Reply
Fri 16 Jun, 2006 07:41 am
I'm no bible scholar, and I'm not going to be quoting any passages here.
This is what I think is a pretty straight forward question re homosexuality. All are welcome of course to post/comment. However, I'm particularly interested in Plain Spoken responses of those who believe homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord.
Leviticus states homosexuality is an abomination. Now, I'm aware that there are interpretations of that passage that say that is not what the bible is saying. For the sake of my question, let's just say we're using the abomination interpretation.
Leviticus also states many other things, re: hygiene, diet, tatoos, menstruation, etc. etc. are forbidden, abominations or must be dealt with in a very specific way.
Why this al la carte approach? Now, I have been told, and I have read the passage in the New Testament, where Jesus says (paraphrasing here) I'm here to change the old law. This isn't exactly right, but you know what I mean.
If according to the NT, the laws in Leviticus no longer had to be obeyed, why were they all pretty much abandoned by some christians, except the homosexuality one, and maybe a few others I won't go into.
Nowhere in the New Testament does it say (in my words) "don't worry about that stuff, expect for the gay thing"
Personally, I find the thought of eating a lobster or crab totally disgusting. I know some christian groups do adhere more to the laws, but most do not.
So.....Very simply....Why is that one passage cited, when you believe it isn't required to obey (most) of the others? Keeping in mind Jesus didn't pick that one out as an exception.
Just wanting to know.....please educate me.
Stirring the turd, darling? I believe it is a correct statement that the Hey-Zeus depicted in the NT held that the law (i.e., Judaic, religiously-based law) was not contradicted or abandoned by his teaching.
in case christians don't respond, i'm neither scholar nor christian, but i guess Paul, and maybe other church fathers, specified which restrictions need no longer be observed.
no, seriously setanta....I'm not trying to "stir the turd" I'm questioning from an academic standpoint.
Not trying to debate.....just wanting to know the origins...
Yit....you say Paul and other church fathers?
Do you know what, when who?
What was the reasonings of the church fathers to keeping some and abandoning others?
If someone knows, I don't mind reading point by point how the decision was made for each one.
And repeating, I'm not agreeing/disagreeing/debating....just wanting so know the sources of this decision.
Then, if it does come up in conversation, I'll have my facts straight.
Setanta wrote:Stirring the turd, darling? I believe it is a correct statement that the Hey-Zeus depicted in the NT held that the law (i.e., Judaic, religiously-based law) was not contradicted or abandoned by his teaching.
Well, Jesus said that, but he also said that one could live righteously by obeying only two commandments (as opposed to the Mosaic ten). So Jesus both fulfilled the law while simultaneously overturning it -- which is just one of the many insoluble contradictions of the bible.
For what it's worth, I am convinced that the Levitican prohibition on homosexuality is exactly that -- and that Paul's condemnations of homosexuality are pretty clear as well. All those gay Christians who attempt to reconcile their homosexuality with the teachings of the old and new testaments are, therefore, attempting to square the circle. But then reconciling insoluble contradictions is old hat for Christians.
joefromchicago wrote:But then reconciling insoluble contradictions is old hat for Christians.
A veritable cottage industry, in fact.
It's Menu Christianity. Pick whatever suits you and your agenda. Ignore the rest until someone like Chai or Frank asks the question.
The present Christians aren't; they are Paulists, following his version of Christ and His message. Oh yes, he was supposedly divinely inspired to rid the world of dietary restrictions but hold onto homosexuality as an abomination and male superiority over woman as a commandment of God Almighty.
Yeah, sure, sounds about right, right?
What, you should ask the believers, did Christ say?
Joe(what?)Nation
joefromchicago wrote:All those gay Christians who attempt to reconcile their homosexuality with the teachings of the old and new testaments are, therefore, attempting to square the circle. But then reconciling insoluble contradictions is old hat for Christians.
That all depends on whether they consider themselves followers of Jesus, or followers of Moses and Paul.
joefromchicago wrote:For what it's worth, I am convinced that the Levitican prohibition on homosexuality is exactly that -- and that Paul's condemnations of homosexuality are pretty clear as well. All those gay Christians who attempt to reconcile their homosexuality with the teachings of the old and new testaments are, therefore, attempting to square the circle. But then reconciling insoluble contradictions is old hat for Christians.
So joe...could you then answer my question?
Why is that law upheld, when others are not?
Who, What, When, Why where certain laws chosen to be upheld, and Who, What, When Why where others dropped?
I'm just trying to stay on track here, not letting personal belief get in the way.
Frankly, I was interested in hearing what anyone was convinced of, or not.
Are you able to address the question?
Joe Nation wrote:
What, you should ask the believers, did Christ say?
Joe(what?)Nation
Exactly Joe Nation, I don't think Jesus said anything either way.
