedom to marry," as well as being an "invalid restriction on the free exercise of religion.

In 1967, they argued in favor of aggressive action to "overcome and eradicate" discrimination, writing, "These bishops, as pastors of their respective dioceses, are committed to the proposition that 'with regard to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God's intent.'"

As part of that argument, the bishops noted, "It must be emphasized that the teachings or laws of some of the churches or religious bodies in the United States even exclude specifically any restriction on marriage based upon racial considerations." In fact, the bishops spent a significant part of their argument detailing how interracial marriage bans violated "that 'free exercise of religion' guaranteed to the individual by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

and yet now they do an 180 degree about turn

With regards to churches that, in 2013, allow same-sex couples to marry, today's bishops argue that such considerations are irrelevant:

Proposition 8 is not rendered invalid because some of its supporters were informed by religious or moral considerations. Many, if not most, of the significant social and political movements in our Nation's history were based on precisely such considerations. Moreover, the argument to redefine marriage to include the union of persons of the same sex is similarly based on a combination of religious and moral considerations (albeit ones that are, in our view, flawed). As is well established in this Court's precedent, the coincidence of law and morality, or law and religious teaching, does not detract from the rationality of a law.

  Page: 1
WP Forum Server by ForumPress | LucidCrew
Version: 99.9; Page loaded in: 0.039 seconds.