Lightwizard wrote: I suggest that Christians start looking at the Old Testament as largely a text of the Hebrew faith and what Christ taught as the basis for their religion. Try to find a passage where Christ condems homosexuals to death or forbids them to preach the Gospel. Christ being crucified had a lot to do with his revolutionary rejection of what the rabbis of the day were teaching, based on stories from the Old Testament.
Well...I am not a Christian, as you well know, Lightwizard, but I thought I would take you up on your challenge.
At Matthew 5: 17ff, Jesus says:
Quote:Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you: UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, NOT THE SMALLEST LETTER OF THE LAW, NOT THE SMALLEST PART OF A LETTER, SHALL BE DONE AWAY WITH UNTIL IT ALL COME TRUE.
As you know, LW, Earth has not passed away, so as far as Jesus is concerned, the laws of the Old Testament remain in force. And the laws of the Old Testament are found in the book of Leviticus -- where, at Chapter 20, Verse 13, you will find this law:
Quote:"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives."
You suggestion simply does not get Christians out of their dilemma.
If a Christian comes to the realization that the injuction against homosexual conduct is absurd -- the ethical thing for that Christian to do is to abandon Christianity.
(The Christian might first try considering other injunctions from the Bible and see that many of them don't make much sense either. No need to act rashly.)
Can I assume that Christ may not have read the entire Old Testament?
I do not think there was an "Old Testament" at the time of Christ. If I am correct it did not coalesce as a single authoritative document until the 3rd or 4th century. Rather there were a multitude of texts among which various Jewish sects picked and chose, or wrote. Much of what now is gospel was probably just a point of view at that time. Besides which Genesis and Exodus which were probably the closest too what we would recognize as authoritative texts are a redaction of at least four earlier texts so the prohibitions against homosexuality and many other behaviors come out of a mélange of opinions that are contradicted in other parts of the of the same work.
Acquiunk wrote:I do not think there was an "Old Testament" at the time of Christ. If I am correct it did not coalesce as a single authoritative document until the 3rd or 4th century. Rather there were a multitude of texts among which various Jewish sects picked and chose, or wrote. Much of what now is gospel was probably just a point of view at that time. Besides which Genesis and Exodus which were probably the closest too what we would recognize as authoritative texts are a redaction of at least four earlier texts so the prohibitions against homosexuality and many other behaviors come out of a mélange of opinions that are contradicted in other parts of the of the same work.
Acquiunk, you are right that there was not such a thing as the Old Testament at the time of Christ. But the first five books of the Bible have been together and have been an integral part of Jewish life for over a thousand years at that time.
Jesus knew of all this -- and although he honestly preached one thing and did another -- he did say that all of these laws remain in effect.
It's likely true that much of the stories of the Bible had already been made up by the time of Christ. He obviously would have knowledge of Moses as I'm sure he was debriefed before he was sent down to Earth. Levticus may or may not have been important and may, in fact, have been written in some form of a law as they were fond of stoning people for everything from picking their nose to scratching their ass. Man lying down with man as with woman may have been as serious as eating lobster. Okay, so I am also being a bit facetious -- can I have my little chuckle over taking this all too seriously? Hasn't the Bible after to much rewriting and basing most of that writing on verbal storytelling become so arcane today that it can't be taken that seriously in the light of modern mores?
LW, it is not that easy to dismiss a source considered to be "gospel" by a huge number of the world's faithful. The bible is interpreted variously by different faiths, but it is by only the most scornfully sceptical that it is dismissed as unimportant. One can be doubtful about what is written in the bible, whether it is considered as an historical document or religious principle, but one must accept that many people consider it the basis of their faith.
I find studies of religion fascinating and read often about the origins of the different faiths, going back to ancient times. This is my way of being "religious," perhaps. I am not a believer but I try to understand how and why others believe. It must be comforting to live within the structure of a set of beliefs that can be consulted when one needs answers about major life issues. I feel alone sometimes, not having that, but I also feel freed from constraints against my imagination.
Aquiunk, interesting comments.
Well, I asked for Frank and I got him! Good evening Frank. A side note: I read a great deal of what you write Frank and am in general agreement. I read butr, I don't jump in as it is difficult, if not foolish, to engage ina debate over the tenents of a book with which I am only vaguely familiar and others are certainly well versed.
On this issue, my views are the product of what I see as a point of simple logic. There have always been gay individuals, there are currently gay individuals and will be for the forseeable future. I am not a christian nor am I antichrist but, with either view I oppose the assumption that being gay restricts an individual, no matter how strong his religious commitment, from ministering to others of faith. From what litle I know, there has always been disparity in what the church has presented as doctrine in regards to sexual behavior/orientation and what has been actually practiced. Homosexuality and promiscuity have long been issues within the church and, in many instances, has been delt with by a simple laxck of acknowledgement that it exists. Indeed , there have been Popes that had several lovers and numerous children and other religeous figures that have had homosexual partners.
