The Bible and homosexuality

[molendijk]

Moderator's Note: Hot topics like this can easily devolve into a flame war and can upset many people. This thread will be closely watched to be sure that does not happen. Please do not be offended if this thread gets moved, deleted, or closed and it may be closed early to prevent this. This thread has been separated from the thread The purpose of life (http://www.dynamicdrive.com/forums/showthread.php?73435-The-purpose-of-life) as it is significantly off topic and I really don't want to hijack that thread any further than I already have.

James, I have been thinking. And I've studied your website (http://www.animeviews.com/). This is ment seriously. No offense.
What would you do if you had to choose between what you call glorifying God and fully enjoy him forever and loving your homosexual son or daughter who doesn't harm anyone? Would you prefer what you think are Gods commandments to the love for your own child? Would you tell him/her that he/she commits sin? Or would you tell your child that it's OK and that you love him/her no matter what, FOR EVER?
Does a loving father tell his child that he/she is sinful just because of his/her sexual preference?
This is just an exampe of the questions raised by your Catechism and website.

[james438]

Thank you for asking! I decided against responding to your original response to catechism question number 1 because I didn't want to hijack your thread and potentially start an argument.

The important thing to remember about the practicing homosexual is that homosexuality is a sin just like any other and is that which separates us from a right relationship with God and which we are all guilty of. If we do not have a right relationship with God then we are under God's condemnation and will suffer the punishments of sin in a tormented body and soul forever. It is only through the atoning work of Jesus that those to whom God has effectually called to place their faith in Jesus for their salvation from the wrath of God for sin that will be saved from the torments of hell and be placed in a right relationship with God.

If my son tells me that he is a homosexual through and through I would love him no less, but because I love him I would want him to be aware that what he is doing is sinful, but that there is hope for the sinner for which I am one as well and no less guilty before a holy and righteous God.

For the homosexual he often equates homosexuality with who he is. To tell him that homosexuality is a sin is often translated in his mind that I am calling him sin as opposed to him as a sinner. He probably believes that it is so embedded into who he is that there is no hope for him. I wish I could talk with him because he can counter his desires if he wants to! There is hope! Like any problematic sin what he needs to do is replace the sin with the correct expression for his desires.

The thief must no longer steal, but do honest labor so that he can give to those in need. The liar should lie no more, but instead tell the truth. The adulterer/fornicator should stop fornicating and instead have sex with his wife.

What if he has no sexual desire for the opposite sex, but rather for the same sex? It will take time, but he can change his sexual desires. It could be that this will be something that he as a new creature in Christ struggles with and against for the rest of his life, but if my son turns away from sin and places his faith on Jesus he will have assurance of salvation for the punishment his sins deserve and I will be relieved to say the least! I would not love my son or God if I left him to his sin and the state that he was in. Sin is something all Christians struggle with.

If my son chose to continue in his sin I would not love my son any less, but would mourn for his soul knowing that without repenting and believing on Christ for his salvation he will be doomed to an eternity of torments in hell for his sin (not just the sin of homosexuality, but for all of his sins).

Homosexuality has long been of particular interest to me for many years now although I do not struggle with it. I work at a theater where there are many that identify as homosexual. When/if the discussion comes up I try not to talk about the problem of homosexuality, but rather the need for a savior from sin. After all, homosexuality is a sin like any other. I try not to talk about this during work because that would be stealing from my employer when I should be working.

My current goal is to talk with a few people that previously identified as homosexual and who are now heterosexual Christians and ask them some of the details of how they did it. At present I only know bits and pieces of how they did it. I know it is far easier for women to change their sexual orientation than it is for men as well as a few of the methods, but I certainly do not feel like I have anywhere close to the full story on how they did it.

EDIT: As a reminder I am only explaining my position as opposed trying to change your position or you trying to change mine. I hope I answered your question on how I would handle this hypothetical situation. I do have a close relative who I love that is very homosexual. I want to talk with him about it, but I do not feel it would be right to do so at present since he has not come out and admitted this about himself to the rest of the family yet.

[molendijk]

Hello James,

First some remarks in order to put things in the right perspective.
Homosexuality is not a topic I'm particularly interested in. I just used it in order to find out to what extent strict biblical beliefs may restrain what may be the strongest human emotion: love.
In my mind, the question I originally asked in The purpose of life (http://www.dynamicdrive.com/forums/showthread.php?73435-The-purpose-of-life) (and which is now the start of a new threat) wasn't too much off topic, because it was generated by your answer regarding life's purpose.
Just like you, I'm not interested in getting into a heated debate on the topic. It should not be too difficult too discuss it in a friendly way. But perhaps DD's forum is not the right place to do it. We'll see.

