Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:05:58 GMT -5
tina 32
11-11-2004 11:04 AM ET (US)
Jennifer was kind enough to call to see where I’ve been & if I was ok since all of you had written so much and there wasn’t a peep from me. (Which you may have viewed as a positive circumstance.) Most of you don’t know me personally, but I was helping the Arizona Democratic Party 8-10 hours/day running up to the election. I also have a funky rare disease which meant after all this work, my body shut down and I was quite ill for a while. (Hey, Justin, maybe there’s a bunch of healing by Jesus in the Bible ‘cause of folks like me who can barely make it to the restroom some days. It makes you look at the world differently, and want a ‘normal’ life again. It also may have been symbolic that he can help your physical as well as spiritual ills. Or, more probably, that Jesus embraced those outside of the normal culture and those who were feared.) Of course, the election results did not help my health…
It’s taken me 2 days to read through the discussion board. I copied the board onto Word so that I could read it at my leisure – 46 pages folks. Good lord, you can talk. But so can I, so I’ll have at it.
Amanda asked the most important question I read:
“Would you be accepting of evidence (scientific, academic, etc.) presented that is contrary to scripture or would you always choose the Bible?”
If Adam will always pick the Bible, then pointing out the scientific merits are moot. Originally when I responded to Adam I cited science as reason for accepting homosexuality. But reading through everything made me realize an important point. Adam and I are not arguing the same thing. Sure, homosexuality is the buzz word in the convo, but we’re skirting the issue. I’m on this real kick to draw all arguments/ discussions to it’s common denominator. Most arguments are meaningless because different bases are being argued. What Adam and I were basically skirting, as the rest of this has been, is: Is the Bible right or is the Bible wrong? Adam would say the Bible is right. Jeff seems to say the Bible is wrong, as it doesn’t equal the love Jesus went on about. But this is the wrong question also. I do not think we need to weigh the Bible’s ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’, but rather interpretation. So I will begin here. Adam, and anyone else who believes the Bible explicitly says (includes you, Justin) homosexuality is wrong, here we go:
1) Why do you believe the Bible is THE Word of God? I know, I heard it in church all the time. And I know that we are taught this. But Adam says he will only believe the Bible, so that’s what we are left with. I spent most of today reading through the Bible and varying websites that allows one to find verses based on words or phrases. I could find only one place: Rev. 22:18&19 “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”
This is the only place in the whole Bible (both Testaments) that speaks specifically about words on paper. Now I understand why folks have taught that the Bible is perfect, because of such verses as II Sam. 22:31 “As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is flawless.” Now, in this verse, and the many others I am getting ready to write, each of these people are speaking of the Word that comes through prayer and thoughtful reflection- listening to the Word of God. The Words that God tells you, not about this epic known as the Bible. Please read and see if I’m wrong: Prov. 30:5&6, Deut. 4:1&2, Ps. 12:6. Ps. 119:89-176, Mt. 24:35, John 15:7, Eph. 6:17. In John 1:1 he says that Jesus is the Word “and the Word was God.” Again, this is about communication with God and not about paper. If the Word is about communion with God, and not as we always heard in church that this book is the Word, then this tenet is not Biblical, but a church canon. Much like Baptists aren’t to dance or drink alcohol. There’s nothing about it being a sin to dance or drink in the Bible, quite to the contrary, but is a set of beliefs Baptist followers abide by: canons.
Adam, I know what you will say, as you’ve already said it: “If it is proven to have been written by man and not by divine inspiration, then man is the authority and God plays no part at all other than to just watch us little ants run around making fools of our selves as we claim how smart we are.”
