Misinterpretation: The Bible and Homosexuality

[JustAsking]

Folks who take bits of the Bible and justify their hatreds by them are folks who keep the real treasure of the Bible from ever emerging for them to take in an profit from. The Bible users fall into definite categories. First, those who mine it to support their own positions. Second, are those who somehow suggest that all parts of it are equally useful. (Try reading the whole of the O.T. books of Joshua and I and II Samuel and decide whether the God depicted there is worthy of worship and praise.) Third, are those who accept the Bible for what it is, that is the testimony of men who were writing in their times with the whole background of culture as it had developed to that point. Fourth, are those who can sense the progression of thought through the O.T. into the New Testament. (unfortunately, the N. T. ends with the book of Revelation which has spawned a whole lot of mischief right down to the present time.)
I assume that the God who is worthy of praise and worship from me has to be a whole lot more loving, reasonable, moral, etc. etc. than I could ever be. Therefore I dismiss all the testimony in the Bible that falls short of that and do not apologize for my exercise of freedom. I adore the God who demands of me that I be fair, be kind, and always remember that I could be wrong because I am human not divine. I don't presume to know the mind of the Almighty; that would be arrogance which God would not approve. I dig the Gospel of Jesus Christ which declares that Christ came so that we might have life and have it more abundantly. I like that!

I agree with every word you write here, Corius. Your "exercise of freedom" is the accepted way to read the Bible in most mainstream denominations. The only way to read the Bible is through the lens of a theology. And whichever theological lens you choose, there will be sections of the Bible that are out of focus or totally unreadable. For example, of you read the Bible through the lens of the Theology of Grace, big sections of the OT will be puzzling (the flood, burning cities, etc).

My homespun analogy for why it is puzzling goes like this: Consider a diary written by a child who can somehow write about its impressions starting from a few months old. Consider that the child is preoccupied with writing about its relationship with its parents. Imagine how that relationship will be seen by the child at 2 months old, 2 years old, 10 years old, etc.

You would find in that diary an evolution of the maturity of the relationship between the child and the parents. The early descriptions would be all about how the parents are lawgivers, judges, and even punishers, all of which might seem arbitrary and capricious from the point of view of the child. Over the years, the descriptions would change as the growing emotional maturity of the child would dictate a different form of parenting, and the child's maturity would give him a very different perspective on the relationship.

Ultimately, the child is 30 years old and thanking the parents for all those years of good child rearing. The adult child would realize that everything the parents did for the child, whether it seemed loving or not at the time, was motivated out of a deep sense of sacrifice and unconditional love for the child. And finally, what the child takes away from the good parenting is that sense of love, respect, for the miracle that is life, and its behavior is ultimately informed by that, rather than a long list of memorized rules and regulations. The parents early "law" is not abolished as the child matures, but fulfilled by a deeper motivation in the child based on love.

This is how I resolve the puzzle of the OT vs the NT, that it is a story of the relationship between a people and their unconditionally loving God. However, the story is written from the point of view of the people whose initial understanding of the relationship is too childlike for the people to understand the love behind the law. Over time, aided by the cogent teaching and example given by the parent in front of their eyes, the story ends with the people finally having a dim awareness of the underlying love and sacrifice that has always gone into the relationship from the God's point of view.

So to understand the OT, one must look at it from the vantage point of the empty cross, and all that implies. It is only from that vantage point does anything in the Bible have any value at all. One must also read the text of the OT keeping in mind that it is written from the point of view of a people who are not yet equipped with the spiritual maturity to make any sense out of the relationship between them and their God.

By standing on the empty cross, however, you have a much better vantage point than they did when they wrote the stuff to begin with. You get to replace the OT authors' lament about "what does this mean?", with your more informed, "What does this have to do with the risen Christ?".

..I'll accept God for what he is. Because, truth be told, I don't know a damned thing about him.

Indeed. That's what Luther said. Speculations about God are interesting but unproductive. He added that the only thing we could know about God is Jesus, said Luther. And in his opinion, its all we need to know.

 

[Lex]

The writings in this thread have me speechless.

You guys continue to help me come closer to God by spotlighting and compartmentalizing the shortcomings of MAN.

JA, Freddie, Corius, (etal.) thank you.

 

[fortiesfun]

I am a gay Episcopalian, fully accepted by my church community--I can't even begin to tell you how much that means to me.

Ditto. With a openly gay rector.

 

[madame_zora]

JA, thanks for that, truly!

While I have often noted the obvious maturity in approach between the OT and NT, I have never been able to articulate it so eloquently. Now I understand what he meant when he said "I did not come to abolish the law, I came to fulfill it". I have often seen him, despite this disclaimer, as replacing the law. This is a good day, I actually learned something!