Meanwhile, I appreciate your honesty about the subject, although I don't agree with your views, as you will have guessed.

[jscheuer1]

If you have to have these various things be sins, I prefer the Catholic approach. As long as you confess and repent, it's like AA, you can have relapses. You're not damned if you cannot throw off the yoke completely.

However, with homosexuality there are some fundamental problems. Is it a choice or not? And even if it is, how do we really know that God is against it? I don't believe the Bible is very clear on that or on whether or not it's a choice. The scientific evidence is fairly overwhelming that it's not a choice.

There is a great fear of homosexuality among many for various reasons, mostly fear that you might be one, or be forced to be one, but there are other reasons. It seems likely that these fears are perhaps why so many believe that it's evil. Even if you are not afraid, just convinced that it's evil, perhaps it is this fear in others that has led them to persuade you that it's evil.

I'm not big on the theological implications of this or any topic, though theology often makes for great theater. Fear, on the other hand does concern me, as I see it as a relative evil. Some fear is healthy and keeps us out of trouble. But much is overblown and causes us problems as individuals, as a society, even as the human race. Death, disease, lack of fulfillment of one's potential, at the personal as well as societal and global levels, all can often be traced to fear and only fear. When that happens it's such a tragedy and waste.

[james438]

I would go along with that your description of the Catholic position too, but I would add that the Christians still has sin that is fought against and will never be fully removed until death. The Christian relies on Christ alone to bear the penalty for sin. No one can redeem himself to God outside of faith in Christ. It is good to get into a right standing with God while there is still time before death comes and all hope is lost.

[molendijk]

James,
There is no record of where Jesus explicitly stated that homosexuality is wrong. You might think that he condemned the behavior in Matt. 19:4, where it says:
Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female? For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.

But interpreting this passage as a condemnation of homosexuality would imply that anyone who prefers to stay unmarried is a sinner too.

Also notice that at the center of the conflict over slavery in America, not very long ago, were very different interpretations of the Bible. There were people who believed that the many references in the Bible permitting slavery were evidence that slavery was what God wanted / permitted. And there were those who argued that those references were only a reflection of the historical and cultural context in which the Bible was written.

If you are against slavery (as I think you are) despite the passages in the Bible permitting it, then you apparently agree that the Bible should be interpreted in its historical and cultutal context. As a consequence, you should read the passages in the Bible about homosexuality in their historical/cultural context as well.

But, in the end, why would you deduce moral laws from (a literal, absolute interpretation of) the Bible anyway? That only gives lots of problems. You will be forced, then, to admit that the suns of Adam slept with Eve (incest), that it is not sinful to marry your half-sister (Abraham married his half-sister Sarah; incest again!), that it is a legitimate thing for a prophet (Elisha) to curse children who mock him for his bald head (where the effect of the curse was that the children were torn apart by bears), etc.

[mlegg]

The Old Testament has a few verses about homosexuality, but there is nothing in the New Testament about it from Jesus.

http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_homosexuality.htm

I went to Catholic schools from K through 12 and there were several discussions about this between the many priests and all of the kids once we hit high school.

[james438]

Interesting questions, why are you asking?

[jscheuer1]

I Think there's really only one question in Arie's previous post (the others are variations upon it, building up to it):


why would you deduce moral laws from (a literal, absolute interpretation of) the Bible anyway?

And, I think the reason for it is obvious.

[james438]

In that verse Jesus is saying what marriage is and is not saying that anything else is wrong. In particular he was answering questions about divorce. Just because Jesus did not say it does not mean that God's position on the matter did not exist. He often criticized the religious leaders of that time for failing to understand what we now refer to as the Old Testament.


"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17.


'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.'
(Leviticus 18:22)

'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.' (Leviticus 20:13)

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In 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.
(Romans 1:26-27)

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom–both young and old–surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." (Genesis 19:4-5)

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, (1 Timothy 1:9-10)

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Mark 10:7-9)

In regards to slavery the Bible does not encourage slavery or necessarily permit it. Rather the passages that deal with slavery recognize it as a product of sin which came about from the Fall (I'm referring to Adam and Eve). The Apostle Paul encourages slaves to seek their freedom whenever possible through legal means. No matter when slavery happens in history it is not something anyone should seek after and should always avoid. Paul in Romans chapter 1 relates the product of sin and even gives mention to homosexuality among his examples back to the Fall. This relates homosexuality (among other sins) as universally evil no matter when it takes place and is not limited to the cultural period that it is referenced.