No, I don’t think this at all. Why couldn’t it have been written by divine inspiration and still written by man? When Paul was writing all the letters to each of the churches, addressing each of their specific problems, do you think he thought, “These letters should be saved for all of eternity as the exact and specific words of God to be applied ad nauseum to each culture no matter what, because I am writing the exact words of God?” No. He wrote in I Cor. 2:1-16 about this very issue. To only paraphrase a bit of these 16 verses “In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” Yes, Paul was writing through divine inspiration, God was guiding him through His Spirit as to what he should advise these churches, but that does not mean that this book is to be touted as Divine. Only God, according to the Bible, is to be Divine. So, Adam, or anyone, why is the Bible thought to be Divine? I think these authors of each book in the Bible were writing under what they surely thought was divine guidance for situations they were experiencing at that time. But if you will only believe the Bible, Adam, the Bible doesn’t claim to be Divine & the ultimate authority of God. Which brings me to:
2) Adam, you have said that “we are under the new covenant set up by Jesus Christ” and that the OT is under the “Mosaic Law System” that Jesus ended. I’m glad to hear you say that. According to the Bible, you are right: Eph. 2:11-18, vs. 14 & 15 specifically stating that Jesus “has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.” And John 1:17, “For the law was given through Moses; grace & truth came through Jesus Christ.” Ok, so as to the OT, we no longer need to follow those laws.
But in Mt. 5:38&39 (NT) it says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, & tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn him the other also.” Yet you teach martial arts. Do you think this conflicts with Jesus’ command? He says not to resist an evil person, yet you are prepared for defense. How do you work this out spiritually? Mt. 18:8&9 (also Mt. 5:27-30)“If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut if off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have 2 hands or 2 feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with 1 eye than to have 2 eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.” Have any of these items caused you to sin? I’m assuming that you haven’t done any of these disfigurements to yourself. I would suspect that it’s because you believe Jesus was speaking figuratively. As we no longer posses these physical bodies in heaven, since they have died and decayed, would we really enter heaven without our hands? I suspect you think that this is a metaphor. That if we know we are apt to sin in a certain area, abandon the area. You spoke of drinking not affecting you (you used it when speaking of homosexuality), but if one knows they sin when drinking, quit drinking. Or do you think Jesus meant literally to cut off your hand?
You wrote: ”So as I under stand the Bible, the word of God is the truth, so if there is a
disparity between the two, then one must look deeper to find the truth. Most of the times the Bible causes disparity, because what it teaches is in direct conflict with a person’s culture and not the truth. The truth of the bible is through love you can full fill the whole of the Law. Example would be with love you don’t steal, murder, commit adultery, abuse your spouse or treat others as second class citizens and so on.”
Amen. It is about “conflict with a person’s culture & not the truth.” As I understand the Bible, I agree with your “the truth of the bible is through love…” I think that is the point. If you love, you will not hurt others. You have stated that one should not abuse his spouse as love & truth, but that’s not covered in the Bible. Jesus says in Mt. 9:31-32 that any man “who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress.” Or Mt. 19:9 “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” At this time culturally, men could divorce women, but women could not divorce men. These men had gotten in the habit of divorcing their wives as the grew older and marrying younger women. But the divorced women became pariah in the community. They were poor and most were not allowed to remarry. Now, Jesus speaks nothing about a woman leaving her spouse if he beats her. My fist husband was abusive. When I finally left, my father, a strict, Southern Baptist, told me no, I couldn’t leave my 1st husband as it is a sin. I said, “Dad, honestly, would your God want me to stay with someone who was hurting me?” He stayed quiet. In our culture abuse is now frowned upon. Not so, at that time. Women were property. Jesus actually lifted the importance of women with verses like this, not divorcing unless she was unfaithful, so that men would not arbitrarily cast aside their spouses.
Titus 2:9&10, Eph. 6:5 and Col. 3:22 each deal with slaves saying that slaves ought to be obedient to their masters. This seems appalling, but it was a cultural issue. At the time the Romans were in charge of all sorts of principalities. They enslaved nation after nation. Slaves were normal. He was advising them, a cultural norm, to act as obedient folks so that their masters may better know God. He was preaching non-violence. But we culturally find slavery horrific now. When the Abolitionists first spoke of ridding our country of slavery, the opponents used the Bible to prove it was sanctioned by Jesus to own slaves. I question this since Jesus actually preached love, but he was dealing with the cultural issues of the day, as Paul did.