Anyone have the facts out there as to the answer to my question?
FreeDuck wrote:That all depends on whether they consider themselves followers of Jesus, or followers of Moses and Paul.
No, that depends on whether they consider Moses and Paul to have been divinely inspired to interpret the laws. No Christian is a "follower" of Paul (in the sense of Paul being the equivalent of Jesus), but most consider him to be a reliable interpreter of god's law.
But any obsession with God's law is counter to the teachings of Jesus. Therefore, one must be weighing Paul's words heavier than those of Jesus to even be looking for an interpretation of God's law. Law is something that comes from government. The days have long passed when religion fulfilled the purpose of government.
joefromchicago wrote:FreeDuck wrote:That all depends on whether they consider themselves followers of Jesus, or followers of Moses and Paul.
No, that depends on whether they consider Moses and Paul to have been divinely inspired to interpret the laws. No Christian is a "follower" of Paul (in the sense of Paul being the equivalent of Jesus), but most consider him to be a reliable interpreter of god's law.
Still waiting for an answer to my question Joe.....do you have one?
Wel its not only homosexuals, who can't worship God, if you have any physical problems, your parents where married (And married for 10 generations before), you've married a virgin (Of your own people), and sacrificed a few things in his name now and then, then you might have a small chance of being slightly accepted. So for people who are bastards (Or sons, grandsons, great grandsons, great-great grandsons, etc of a bastard), divorcees, harlots, non-Israelites or non-virgins then you will find they will have to look elsewhere for salvation.
Quote:A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.
Neither shall he profane his seed among his people: for I the LORD do sanctify him.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; Leviticus 21:14-21
And finally
Quote:A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD. Deuteronomy 23
I thinks thats pretty black and white, but no mention of homosexuals
This from Romans in the new testament. (Paul)
Quote:26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Chai Tea wrote:So joe...could you then answer my question?
Why is that law upheld, when others are not?
I haven't the slightest idea.
Chai Tea wrote:Who, What, When, Why where certain laws chosen to be upheld, and Who, What, When Why where others dropped?
Probably the biggest controversy during the years of Paul's evangelism was whether the followers of Christ needed to be circumcised or not. Many gentiles, who would otherwise have been attracted to the teachings of nascent Christianity, were deterred by the notion that they would need to be circumcised. For those who believed that the followers of Christ were simply fulfilling the prophecies of the old testament (what we would call "messianic Jews"), circumcision was required. Paul, however, figured out rather quickly that circumcision was a deal-breaker for a lot of potential converts, so he devised the "new covenant" of Jesus, which replaced the "old covenant" of Abraham. The former was one based on faith, whereas the latter was based on the ritual of circumcision. Gentiles, therefore, could be "circumcised in their hearts" (neat trick) without losing their foreskins.
As Paul put it in
chapter 5 of his Letter to the Galatians:
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
Consequently, Christianity under Paul's guidance broke from many of the ritualistic aspects of Judaism, including the really important ritual of circumcision. How and why certain Levitican restrictions (e.g. dietary and sumptuary) were ignored while others (e.g. those on homosexuality) were maintained is, to me, an enduring mystery. I'd be happy to hear some convinced Christian explain it.
FreeDuck wrote:But any obsession with God's law is counter to the teachings of Jesus.
Another contradiction.
FreeDuck wrote:Therefore, one must be weighing Paul's words heavier than those of Jesus to even be looking for an interpretation of God's law. Law is something that comes from government. The days have long passed when religion fulfilled the purpose of government.
Jesus very concisely explained that religion and government had different spheres which did not intersect. It is quite obvious that Jesus understood there to be man's law and god's law, and the latter most certainly did not come from any government.
Furthermore, if Paul is considered to have been divinely inspired, then his words are no heavier and no lighter than Jesus's, but rather occupy the same plane. That Paul needed to fill in a lot of the blanks left by Jesus was perhaps a regrettable, but, given the opacity of Jesus's own teachings, a necessary task.
joefromchicago wrote:FreeDuck wrote:But any obsession with God's law is counter to the teachings of Jesus.
Another contradiction.
Of what? And what was the first?
joe wrote:
Jesus very concisely explained that religion and government had different spheres which did not intersect. It is quite obvious that Jesus understood there to be man's law and god's law, and the latter most certainly did not come from any government.
Furthermore, if Paul is considered to have been divinely inspired, then his words are no heavier and no lighter than Jesus's, but rather occupy the same plane. That Paul needed to fill in a lot of the blanks left by Jesus was perhaps a regrettable, but, given the opacity of Jesus's own teachings, a necessary task.
I agree except as to the necessity of it. I see no necessity in the spreading and institutionalizing of religion unless it is fulfilling the purpose of a government.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace