I offended a friend recently. It's not something I like to do, as I'm more of a conflict avoider, but here's what I said:
I used to think that Christians who oppose the civil rights and full participation of LGBT persons simply happened to disagree with me about a very important issue. I now regard that assumption as naïve. People either use religion to justify their bigotry or they refuse to give up their bigotry for the sake of maintaining false religious security. In the end it's all bigotry.
My friend expressed dismay. In his mind my harsh judgment shuts down conversation. Yes, that's probably true. But who is the victim here? My friend may pretend to be the victim, but he's not. The real victims are the countless gay and transgender people who are victimized by the church every day. In many contexts right-wing Christians actively persecute sexual minorities. From the pulpit pastors have recommended striking little boys who fail the masculinity text. I'm sorry if the truth shuts down a conversation, but let's be clear on who's hurting whom here.
Hiding behind the Bible doesn't exempt us from responsibility for our beliefs and behaviors. The Bible is a complicated book. Using the Bible to condemn sexual minorities requires that people make a series of choices and assumptions. Let's examine those choices and assumptions.
First, people assume that the Bible is a sort of rule book that "teaches" us what to think about countless issues, including sex. But the Bible doesn't say anything directly about "homosexuality" -- and yes, I know about each one of the passages people use to justify discrimination. Several passages do condemn same-sex sex; then again David found Jonathan's love greater than that of women (2 Samuel 1:26), while Jesus healed a centurion's "boy" (Greek: pais) without any comment on that relationship (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10).
Whatever proof texts one side or the other cooks up, the Bible simply doesn't work as a rule book. That's why very few Christians want biblical government (judges and kings!), why we ignore biblical finance (no banking industry!) and why we have abandoned biblical cosmology (in which heaven is somewhere "up there"). Treating the Bible as a rule book has justified all sorts of evil, including genocide, slavery, segregation and women's subordination. Ignoring the context of Paul's teaching, many domestic rapists appeal to Scripture. They know that Paul tells women they owe sex to their men (1 Corinthians 7:3-6). This is not how to use the Bible.
Second, many apply an interpretive double standard to homosexuality. Simply, the Bible has a lot to say about sex and gender, and Christians -- all Christians -- conveniently skip by the scary stuff. We don't require rape victims to marry their rapists (Deuteronomy 22:28-29); we don't tell women to lay off the jewelry (1 Peter 3:3); and we choose not to remember that the Bible provides specific instructions for the sexual use and marriage of slave girls (Exodus 21:7-11). We even ignore the New Testament's teachings -- and they are diverse -- on divorce (compare Mark 10:2-12 with Matthew 19:3-12 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-16). Yet somehow we think the Bible directly condemns LGBT persons. It's pretty clear: We straight people apply the Bible to the sex lives LGBT folk in ways we'd never apply it to our own.
Third, the appeal to Scripture to condemn sexual minorities requires that we ignore the vast cultural gap between the ancient world and our own. Again, hypocrisy comes into the picture. When we read the biblical prophets, we ask ourselves about their historical contexts. Who were the Assyrians, was the prophet addressing Israel or Judah, and what can we know about the politics of that time? When we read Paul's letters, Christians automatically wonder about the circumstances Paul is addressing. What can we know about the local culture, the ongoing conversations that motivate Paul to write, and popular popular religious and philosophical movements in the ancient world.
These are routine questions for Christians. But when it comes to sex we ignore the astonishing gap between the ancient world and our own. Not one biblical marriage resembles marriage in our society. No biblical couple meets, falls in love and mutually chooses a lifetime of companionship. (Some would see Ruth as an exception, but Ruth marries for survival.) So patriarchal was the culture that the Bible defines adultery only in terms of one man's offense against another, with everything depending on the woman's status as married or betrothed. (Many people are surprised to learn this.) This is not to deny that ancient couples grew to love one another deeply; it is simply to point out how far our culture is removed from that of the Bible.