Heb. 4:12”For the word of God is living & active.” This reminds me of the Constitution of the U.S. – a living document meant to help guide us, but allows us to evolve & our laws to evolve as we grow. I figure the Bible is like Paul’s word of God. It is to do the same thing, to be a guide tool that is living and evolves as it’s readers evolve. We have evolved from slaver y and sanctioned wife abuse. We matured. Adam, it does not take from the authors or from God to say they were writing about the issues at the time. (e.g., Moses advising Jewish folks not eating milk and meat together. At the time of no refrigeration, people were dying from this combination. As well as folks dying from pork. It makes sense that to multiply their people they would set-up laws that would keep them from eating deadly items. But we now have technology that makes this situation moot.) It does not detract from these OT authors nor make them less divinely guided as they were writing about the time they lived in. But I cannot find one place in the Bible that says we should say the Bible is Divine. In II Tim. 2:14-16 we are requested to “warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.”
3) Jesus says nothing about homosexuality. Not once in the Gospels does Jesus mention it. This seems significant to me. He advises the rich to give up their bounty (Mt. 19:23, Lk. 6:24, Lk. 12:21, Lk. 16:1-13, Lk. 16:19-31 & Lk. 21:1-4), he heals the sick, & he mostly tirades against the Pharisees & other Jewish leaders. In Mt. 15:6 he says, “Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.” And in Mk. 7:6-13 he tells them “You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.” To the rabbis at the time, they focused on the minutiae of each and every law laid out in the OT. Was Jesus less than these leaders? No. He understood that the Bible was to guide the people, not dictate. At another time, if you are interested, I will tell you the story of the Arc of the Covenant and its significance. It shows that God never wanted to even give us the 10 Commandments. He wanted people to simply love and they would not do the things dictated in the Commandments. But we humans are fickle and like to know what we can get away with and what we can’t. Judaism is the result of trying control instead of simply loving.
Why am I telling you all this? Homosexuality in Jesus’ day is not the homosexuality of today. The Greeks loved the body. The men would have wives that were forced to stay home and had young boys as their lovers. More importantly, the Romans (in control in Jesus’ day) adopted their culture from the Greeks. They did not worship 1 God, but many gods. And at the temples of these gods the priests & priestesses were having orgies. It is more probable that Paul was speaking to these specific churches in these specific regions where this happened. If you notice, Paul only speaks of homosexuality in the same breath with perversion, idolatry, & thievery. I Cor. 6:9&10 “ Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulteress nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” This all can be culturally explained by looking at the temples the Romans worshipped, and at how those in charge of these temples behaved. Check out: www.cathedralofhope.com/homosexuality/index.php for a Christian take on this question. Rom. 1:18-32 speaks specifically to this cultural religion saying that they “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man & birds & animals & reptiles.” Paul wrote these things to Gentiles who lived in the main Roman Empire. Homosexuality, as mentioned by Paul, deals with the Roman practice of worship. Paul probably never even conceived of homosexuality as we know it. So, I disagree with Justin. I don’t think the Bible does condemn homosexuality as we know it today. I think Jesus would probably have a problem with tons o’ gay sex, as he had a problem with anyone practicing tons o’ sex, but culturally what we are experiencing did not exist at the time the Bible was written. Culturally homosexuality and birth control were abhorred for the same reason: if we breed, there will be more of us, and the more of ‘us’ there is we will be able to protect ourselves. (By the way Adam, you mentioned birth control because of women wanting to have sex before they are married. I am married and practice birth control.)
So, Justin, I disagree with you. I’m not sure the Bible implicitly states homosexuality as we know it is wrong. I believe the Bible to be advice given for cultural situations. God guided these folks to write these things to help guide other folks. But I have yet to find where the Bible says it, itself, is Divine. That it wasn’t written by man. And that it speaks to the cultural problems of the time. Culturally we are uncomfortable with homosexuality (we as the universal ‘we’, since I don’t care what a person’s sexual preference is) and use the Bible to substantiate our claims. I would use Titus 3:9 “But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.” If Jesus came to break the law, then why are we still arguing it?