I am not sure what you mean by literal and absolute translation of the Bible. The historical narrative should be taken as actual history and the Hebrew poetry should be taken figuratively. Anyway, on to incest in the Bible.

Eve was made specifically for Adam. I have a hard time considering that incest. How about the children of Adam and Eve? That makes a bit more sense. Adam and Eve had sons and daughters. Yes, brothers and sisters slept together. This was necessary to populate the earth and in order to fulfill God's command to populate the earth. We have no reason to believe that Eve slept with her sons.

What about Abram and Sarai? They got married before the law was given. This does not mean it was right what they did since the law is written on our hearts.

Elisha's curse upon those children took place when God's kingdom, the nation of Israel, was a theocratic society. The society was also in disarray at the time and so Elisha as God's representative was sent to restore Israel. To insult the representative of God was to insult God himself. We are no longer living in a theocratic society today, so such a judgment would not be appropriate.

When reading the Bible I would recommend starting at the beginning and reading on to the end. I find it makes more sense that way even though other Christians advise reading this passage before that one, etc. Just my suggestion. I hope my suggestions help at least a little.

[molendijk]

I maintain that there is no outright condemnation of slavery in the Bible. The Bible merey regulates it, as in:
Exodus 22:
Anyone who steals must certainly make restitution, but if they have nothing, they must be sold to pay for their theft.
Deureronomy 21:
When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her. [Comment: regulation of slavery, not condemnation]
Leviticus 25:
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

The historical narrative should be taken as actual history and the Hebrew poetry should be taken figuratively
Where should we draw the line between the two?

Eve was made specifically for Adam. I have a hard time considering that incest. How about the children of Adam and Eve? That makes a bit more sense. Adam and Eve had sons and daughters. Yes, brothers and sisters slept together. This was necessary to populate the earth and in order to fulfill God's command to populate the earth. We have no reason to believe that Eve slept with her sons.
My point was not the question how exactly the earth was populated. My point was that if you adhere to a literal interpretation of the Bible, then you have to admit that it was populated through incestuous behavior. Now how does that relate to condemnation of homosexulaity? What would you say is worse?

We are no longer living in a theocratic society today, so such a judgment would not be appropriate.
You're distinguishing here between Old Testamentic times and modern times. You should use this argument not just as an apology for what Elisha did, but also as an argument in favor of the claim that homosexuality is not necessarily a sin here and now (anymore).

[jscheuer1]

Eat fish not meat on Friday. No pork ever. When did those stop being sins?

I think the central issue is why base morality on an old tome whose translation and provenance are both questionable and open to interpretation?

[molendijk]

I think the central issue is why base morality on an old tome whose translation and provenance are both questionable and open to interpretation?
Yes. That seems so obvious that it is hard to understand why there are people who don't agree with it.

Eat fish not meat on Friday. No pork ever. When did those stop being sins?
The funny thing is that the whole disaster started with Eve eating ... FRUIT.

[molendijk]

Talking about ancient eating habits:

Should we eat green plant or meat
Or should we eat whatever we need?

Here's a poem about it (it's not mine):

Forthy thousand years ago
When Europe was a land of snow
And mammoths roamed the permafrost
Two Stone Age hominids got lost
With ease (both being broad and stocky)
They scrambled over ice all rocky
But a blizzard worse than they could brave
Made them shelter in a cave
They'd failed to find a scrap to eat
As the howling snow had got them beat
So they sat a fire and set all day
Their tummies rumbling in dismay
'T was then that one Neanderthal
Looked with hunger at his pal
Slavering he licked his lips
And gazed upon those meaty hips
Picking up a piece of rock
He gave his mate a mighty knock
Then cut off slices from his bum
And on the fire cooked his chum
He finished off the meat he'd served
Then thought a moment and observed:
"No greater love has friend for me
Who lays his life down for my tea."

Listen to it here (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=A1KcTkHRaD0).