Likewise, our concepts of "homosexuality," sexual orientation and gender identity have no counterparts in the ancient world. Free adult men frequently had sex with their wives, with prostitutes, with male and female slaves, and with other people they could find. In the ancient world same-sex sex was almost always exploitative in nature. No one was talking about homosexual identity or seeking egalitarian same-sex marriage in the ancient world. When it comes to homosexuality, the Bible simply isn't talking about what we're talking about. Those who misuse the Bible to condemn gays choose to ignore this reality.
I suspect that many Christians hold on to an anti-gay stance out of fear. Having been told the Bible condemns homosexuality, they assume that embracing sexual justice implies defying God's Word. Many Christians I talk to feel they can rely on the Bible for direct guidance concerning everyday affairs. If the Bible won't hold up to that use for whatever reason, they fear they might lose their moral compass and chaos might ensue. But the Bible has never delivered that sort of certainty, nor can it. That's why every town has dozens of fundamentalist churches that think they're the only ones who have it right. There's no avoiding the problem of interpretation -- or the responsibility that goes with it.
Julius Caesar said, "People believe what they want to believe." Modern psychology has confirmed his wisdom: Our moral choices tend to reflect our biases and passions more than an unbiased process of moral reflection. Let's be honest: if you're anti-gay, you're anti-gay. Just don't blame the Bible for your bigotry.
Follow Greg Carey on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Greg_Carey
Rev. Debra Haffner: Hope and Love: The New Moral Majority
A buffet where people kill each other.
Heavenly Father, we thank you for counting us faithful ,putting us in the ministry! we yield our hearts and all our being to the cause of the Gospel ,The propagation of the good news of God's love for man kind. We are making tremendous progress in this great endeavor in Jesus Name. Amen .
Godbless you
Condemning is one. I don't believe in preaching hate or condemnation of same sex acts anymore than I do of adultery or any other sin. At the same time, I'm not going to brush everything under the big carpet of moral relativism and modern revisionism simply because some people suggest that's correct. It isn't.
Same sex relationships did indeed exist in the ancient world. They were not all predatory. The historical record demonstrates this. Biblical authors were aware of this. I guess the author ignores this reality for convenience sake.
You can believe whatever you like, just don't confuse disagreement and justifiable scriptural tenets with preexisting bigotry.
That logic doesn't follow.
Your logic doesn't follow sir, unfortunately. in Critical thinking class we call that setting up a straw man.
The reason I bring it up is because it's a rule that doesn't seem ceremonial (and there are others) that isn't followed today so it seems. It's not that it justifies sex acts, it illuminates your hypocrisy. You are willing to overlook the rule if it's embarrassing enough.
infants, children
servant, slave
an attendant, servant, spec. a king's attendant, minister
By itself it does not connote a sexual relationship. That would require most commonly ἐραστής (erastēs)
That's like saying when a man says another man is his "partner", he doesn't mean lover, because partner doesn't literally mean lover.
New International Version (NIV)
6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
btw: JESUS said that! And what he said was that right from the very beginning when marriage was established that it is between a man and a woman!!! What Christians do is read and believe what the bible say while yall looking for a loophole. Psst...The only scapegoat is Jesus and he say you gots to obey him ifn you love him...
King James Version (KJV)
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder
s say the same thing...
There is no scientific evidence to prove any of the cross related bogus elements of christianity and other religions. Our early human ancestors; on this earth … go back more than 6 million years … 5,996,000 years before the Greeks, Romans and the Jews. Christianity is basically a 2012 year old fictional cult.
In the year 300 AD when Emperor Constantine, who to some was the first pope; went on to fabricate & market Christianity - a fantasy - which turned out to be one of the most hateful & evil concoctions ever perpetrated on the world. The evil writings in Leviticus 18:22 … against gays – depict: “P” … “priestly rules” & expanded by the pope; homophobes and religious frauds … to attack the gay community and never meant to apply to the public -- but to priests. Leviticus was written long after Moses -- 600BC.