Cheers! tina
11-11-2004 11:04 AM ET (US)
Jennifer was kind enough to call to see where I’ve been & if I was ok since all of you had written so much and there wasn’t a peep from me. (Which you may have viewed as a positive circumstance.) Most of you don’t know me personally, but I was helping the Arizona Democratic Party 8-10 hours/day running up to the election. I also have a funky rare disease which meant after all this work, my body shut down and I was quite ill for a while. (Hey, Justin, maybe there’s a bunch of healing by Jesus in the Bible ‘cause of folks like me who can barely make it to the restroom some days. It makes you look at the world differently, and want a ‘normal’ life again. It also may have been symbolic that he can help your physical as well as spiritual ills. Or, more probably, that Jesus embraced those outside of the normal culture and those who were feared.) Of course, the election results did not help my health…
It’s taken me 2 days to read through the discussion board. I copied the board onto Word so that I could read it at my leisure – 46 pages folks. Good lord, you can talk. But so can I, so I’ll have at it.
Amanda asked the most important question I read:
“Would you be accepting of evidence (scientific, academic, etc.) presented that is contrary to scripture or would you always choose the Bible?”
If Adam will always pick the Bible, then pointing out the scientific merits are moot. Originally when I responded to Adam I cited science as reason for accepting homosexuality. But reading through everything made me realize an important point. Adam and I are not arguing the same thing. Sure, homosexuality is the buzz word in the convo, but we’re skirting the issue. I’m on this real kick to draw all arguments/ discussions to it’s common denominator. Most arguments are meaningless because different bases are being argued. What Adam and I were basically skirting, as the rest of this has been, is: Is the Bible right or is the Bible wrong? Adam would say the Bible is right. Jeff seems to say the Bible is wrong, as it doesn’t equal the love Jesus went on about. But this is the wrong question also. I do not think we need to weigh the Bible’s ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’, but rather interpretation. So I will begin here. Adam, and anyone else who believes the Bible explicitly says (includes you, Justin) homosexuality is wrong, here we go:
1) Why do you believe the Bible is THE Word of God? I know, I heard it in church all the time. And I know that we are taught this. But Adam says he will only believe the Bible, so that’s what we are left with. I spent most of today reading through the Bible and varying websites that allows one to find verses based on words or phrases. I could find only one place: Rev. 22:18&19 “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”
This is the only place in the whole Bible (both Testaments) that speaks specifically about words on paper. Now I understand why folks have taught that the Bible is perfect, because of such verses as II Sam. 22:31 “As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is flawless.” Now, in this verse, and the many others I am getting ready to write, each of these people are speaking of the Word that comes through prayer and thoughtful reflection- listening to the Word of God. The Words that God tells you, not about this epic known as the Bible. Please read and see if I’m wrong: Prov. 30:5&6, Deut. 4:1&2, Ps. 12:6. Ps. 119:89-176, Mt. 24:35, John 15:7, Eph. 6:17. In John 1:1 he says that Jesus is the Word “and the Word was God.” Again, this is about communication with God and not about paper. If the Word is about communion with God, and not as we always heard in church that this book is the Word, then this tenet is not Biblical, but a church canon. Much like Baptists aren’t to dance or drink alcohol. There’s nothing about it being a sin to dance or drink in the Bible, quite to the contrary, but is a set of beliefs Baptist followers abide by: canons.
Adam, I know what you will say, as you’ve already said it: “If it is proven to have been written by man and not by divine inspiration, then man is the authority and God plays no part at all other than to just watch us little ants run around making fools of our selves as we claim how smart we are.”