[djr33]

I'll try to keep my post short and simple. A few points:

1. Sins are personal, right? If two men want to get married, or want to commit any other sins (except those that hurt others such as murder), why should the general population care? Assuming the strongest argument of "homosexuality is bad", then still, why should two men (or two women) be prevented from marrying each other? Or, to take an example mentioned above, from getting divorced? Perhaps divorce is sinful and so forth; but why should society govern when individuals can sin? Isn't that something that individuals are responsible for?

2. I'm not actually neutral in this, but I'll pretend to be for a moment. Let's assume that slavery is fine, that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, that interracial marriage is a sin, and various other things. (Historically I'm sure there were arguments for each of these things with a religious foundation.) And yes, that we should never eat pork.
Yet that's not the current societal standard. Those things are expected-- slavery is bad, women can vote, interracial marriage is not exceptional or improper, and we eat pork. Say whatever you want about gay marriage and so forth, but give it 20-40 years and it will be accepted in society.
I see gay marriage as exactly parallel to the issues of civil rights. That is, there are two dimensions:
i) personally, I find it unjustifiable to discriminate against others (I don't care if you don't like them; but I can't see why your opinions should be weighted as more important than theirs regarding things like law)
ii) regardless of any personal views, I'm certain that gay marriage (and gay rights in general) will be acceptable in a few decades. No matter how hard many individuals resisted, the civil rights movement worked. Before then, discrimination against African Americans was normal, acceptable and politically correct. Now it's exceptional, unacceptable and politically incorrect. What changed? Nothing really, except the societal standards. Are there still people who'd passively end up racist? Sure. Are there still people who are actively racist? Sure. And give it a few decades and exactly the same will be true of homosexuality.

3. As a linguist, I've come across a number of discussions of terrible translations in the bible that completely mess up the meaning yet are now taken as 'fact'. One example is the likely interpretation of "walk on water" as actually meaning "walking around the water". I'm not a scholar in these languages or the bible, but the English tradition of the bible is highly problematic because it's the 3rd-5th language, and I can't see how that's accurately the "word of God"; even if it is, it's distorted by translation.

[jscheuer1]

I think the central issue is why base morality on an old tome whose translation and provenance are both questionable and open to interpretation?

Playing the devil's advocate to my own argument, at the same time that I see the folly in any sort of "Sharia Law", regardless of what tradition it's taken from, I acknowledge the wisdom in studying the religious texts of all or any faith as a valid path in determining what's right and wrong.

Ideally this has to be tempered with common and/or uncommon sense and sincere practice. Mere words in a book cannot convey the awe and mystery of the universe.

In the Hindu tradition it's said that there are the holy temple, the holy law, and the holy man. If you have any one of the three, the other two will arise. These days I worry more about the wholly owned subsidiary. ;)

[james438]

Slavery is regulated, like divorce and death. Slavery a consequence of sin, not a sin. It is not to be encouraged and is to be avoided whenever possible just like death and divorce. Does that make more sense?

Hebrew poetry is the Song of Solomon, Psalms, Proverbs, and finally Ecclesiastes. I believe there are other small portions of the Old Testament that are poetry as well, but they are not coming to mind right now. These are still scripture and no less important than any other portion of the Bible and some are prophetic such as some of the psalms in that they foretell who the Jesus is and what will happen during his life and how we will know him when he comes. They also give instructions for wisdom and Godly living (Proverbs) and tell what a Godly wife looks like (Song of Solomon) and the purpose of life (Ecclesiastes) and how we are to express praise, worship, and confession to God (Psalms).

Yes, the earth was initially populated through incestuous behavior. Incest is still wrong. I am not knowledgeable enough to say what sin is worse than another. All and any sin deserves God's eternal condemnation.


You're distinguishing here between Old Testamentic times and modern times. You should use this argument not just as an apology for what Elisha did, but also as an argument in favor of the claim that homosexuality is not necessarily a sin here and now (anymore).

I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't see the comparison between Elisha cursing those children as was his right (and I daresay this was good in that he was defending the name of who he was representing, God) and homosexuality. Right and wrong are always the same. Murder is always wrong. Adultery is always wrong. You seem to be implying that homosexuality is no longer a sin, but how did homosexuality or any other sin become no longer wrong?

