Love the Christian, but not the Christianity.

[AvalonXQ]

Are you referring to the destruction of Sodom? It's hardly clear from the Bible whether or not homosexuality was the sin responsible for the destruction of the city. Or the part where Ham "sees the nakedness of his father"? Apart from those, I don't think there's any reference to homosexuality before Leviticus, and those two are very cryptic, and it would take quite a bit to view them as laws.

Marriage is established early in Genesis; the assumption is that the sexual prohibitions surrounding it came with it.

 

[Mirrorglass]

You say this. The Bible says the opposite.
If God tells me He requires and expects me to help others, that's what I'm going to do -- even if you tell me my actions are futile.

Heck, the son of your God has told you your actions are futile.

13:23 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

But continue your task if you must. I'll go on with my own quest of trying to teach people to think for themselves. I believe we won't see which one of us is right, but at least I might make the world a bit better place for some people.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Marriage is established early in Genesis; the assumption is that the sexual prohibitions surrounding it came with it.

That's a strange assumption. Genesis says nothing about sexual prohibitions. That's like saying it's sinful to wear clothing made of materials other than skins, since Adam and Eve wore skins in Genesis.

It seems to me you're trying to read into Genesis something that isn't there, in order to justify your bigotry against homosexuals, despite there being no stronger basis for considering homosexuality a sin than thinking the same about a man shaving his head.

ETA: Also, is it okay for a man to have two wives? That also happens in Genesis.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The interesting thing about Genesis, it describes pregnancy and menstratuan as punishment to women for the first sin.

 

[AvalonXQ]

But continue your task if you must. I'll go on with my own quest of trying to teach people to think for themselves.

Interestingly enough, I undertake that task as well. And it's almost as difficult... and less rewarding, certainly, but still important.

The interesting thing about Genesis, it describes pregnancy and menstratuan as punishment to women for the first sin.

Nope, just pain in childbirth.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

So you're willing to judge homosexuals differently based on what you yourself admit is nothing more than an "assumption" as to which Biblical laws meant more?

I don't know, I feel like I'd need a lot better than a "fallable men guess this is what God meant" before I condemn an entire group of people as being sinful while ignoring other Biblical sins.

1. You assume that just because marriage was in Genesis, sexual laws were related to this and any sexual laws can be considered "before Moses" because marriage was mentioned before Moses.

2. You assume that laws made before Moses are more important and more permanent than laws made after Moses and should apply to us today

3. You assume that early laws are basic laws, and basic laws are by default more important

So are you then saying that any laws related to sex in the Bible are true today because sex laws are related to marriage and marriage was in Genesis and Genesis came before Moses? Let's just ignore the fact that you offer no reason as to why we should believe marriage in Genesis somehow makes sex laws permanently relevent in today's society. What about the fact that the Bible very clearly states that a raped virgin must marry her rapist? Marriage is in Genesis. This law clearly related very specifically to marriage laws. And no arguing that that was just a sign of the times, you can't do that, you see, because you've already told us that laws regarding homosexuals are permanent because it's related to sex laws and sex laws are related to marriage and marriage is in Genesis. Or what about the fact that a woman who is found not to be a virgin on her wedding day is to be killed?

Do you hold women to these Biblical marriage/sex laws, or only homosexuals? If only homosexuals, why? Yes, you could argue these laws regarding women had practical applications in their day which do not apply in the modern era...but then how could you claim laws regarding homosexuality aren't exactly the same, outdated?

Also, as asked above, how do you feel about polygamy, as it exists in Genesis and is not condemned?

If I am misunderstanding your position regarding sex and marriage laws, let me know and if you could please clarify your position a bit better.

 

[six7s]

You say this. The Bible says the opposite.
If God tells me He requires and expects me to help others, that's what I'm going to do -- even if you tell me my actions are futile.

Love the deluded, but not the de-diddly-doodly-luded-ality

 

[thaiboxerken]

Nope, just pain in childbirth.