No, I don’t think this at all. Why couldn’t it have been written by divine inspiration and still written by man? When Paul was writing all the letters to each of the churches, addressing each of their specific problems, do you think he thought, “These letters should be saved for all of eternity as the exact and specific words of God to be applied ad nauseum to each culture no matter what, because I am writing the exact words of God?” No. He wrote in I Cor. 2:1-16 about this very issue. To only paraphrase a bit of these 16 verses “In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” Yes, Paul was writing through divine inspiration, God was guiding him through His Spirit as to what he should advise these churches, but that does not mean that this book is to be touted as Divine. Only God, according to the Bible, is to be Divine. So, Adam, or anyone, why is the Bible thought to be Divine? I think these authors of each book in the Bible were writing under what they surely thought was divine guidance for situations they were experiencing at that time. But if you will only believe the Bible, Adam, the Bible doesn’t claim to be Divine & the ultimate authority of God. Which brings me to:
2) Adam, you have said that “we are under the new covenant set up by Jesus Christ” and that the OT is under the “Mosaic Law System” that Jesus ended. I’m glad to hear you say that. According to the Bible, you are right: Eph. 2:11-18, vs. 14 & 15 specifically stating that Jesus “has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.” And John 1:17, “For the law was given through Moses; grace & truth came through Jesus Christ.” Ok, so as to the OT, we no longer need to follow those laws.
But in Mt. 5:38&39 (NT) it says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, & tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn him the other also.” Yet you teach martial arts. Do you think this conflicts with Jesus’ command? He says not to resist an evil person, yet you are prepared for defense. How do you work this out spiritually? Mt. 18:8&9 (also Mt. 5:27-30)“If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut if off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have 2 hands or 2 feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with 1 eye than to have 2 eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.” Have any of these items caused you to sin? I’m assuming that you haven’t done any of these disfigurements to yourself. I would suspect that it’s because you believe Jesus was speaking figuratively. As we no longer posses these physical bodies in heaven, since they have died and decayed, would we really enter heaven without our hands? I suspect you think that this is a metaphor. That if we know we are apt to sin in a certain area, abandon the area. You spoke of drinking not affecting you (you used it when speaking of homosexuality), but if one knows they sin when drinking, quit drinking. Or do you think Jesus meant literally to cut off your hand?
You wrote: ”So as I under stand the Bible, the word of God is the truth, so if there is a
disparity between the two, then one must look deeper to find the truth. Most of the times the Bible causes disparity, because what it teaches is in direct conflict with a person’s culture and not the truth. The truth of the bible is through love you can full fill the whole of the Law. Example would be with love you don’t steal, murder, commit adultery, abuse your spouse or treat others as second class citizens and so on.”
Amen. It is about “conflict with a person’s culture & not the truth.” As I understand the Bible, I agree with your “the truth of the bible is through love…” I think that is the point. If you love, you will not hurt others. You have stated that one should not abuse his spouse as love & truth, but that’s not covered in the Bible. Jesus says in Mt. 9:31-32 that any man “who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress.” Or Mt. 19:9 “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” At this time culturally, men could divorce women, but women could not divorce men. These men had gotten in the habit of divorcing their wives as the grew older and marrying younger women. But the divorced women became pariah in the community. They were poor and most were not allowed to remarry. Now, Jesus speaks nothing about a woman leaving her spouse if he beats her. My fist husband was abusive. When I finally left, my father, a strict, Southern Baptist, told me no, I couldn’t leave my 1st husband as it is a sin. I said, “Dad, honestly, would your God want me to stay with someone who was hurting me?” He stayed quiet. In our culture abuse is now frowned upon. Not so, at that time. Women were property. Jesus actually lifted the importance of women with verses like this, not divorcing unless she was unfaithful, so that men would not arbitrarily cast aside their spouses.
Titus 2:9&10, Eph. 6:5 and Col. 3:22 each deal with slaves saying that slaves ought to be obedient to their masters. This seems appalling, but it was a cultural issue. At the time the Romans were in charge of all sorts of principalities. They enslaved nation after nation. Slaves were normal. He was advising them, a cultural norm, to act as obedient folks so that their masters may better know God. He was preaching non-violence. But we culturally find slavery horrific now. When the Abolitionists first spoke of ridding our country of slavery, the opponents used the Bible to prove it was sanctioned by Jesus to own slaves. I question this since Jesus actually preached love, but he was dealing with the cultural issues of the day, as Paul did.