You may be wondering about the kosher laws such as not eating pork. First, why were the kosher laws made? They were to be a sign to the nations among several other signs like circumcision and not cutting the corners of your beards that God was setting a people apart to be his own. When Jesus came he fulfilled the laws of separation from the gentiles and sacrifice since Jesus became the perfect sacrifice. He was the perfect sacrifice in that he never sinned and Jesus was God and was therefore capable of bearing the sins of the world and the punishment that came with it. God came first to the Jews and then with Jesus to the Gentiles as well so that there is now no separation between the jews and the gentiles. Therefore we no longer keep the kosher laws or make regular sacrifices on an altar.


I think the central issue is why base morality on an old tome whose translation and provenance are both questionable and open to interpretation?

Why have any morals? It may as well be based on anything. There are different denominations in the Christian faith. They are separated based on their interpretations of the Bible, but the central message must always be the same which is that all have sinned and and are in need of a savior (I hope the definition and need for a savior is clear at this point. I am not saying that anyone agrees with me, but that it is understood what I believe here). I recommend just reading though the Bible from beginning to end. Some parts will be a bit confusing, but for the most part it is easy to understand and well written. A lot of the confusion that people have can be remedied just by reading it from beginning to end like any other book as opposed to reading it out of order like an encyclopedia. Great care has been taken throughout history to ensure that the translation and original meaning of the Bible is preserved. Nearly every minister that goes to seminary must translate and compare the earliest manuscripts and others in order to understand and convey the original meaning and translation of the text to the congregation. I am not a linguist, but I know that those in seminary must be and I don't believe that they collectively turn a blind eye to gross misinterpretations and mistranslations.

Daniel, although I don't agree with your statements you are practical and logical in your reasonings as always, but I must address them at another time. I did not mean to get into a large discussion with this thread, which this can easily become, so I am bowing out at this point. There are a great number of topics brought up and any one of which can have and has had countless books written on. I hope some of these answers has shed some light on my position regarding these questions.

[letom]

Jesus come in this world to call sinners to repentance. One cannot enter into the kingdom of God without Jesus Christ..

Look at old testament what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah regarding the topic,
In New testament Jesus Says, "It shall be more tolerable than the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of Judgement........"

[molendijk]

Yes, the earth was initially populated through incestuous behavior. Incest is still wrong. I am not knowledgeable enough to say what sin is worse than another. All and any sin deserves God's eternal condemnation.
Even if Eve had not eaten the fruit and man had stayed away from sin, the earth would have been necessarily populated through incestuous behavior, there was no other way. So even in the absence of (original) sin, there would gave been sin (afterwards). This is an inevitable paradox from which you cannot escape if you believe that the biblical account of Genesis is a literal, scientific document.

I am not knowledgeable enough to say what sin is worse.
You don't have to be knowledgeable to know what's right or wrong. I would say: don't lean too much on authority (alone) in these and other matters.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't see the comparison between Elisha cursing those children as was his right (and I daresay this was good in that he was defending the name of who he was representing, God) and homosexuality.
Here's what I ment. You were saying that we are no longer living in a theocratic society today, so such a judgment on Elisha would not be appropriate. Reasoning along these lines, I could say: we are no longer living in a theocratic society today, so an old testamentic judgment on homosexuality would not be appropriate either.
On a side note: how about the suffering of the children being ripped apart by the bears? Does making fun of a bald head justify that?

Nearly every minister that goes to seminary must translate and compare the earliest manuscripts and others in order to understand and convey the original meaning and translation of the text to the congregation.
The old testament was mainly written in ancient Hebrew. That was not the native language of those who translated it. In those circumstances, it's hard to judge whether or not a given translation is correct.
The ministers learn reconstructed old Hebrew (and Greek) in order to be able to read the manuscripts. The debate is about whether or not the reconstructions are always accurate.

[molendijk]

Jesus come in this world to call sinners to repentance. One cannot enter into the kingdom of God without Jesus Christ..
Look at old testament what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah regarding the topic
That's your belief, and of course you're free to believe it. But where's the evidence? You cannot say: the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible.

[jscheuer1]

Oh, and Sodom and Gomorrah, were more like Fire island and a swinger's party, not like a committed gay couple with children raising a family.

[letom]

Oh, and Sodom and Gomorrah, were more like Fire island and a swinger's party, not like a committed gay couple with children raising a family.
I doesn't mean like that,
But that is a great sin against God and earth... :)
Great meaning behind marriage as bible says
A man shall leave his father and mother and united to his wife and they two shall be one flesh. God joined them together, let not man put asunder..