If I were ill would I refuse the services of a gay doctor? If I was in need of a legal contract would I refuse the services of a gay lawyer? If Iwere a christian, I can not find a reason why a gay priest could not minister to my need for salvation or assist me in a moment of spiritual crisis. I know that this is kind of a hands in my pocket, feet on the table, kind of logic and is unsupported by learned religeous discourse but, I'm pretty comfortable with it.
I do enjoy all of the issues and discussions in this forum but I do have a tendency to read and think rather than open my mouth and look the fool. Then again, I figure there is some room for my kind of "Does it make sense" kind of logic.
The destigmatization og the homosexual lifestyle makes prfect sense from a secular, rational view, and likely is symptomatic of our maturing as a culture, and inevitable. It does, however, challenge the moral teachings and traditions of religionists, particularly, at least presently, Christians. It would seem to me those within the ecummenical community most vigorously supportive of integrating homosexuals into the community of faith put sexual identity before spiritual identity, thereby forcing confrontation with their brethren who place more emphasis on their faith, its teachings, and traditions than on personal attributes. My own take is that clearly there is no biblical, liturgical, or canonical basis for the legitimization of same-sex union. Simultaneously, there is no valid secular basis for discrimination against individuals based on their sexual orientation, or the private practice by individuals of sexual activity which lies outside traditional he/she missionary norms, so long as that practice and behavior is consensual, between adults, discreet, and neither licentuous nor promiscuous. Theres the rub, really; without drastic realignment and upheaval, Christians are held apart from and opposed to this particular aspect of societal development. If it is to remain relevant to the evolving human condition, Religion, at least as defined by Christianity, will have to adapt. That, at the very core, is something Religion may find very difficult, if not impossible, to do and survive. These indeed are interesting times.
I want to be sure everyone realizes that anything I say on this issue comes from the position of:
If a person "believes" or asserts that the Bible is the word of GOD -- and that it is binding on him/her...
Once again, if a person "believes" or asserts that the Bible is the word of GOD (which every Christian should be doing) -- then there is absolutely no way of sanctioning homosexual conduct in any way whatsoever.
One might be able to argue that because of some of Jesus' teachings, the "stoning to death" part could be overlooked -- but even that cannot be done without at least intimating that Jesus was a hypocrite, because he clearly stated that he was not here on Earth to change any of the old laws or admonitions (of the god of the Old Testament.)
The only ethical and logical position for a Christian who comes to the conclusion that homosexual conduct is not immoral -- is to deal with the implications of that realizations -- and leave the religion, either to start another religion with a god who does not teach what the god of the Bible teaches -- or to abandon religion altogether.
I can't recall, but someone mentioned "love the sinner, but not the sin" somewhere, which seems to me to be the most logical choice for a Christian who believes homosexuality is immoral. Not an ideal solution, IMO, but a good start.
I think that accepting Jesus as god, Christianity as the one true religion, and the bible as the real word of god, not men, is just as plausible as accepting the theory of alternate universes and timelines. They are both leaps of faith, with some tenuous proof of 'truth'. So....somewhere else, any book could be accepted as the word of god, and any figure could be a religious leader, even Henry Miller, or William S. Burroughs, or Hitler. Of course, I am ripping this dumb idea from Star Trek, which I find has just as much value in it as the bible, and it is far more entertaining.
Essentially, it's Christianity vs. The Law, even though a great deal of our laws have origins in the Old Testament. At tje time of Christ, it was Roman law and he didn't survive as the law of the time was used against him. It's also a moral in the Bible not to judge others but to leave that up to God and Christ very definitely preached that dogma. Except that we have human judgement of others in the law. On the horns of a dilemma, those who are adhering to every word in the Bible and rationalizing what Jesus did (or didn't) say, they are bound to reject the idea of gay marriages. They are bound to accept what they consider the sin of all kinds of sex not involving procreation (!). It's a series of misconceptions and contradictions that will take at least another twenty years to reconcile. It won't end as long as government fixates on sex and that sex is a dirty act between consenting adults (Ashcroft). Seems like something out of "1984?" You're right.
A total cop out is "we are all sinners, but..."
It's not too late to actually implement the 'Buddy Christ' program....
gay clergy
10% of rams are gay, for example.
By that, I mean animals, not people.
What do you think happens to people?
It's not just Christianity that against queerness,
But the Muslim Ummah is even more opposed.
For a Muslim, it's the Unspeakable.
This has been quite a Summer.
First, there was the Supreme Court's decision.
Then, there was Canada...
Now, we have a gay bishop, who's not afraid to be honest.
I'm a bright, but this shows the world is going forward.
I picked "some other explanation", for the poll.
It isn't just human beings, but all of nature.
Jeanbean! Goodness! When did you get 95 posts? Haven't seen you in a long time. Glad to see ya here.
At least your postcount is capable of objective verification, jeanbean, calling for no "Leap of Faith"
jeanbean, what does your study say about female sheep (ewes?) Are 10% of them of the alternative lifestyle? I wonder if the losers in love, discussing sheep here, tend to have a fall back position.
I would guess that female sheep (ewes) are less adventursome and less likely to be fed up with the rams. Of course, if the sheep is a comedian...
