Neller wrote:
#364 (permalink)
I agree that having guilt over what the Bible says hurts people, but that's where discussing it rather than dismissing it can probably help more. If everybody understood the context of certain passages it might help people understand their meaning better and whether it should actually affect their lives at all.
---------------------------------------------------------
Neller,
I think you have (almost) struck gold with this observation. But we need to take your thought one level further out.
There is no value in guilt itself. It isn’t the Bible or Christ’s purpose to point fingers for the sake of pointing fingers. Rather, the bigger purpose is to help people stop/avoid hurting themselves and others. Guilt is an emotional trigger that we all should respond to. It should make us study our actions and then evaluate if they help or hurt others or ourselves. It is the price we pay for having some degree of free will.
As you (Neller) say, if we study the context of a biblical scripture we might learn that we have nothing to feel guilty about or we may learn how to avoid guilt all together by making a situation better.
For example: Contributors to this thread have often used the term
abomination. Based on how the term is (repeatedly) associated in biblical writings, it is mainly used to denote idolatry, or unapproved acts used in rituals supporting pagan forms of worship. A scholarly study in Egyptian or Moabite religions might reveal why Moses chose to exclude fabrics made of more than one material. It obviously has no context in today’s culture, but four thousand years ago it may have been the equivalent of wearing a swastika.
In another area, one historical researcher (Pearson) reports that most pagan religions in Moses era practiced anal intercourse. True believers would dedicate themselves to a temple or a god, sacrifice their testicles (often by self mutilation – beating them off with a rock), and then offer themselves as anal prostitutes. Pearson also reports that female temple prostitutes were primarily anal actors as the vagina was reserved for special fertility rituals.
http://www.cebiaz.com/book.pdf
So who knows what was really being considered when the concept of “a man lying with a man” was called an abomination. Context of use largely suggest it was not to be done because of its confused association to idol worship practices common in that day and culture. Even in that day, the prohibition may not have been intended to focus on loving male relationships. And it may have little or no relevance in today’s culture.
As the saying goes, to quote text without context is pretext.