 

[DC_DEEP]

JA, thanks for that, truly!

While I have often noted the obvious maturity in approach between the OT and NT, I have never been able to articulate it so eloquently. Now I understand what he meant when he said "I did not come to abolish the law, I came to fulfill it". I have often seen him, despite this disclaimer, as replacing the law. This is a good day, I actually learned something!

Hang out with JA for just a short while, and that's bound to happen.

 

[Freddie53]

JA, I was poking a little fun at the 4 or 5 members who routinely accuse me of hating anyone or anything even remotely religious. Your faith is obvious, through your posts, and you are one of the members I most admire. The evangelists who spew such vitriol against me make fools of themselves when they say I'm "anti-religion." I wish more of them were more like you. I think you are awesome.

Thank you, love. <gets all gushy and mushy>

Alright, I'm going to be dense here, but the first part I dont' understand. The second part, I do understand, and thank you. That's the obvious answer.

But still, I am hoping that someone who uses Leviticus 18:22 or Leviticus 20:13 as the basis for their condemnation of homosexuality, will explain to me why they choose only these two (maybe a random 3 or 4 other) verses, out of an approximate 859 verses, to quote as applicable law. And why they are conspicuously silent about Leviticus 25, and why they don't observe the year of jubilee. Are chapters 18 and 20 still valid, but chapter 25 is not?

The passage in question concerning homosexuality in Leviticus is about the straight men taking their guests and forcing them to have gay sex. Other passages are referring to gay prostitutes. This is my understanding.

Same is true in Paul's writings in the New Testament.

And thanks Lex for your kind words. You are a jewel. God loves you more than you love yourself. This is the kind of God I worship.

 

[DC_DEEP]

The passage in question concerning homosexuality in Leviticus is about the straight men taking their guests and forcing them to have gay sex. Other passages are referring to gay prostitutes. This is my understanding.

Same is true in Paul's writings in the New Testament.

And thanks Lex for your kind words. You are a jewel. God loves you more than you love yourself. This is the kind of God I worship.

Thanks, Freddie. That is a little more clear.

I'm still going to wait for one of the "homosexuality is wrong, because the bible says so" crowd to give me their angle on this phenomenon. I doubt that any of them will, because it will require them to admit their own error.

 

[Freddie53]

The problem with these literalists is that the have these "Bible colleges" that teach the inerrantcy of the Bible as interpreted by them. These conservative "Bible colleges" don't teach their students about how the Bible came to be written, the effects of oral tradition, the great differences of opinion on how to interpret certain passages due to the fact that it is impossible to translate one language to another language long after the culture that wrote the particular passage or book have passed from the scene.

These fundamentalists have a basic philosophy that what ever they decide the Bible says is completely true without any mixture of error. And damn anyone who disagrees with them. That is fine for them to have their beliefs. But when they try to legislate their beliefs are part of the American judicial system, I have to speak out Not No, But Hell No.

 

[madame_zora]

It must also be noted that these "Bible colleges" are very infrequently accredited.

 

[scanjock8]

Ditto. With a openly gay rector.

Cool The dean of our cathedral is openly gay.

 

[dolf250]

That was one heck of a well written article on the subject. It is late, and I do not have the brain power at this time of the day to delve into it more seriously, but I have bookmarked it to look at it closer.

For now I will pull a part of the article:
&#8220;11. The law of Moses allowed for divorce (Deut. 24:1-4); Jesus categorically forbids it (Mark 10:1-12; Matt. 19:9 softens his severity). Yet many Christians, in clear violation of a command of Jesus, have been divorced. Why, then, do some of these very people consider themselves eligible for baptism, church membership, communion, and ordination, but not homosexuals? What makes the one so much greater a sin than the other, especially considering the fact that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality but explicitly condemned divorce? Yet we ordain divorcees. Why not homosexuals?&#8221;

You have no idea how often I have thought of that. Well, not specifically about the &#8220;why not homosexuals&#8221; part, but, rather about why divorce is not considered a problem anymore. For the early part of the century it was, and as it became more common it seems to have drifted to the background and now churches that condemn many things are willing to marry two divorced people so that they can try for the second, third and fourth time. I have always wondered why I have heard very few preachers look to that passage and read it to their church. (No need to answer; I know that in most cases they do not want to offend the people paying the bills.) It is actually something which has really bothered me, and now that I think of it many of the preachers who will not pipe up about divorce are willing to pull out the bible as proof that homosexuality is wrong.