The pope and churches fully aware that Leviticus 18:22 applies to priests only … refuse to remove this stigma … maliciously persecuting gays. Kids bullied into suicide …!
And as such until then no one should accept your beliefs as nothing more than a stagnant moral code that only reflects the backwards culture and social mores of its time which are completely irrelevant to the modern and moral world we all live in today. As it is your opinion is all you have and that's fine. Go knock yourself out with it but keep it out of our face and out of the law which is meant to serve and protect ALL of us, fairly and equally. Not just you and yours to coddle your particular warped view of reality based on your cultist beliefs.
Many other things are natural too that doesn't make them right.
Christianity is one of the longest surviving and most widespread religions ever known to man. That's not a coincidence.
Our priest often said to us; ‘love the person, but despise the deed’. As Christians we are taught to love-all. But in doing so, it does not mean that we sacrifice our religious principles. If someone (eg: gay) truly wishes to be a Christian, then THEY need to leave behind that lifestyle which is incompatible with the Church’ teachings.
And please, avoid that insidious statement of “minority rights” claim. There are no rights being affected here. In any of the Abrahamic religions (Islam, Christianity or Judaism), homosexuality is not acceptable. Tolerated maybe, but not accepted. Trying to coerce Christians to accept modern world norms/ values is not going to fly.
To put it a different way – if you join any club, you would need to follow the club rules. Being a Christian is much the same.
You talk so certainly and matter of factly about what "Christianity" is and is not. I find that funny.
Exactly which sect of Christianity is the correct one and why?Have you studied other sects of Christianity? Have you made the effort to find out what *they* believe a Christion should or should not be. What if a homosexual couple and their Christian beliefs are okay with marriage equality? Can you rightly deny them their Freedom of Religion? You could scream and holler all ya want about them not being "Real" Christians... but the underlying fact of the matter is... the only true definition of a Christian is the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and is your savior. Everything else is open for interpretation.
Follow your own rules... but don't try to govern everyone with them.
1."same sex-sex IS homosexuality, which is forbidden activity. Its not a God given inherrant identity--its an activity.
2. Jonathan's love for David was expressed in his loyalty to David over loyalty to his father, Saul, the King who was attacking David with no cause. His love was expressed in his willingness to stand up to his father and risk his life to help David escape sure death at Saul's hands when Saul plotted to kill him and Jonathan found out. David and Jonathan happened to share the quality of loving God very deeply so they had the most important thing in common as friends. Their "love" had nothing to do with sex. David's statement about it being a better love than that of women shows it WASNT about romance or sex-- it was about love of God and loyalty and risking ones life for ones friend which is higher things than romance and sex. It was the highest example of agape/brotherly love. NOT LUST.
3. The word "pais" has a number of meaninigs that have nothing to do with 'sex slave". As well the centuirion was well respected by the Jewish elders as he had helped hte Jewish people a lot. He would not be well respected by the Jewish elders or others if he was having sex with a male slave.
Going to a liberal theological school doesn't mean you know how to study the Bible
In place of the Old Testament law, we are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), which is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind…and to love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39). If we obey those two commands, we will be fulfilling all that Christ requires of us: “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:40).
- http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html
The whole thorny issue is that Jesus very brings in a new covenant, with new (and I think) better priorities than what's found in Leviticus. I just wish modern Christians would follow him.
"None of the Old Testament law is binding on us today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15)." I got this from a website I was referred to by notanaxkiller. They say it in very clear and plain terms. Did they really get it so wrong?
Galatians 3:21 "Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
The whole point Paul is making in this passage is that the law is to point us to Christ....not that the law is contrary or no longer valid.
In the OT, the laws were meant to separate God's chosen ppl from the rest, but v28 abolishes those distinctions, including even the male/female distinction.