[letom]

That's your belief, and of course you're free to believe it. But where's the evidence? You cannot say: the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible.
if you believe in Jesus Christ , he will show you who he is.. Because as bible says, "Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the one who takes refuge in him.(Psalm 34:8) ". Without seeing a country , how can u say, that country is good OR bad,

Believe in Jesus Christ then you will be one of the great evidence. Say to sick, Be healed in the name of Jesus Christ, Then you will get the evidence :)
Look at the great Miracles Happening around the world in the name of Jesus Christ by the power of Holy Ghost.
All things are happening according to bible as Jesus Said.. He is at the door step for his second arrival.

[jscheuer1]

He is at the door step for his second arrival.

To borrow a phrase from baseball, Christ has been top stepping for a long time. All through history there have been those that have said his second coming is nigh. They've all been wrong, so far. At the same time, if you're a true believer, you should live each moment as if Christ were returning in the very next one. So, what's on your bucket list?

[molendijk]

He is at the door step for his second arrival.
It surprises me that some take the bible so literally that they are forced to accept things that they'd rather not accept. If we take Genesis literally, then we must accept that there would have also been sin (incest) even if Eve hadn't listened to the serpent, see one of my previous posts.
If we want to interpret every biblical passage literally (except the ones James calls the poetic ones), then why don't we act like the man I once was told about by my father when I was very young. He was taken care of in an institution where my father looked after him. He (= the man who was taken care of) believed that we must interpret Revelation 16:15 literally. It says there: "Behold, I am coming like a thief. Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his clothes, so that he will not walk about naked and men will not see his shame". The poor guy concluded from this that it was not a good thing to go to sleep every now and then. He tried to always stay awake. This destroyed him, physically and mentally. He went completely mad.
Isn't that a sad story? Now why wouldn't you behave like this man (you don't, I presume) if, at the same time, you accept the Bible as a document that must be taken literally?

[mlegg]

The bible being written in archeaic Greek can't be taken literally. I speak, read, write Greek and there are MANY things said that cannot be translated to English directly. There are ways of me saying something in Greek that can be understood in English of course, but only if you know and understand both languages.


Do not take that as me being anti bible, anti Christian. I am Christian, Greek Orthodox

[djr33]

The bible being written in archeaic Greek can't be taken literally. I speak, read, write Greek and there are MANY things said that cannot be translated to English directly. There are ways of me saying something in Greek that can be understood in English of course, but only if you know and understand both languages.Absolutely! (And some of the Greek is in translation as well.)


Do not take that as me being anti bible, anti Christian. I am Christian, Greek Orthodox But there are many Christians who do this-- you're certainly in the minority (at least outside of Greece).



Personally, I'm not religious. But I can see an argument for taking the Bible as an example of reasonable advice to be taken as general metaphorical insight. For example, we shouldn't kill each other. Beyond that, or especially at the other extreme of literal readings, I find it problematic.

More than anything, my objection is not to what anyone believes but when they expect others to believe the same thing. I don't really see myself as a supporter of homosexuality; I couldn't really care less, being heterosexual myself. But then when I see others who are homosexual and obviously care about their happiness and things like being able to get married, I can't help but feel there is some injustice going on when others say they can't. And I'd see the same problem with someone telling you that you can't believe in God or take the Bible literally. It's fine if you don't agree with them or if they don't agree with you, but I see something very problematic about attempting to control what others do. It's even fine (free speech) to tell them they're wrong (and they might do the same to you), but not to act on that such as creating laws about who can get married. Given the amount of variation in the world, I can't see any other reasonable way to approach it. And in the end I couldn't care less what most other people do. Some might not end up being my best friends, but that's fine, and we're probably both happier for it.

[letom]

To borrow a phrase from baseball, Christ has been top stepping for a long time. All through history there have been those that have said his second coming is nigh. They've all been wrong, so far. At the same time, if you're a true believer, you should live each moment as if Christ were returning in the very next one. So, what's on your bucket list?

No one knows when he(Jesus Christ) will arrive, the exact time is not even known by anybody but only God,
But we have hope, but it will happen, it is a great truth.
1000 years are equivalent to 1 day for God, He will come..

Following are signs stated in bible

Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains. (Mark 13:8)

Jesus Loves you, Loves all, once we ALL will bow our knees in front of him, and say you are My Lord and Savior,( No meaning if we say that at Judgement Day). This is the time to say that, these are the days for repentance....

[jscheuer1]

There are always wars (nation against nation), famines and earthquakes.