Heb. 4:12”For the word of God is living & active.” This reminds me of the Constitution of the U.S. – a living document meant to help guide us, but allows us to evolve & our laws to evolve as we grow. I figure the Bible is like Paul’s word of God. It is to do the same thing, to be a guide tool that is living and evolves as it’s readers evolve. We have evolved from slaver y and sanctioned wife abuse. We matured. Adam, it does not take from the authors or from God to say they were writing about the issues at the time. (e.g., Moses advising Jewish folks not eating milk and meat together. At the time of no refrigeration, people were dying from this combination. As well as folks dying from pork. It makes sense that to multiply their people they would set-up laws that would keep them from eating deadly items. But we now have technology that makes this situation moot.) It does not detract from these OT authors nor make them less divinely guided as they were writing about the time they lived in. But I cannot find one place in the Bible that says we should say the Bible is Divine. In II Tim. 2:14-16 we are requested to “warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.”
3) Jesus says nothing about homosexuality. Not once in the Gospels does Jesus mention it. This seems significant to me. He advises the rich to give up their bounty (Mt. 19:23, Lk. 6:24, Lk. 12:21, Lk. 16:1-13, Lk. 16:19-31 & Lk. 21:1-4), he heals the sick, & he mostly tirades against the Pharisees & other Jewish leaders. In Mt. 15:6 he says, “Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.” And in Mk. 7:6-13 he tells them “You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.” To the rabbis at the time, they focused on the minutiae of each and every law laid out in the OT. Was Jesus less than these leaders? No. He understood that the Bible was to guide the people, not dictate. At another time, if you are interested, I will tell you the story of the Arc of the Covenant and its significance. It shows that God never wanted to even give us the 10 Commandments. He wanted people to simply love and they would not do the things dictated in the Commandments. But we humans are fickle and like to know what we can get away with and what we can’t. Judaism is the result of trying control instead of simply loving.
Why am I telling you all this? Homosexuality in Jesus’ day is not the homosexuality of today. The Greeks loved the body. The men would have wives that were forced to stay home and had young boys as their lovers. More importantly, the Romans (in control in Jesus’ day) adopted their culture from the Greeks. They did not worship 1 God, but many gods. And at the temples of these gods the priests & priestesses were having orgies. It is more probable that Paul was speaking to these specific churches in these specific regions where this happened. If you notice, Paul only speaks of homosexuality in the same breath with perversion, idolatry, & thievery. I Cor. 6:9&10 “ Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulteress nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” This all can be culturally explained by looking at the temples the Romans worshipped, and at how those in charge of these temples behaved. Check out: www.cathedralofhope.com/homosexuality/index.php for a Christian take on this question. Rom. 1:18-32 speaks specifically to this cultural religion saying that they “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man & birds & animals & reptiles.” Paul wrote these things to Gentiles who lived in the main Roman Empire. Homosexuality, as mentioned by Paul, deals with the Roman practice of worship. Paul probably never even conceived of homosexuality as we know it. So, I disagree with Justin. I don’t think the Bible does condemn homosexuality as we know it today. I think Jesus would probably have a problem with tons o’ gay sex, as he had a problem with anyone practicing tons o’ sex, but culturally what we are experiencing did not exist at the time the Bible was written. Culturally homosexuality and birth control were abhorred for the same reason: if we breed, there will be more of us, and the more of ‘us’ there is we will be able to protect ourselves. (By the way Adam, you mentioned birth control because of women wanting to have sex before they are married. I am married and practice birth control.)
So, Justin, I disagree with you. I’m not sure the Bible implicitly states homosexuality as we know it is wrong. I believe the Bible to be advice given for cultural situations. God guided these folks to write these things to help guide other folks. But I have yet to find where the Bible says it, itself, is Divine. That it wasn’t written by man. And that it speaks to the cultural problems of the time. Culturally we are uncomfortable with homosexuality (we as the universal ‘we’, since I don’t care what a person’s sexual preference is) and use the Bible to substantiate our claims. I would use Titus 3:9 “But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.” If Jesus came to break the law, then why are we still arguing it?
Cheers! tina