 

[madame_zora]

Dolf, it's just selective reading, and the natural human tendency to see other's "sins" as more egregious than one's own.

It bothers me that the very people who raise the argument "The Bible- all or nothing" are usually completely unaware of their own hipocrisies. It's okay for the idea of divorce to be out moded because *I* might do it, but *I* would NEVER be a fucking homo! That's all it really boils down to.

 

[JustAsking]

... What makes the one so much greater a sin than the other, especially considering the fact that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality but explicitly condemned divorce? Yet we ordain divorcees. Why not homosexuals?”

...many of the preachers who will not pipe up about divorce are willing to pull out the bible as proof that homosexuality is wrong.

.... It's okay for the idea of divorce to be out moded because *I* might do it, but *I* would NEVER be a fucking homo! That's all it really boils down to.

And yet the same people claim to that same sex marriages destabilize the institution of marriage. You would think they might first be concerned with the fact that 1 out of 2 marriages fail in divorce. I say that the 50% divorce rate destabilized the institution of marriage.

Finally, How many people have cited the fact that their marriage failed because they heard that two gay guys got married somewhere? I think not.

 

[fortiesfun]

Cool The dean of our cathedral is openly gay.

I forget where you are located, but that didn't narrow it down very much. :wink:

 

[BIGBULL29]

Here's my problem with Christians: They pick and choose.

One does not follow a religion à la carte.

One of the greatest sins mentioned in the Bible is materialism.

Most American Christians "would be" in deep spiritual decay if they were to follow the Bible. :biggrin1:

 

[DC_DEEP]

And yet the same people claim to that same sex marriages destabilize the institution of marriage. You would think they might first be concerned with the fact that 1 out of 2 marriages fail in divorce. I say that the 50% divorce rate destabilized the institution of marriage.

Finally, How many people have cited the fact that their marriage failed because they heard that two gay guys got married somewhere? I think not.

Oh, JA, that is so rich. I sent a letter to Senator Warner before the "marriage amendment" debates and non-vote. I think it was all he could do to keep from blowing a gasket because I pointed out the same logic you've outlined here. Keep in mind, Liz Taylor was his second wife, and he was like what, her 7th husband? Now 9 divorces between the two of them, and he had the nerve to vote to codify gay discrimination into the US Constitution?

I actually suggested to Mr. Warner that any member of the house or senate should either be recused from the vote, or be required to automatically vote against it, and also to add a subparagraph which would make divorce illegal in the US. He was NOT amused.

 

[madame_zora]

I actually suggested to Mr. Warner that any member of the house or senate should either be recused from the vote, or be required to automatically vote against it, and also to add a subparagraph which would make divorce illegal in the US. He was NOT amused.

But I am!

Do you have any idea how many times Jesus used the word "hipocrite" to castige the Pharisees? I haven't taken a count, but there are plenty of examples. Our modern-day Pharisees are plentiful and loud. Anyone who does not follow the advice they give to others, and bases their argument on the Word of God meets the criteria.

 

[Corius]

Once in a while it might be useful for us to actually look at more than the selected verses out of the Old Testament upon which much of the so-called religious objections to homosexuality are supposedly based. I think there is one rather dramatic story that touches on a host of the biases that come to light in these exchanges. (My father read a chapter from the Old Testament at the close of the evening meal; I discovered that he never went beyond Chapter 18 of the book of Judges. My father obviously thought his children could do without this rather dramatic, gory story and the effect of the actions described on the community.)`
JUDGES (Chapters 19,20, and 21) Here is a story you can learn a bit about the doings of a bunch of lawless and loveless predatory men out for homosexual entertainment at the expense of a stranger, you read how they turn to being murderous rapists, etc. etc. It's a gripping story. I would suggest you ask the next religious nut who wants to lay a guilt trip on you because of your sexual orientation to go through the story with you and reveal to you what he finds of the Holy Word of God in it.
You will find many who have never read it; you will find none who can give you a convincing moral lesson to be gleaned from it. I'm surprised no one has, to my knowledge, ever adapted the story for the theater or the screen. I do hope all of you posting on this thread do have Bibles handy. It's a page turning quick read.

 

[Lex]

Corius-- thanks for that. I will give it a read tonight.

 

[Full_Phil]

---Do you have any idea how many times Jesus used the word "hipocrite" to castige the Pharisees? I haven't taken a count, but there are plenty of examples. Our modern-day Pharisees are plentiful and loud. Anyone who does not follow the advice they give to others, and bases their argument on the Word of God meets the criteria.

You forgot the money changers. That's all our Economy is nowadays --- money changing. Where can one go to throw over a few tables?