1000 years are equivalent to 1 day for God, He will come.

Reminds me of a funny story. God is saying that a million years are but a second to him, and that a million dollars but a penny.

A man asks if he can have a penny. God replies, "Sure, just a second."

[djr33]

Hahaha, that's a good one.

[letom]

This is not computer science Mr John, May according to your above funny logic JavaScript may produce right output, But the wisdom of God is bigger than the brain of Javascript..
If it funny okay ..no prblm, In fun we can include ideas of Jackass and ideas of snake :)

[jscheuer1]

Are you calling me names? That's not allowed here.

It would seem your ideas require that you compare someone who disagrees with you to animals in an unflattering way. That's known as flaming here on the forum and is not permitted. It might even be an example of the sort of prejudice and fear that religious fervor sometimes results in. In any case, you are allowed to present your ideas. You are not allowed to call someone you are having a discussion with a jackass or a snake.

[letom]

NO u misunderstood Mr John. i have no right to judge anybody as calling snake or jackass and i will not do that. if u understand what iam telling, you will not talk like that.. Neither Jackass or nor snake do programming like we people that why i said about javascript,
if you felt anything hard regarding that, I feel very sorry for that....
If someone is calling you or anybody as jackass , he is a double jackass.
How can i call you other names .. by remembering the helps and guidance you had given me in this forum..... then if iam calling you like that, that name is mostly fits for me... hahaha

[molendijk]

I don't see the comparison between Elisha cursing those children as was his right (and I dare say this was good in that he was defending the name of who he was representing, God) and homosexuality.
James,
I have a question about what you were saying in the highlighted part (hightlighted by me). Can you maintain in all honesty that this justified the horrible curse? My answer is no. I made a comment on it here (http://mesdomaines.nu/extincthumanspeciesandhomosapiens/index.html?elisha.html) (in the window that opens, click the Bald Avenger link). It's rather harsh. If you click the link you agree that my comment is not ment as an insult, but as a protest againt what I see as inhumane, whatever the society in which the event took place.

[james438]

Interesting site. I didn't know that was yours. I'm curious to look at the rest of your site too. I'm not offended by your site. You obviously have some serious differences with Christianity and I am glad to have the chance to look over your honest position more closely. As far as your question I won't be answering it in this thread as it doesn't seem like a good idea. If you are still interested feel free to message me and preferably we can talk about this in more detail via email.

[jscheuer1]

You obviously have some serious differences with Christianity

That statement implies that Christianity is some sort of unified front where all self identifying Christians and all Christian Churches agree on everything. This is far from the actual case. There might even be some Christians with whom Arie would agree, if not completely, then perhaps much more so than he appears to with your particular 'brand' of Christianity. Many Christians might agree that his view on that (cursing children) is more Christian than yours.

[james438]

True, that was a rather broad statement on my part. I should have worded that a little better. Christianity is comprised of many denominations that have many different understandings of doctrine that they often disagree on. Even Catholicism has many variations.

Arie seems most irritated with creationists persistence in a belief system that is entirely illogical to him especially considering the overwhelming evidence out there refuting the creationist position. From what I know about Arie I get the impression that he does not subscribe to any particular Christian denomination that happens to accept evolution or that criticizes what Elisha did in cursing those children. There may be some denominations like that out there, but I am not aware of any. Arie can correct me if I am wrong.

[molendijk]

James, I do not subscribe to any institution or group that claims unprovable 'truths'. Unprovable statements are made both by religious and non-religious groups. So I'm not a 'believer'. I'm not an atheist either, at least, if we define atheism as denying things that can neither be proven to be true nor proven to be false.

Fundamental science has its limits since what it examines has no boundaries in space or time. (Even if we were able to find out what exactly caused the Bing Bang, we wouldn't know what was before it, and even if we did know, we wouldn't know what was before that etc.).

Science has its limits because man has his limits. Therefore, the only answer to the question about what exists outside the range of the 'knowledgeable' is: 'I don't know'. At least, that's what I think.

So why am I irritated with creationism? Not only because it's a set of dogmas instead of science, but also because it 'concretizes the unknown' and degrades it to something so simple that it looses all of its majestic grandeur.

That being said, I'm considering to soften the 'tone' of certain pages of my site (http://mesdomaines.nu/extincthumanspeciesandhomosapiens). An irritated voice is not sympathetic and doesn't really sound convincing.

(Posted just before I will be 'disconnected' for a couple of days).