I think you're wrong. However, if it is just the pain in childbirth, do doctors thwart your god's will if they give women pain medication in the birthing process?

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I am currently re reading Marvin Harris' pivotal anthropology text "Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches." In it he discusses the fact that there is a very simple reason there are such strong rules against, say, eating pork for Muslims/Jews & eating beef for Hindus. This is a pretty common anthropological observation: that the things that are most tempting need the strongest condemnation. There were very specific reasons (which are too long to get into on this thread, especially as they are off topic) for why pig husbandry and cow slaughter were detrimental to the human societies at the time. However, a hungry human is often compelled by the needs ot his stomach more than anything else. Thus, temptation to raise pigs and eat beef, especially in lean times, would have been extraordinary. Therefor, rules against these need to be very strict and very enforced. But then we look at shellfish, also banned in the OT. But they were banned for desert religions, people who typically have to travel great distances to even get shellfish. Therefor, not being conveniently available, shellfish were not a big temptation for the average early Jew, and so rules regarding shellfish didn't NEED to be so strict and so enforced as rules regarding pork.

We can apply this same logic to the reason which homosexuality is so focused upon compared to other sins. If you are only attracted to the same sex, your temptation to then be with the same sex is going to be overwhleming. Therefor, a society which wishes to prevent homosexuality will need to make that sin more important and focused upon than other sins simply because the temptation to COMMIT said sin is going to be far greater and so it needs an appropriately far great social condemnation to prevent it.

 

[bookitty]

I really don't mind if Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin. It is there in the Bible after all.

What I don't understand is why Christians fight gay marriage. It is interfering with the basic human need to celebrate love, to create a safe home for children, and to protect the assets of a lifetime of work. To oppose that is cruel.

Homosexuality isn't one of the major sins. Compared to adultery which shows up in the 10 commandments, it's pretty minor and on par with women being unclean during menstruation. Something that was once accept by society but is now understood to be archaic. The Bible is being used to justify prejudice.

Which always brings me back to the same larger question. The New Testament can easily be used to support tolerance. If you had perfect faith in the Bible (or the Koran) wouldn't you want it to be a light guiding mankind to peace, fellowship and acceptance of diversity? Why would you allow your most holy text to be sullied by having it support mankind's worst failings?

 

[AvalonXQ]

So you're willing to judge homosexuals differently based on what you yourself admit is nothing more than an "assumption" as to which Biblical laws meant more?

No. The instructions against fornication are found in the New Testament. We know those rules are appropriate for Christians; the Bible is very clear on that point.
The question is why those rules are carried forward, when other parts of the Old Law were not. So now we're not talking about what Christians are supposed to do, but what the rationale is for keeping some rules and getting rid of others. There does seem to be a pattern, and I was explaining what that pattern was.
My theory, which I think is pretty persuasive, as to why certain rules were carried forward and others not is not Biblically binding or inspired revelation, and I would not base my religious conduct on it.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I think you're wrong. However, if it is just the pain in childbirth, do doctors thwart your god's will if they give women pain medication in the birthing process?

That's a great question, actually.

 

[AvalonXQ]

We can apply this same logic to the reason which homosexuality is so focused upon compared to other sins.

It's not.
In the many churches I've visited or attended in my time, the issue of homosexuality comes up very rarely in sermons, in Bible studies, in devotional groups, in prayer groups. Homosexual fornication is a subset of sexual sin, and when it is dealt with, it's usually dealt with in that context.
The reason why it's being focused on so much in threads like this, is because there are currenty a lot of people who have a problem with Christian opposition to it. I didn't bring it up; I responded to questions about it. And if the questions had been about other sins, I would have responded to those instead.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I think you're wrong. However, if it is just the pain in childbirth, do doctors thwart your god's will if they give women pain medication in the birthing process?

No, they don't.
Isaac Asimov had a great essay on this; I think it was in The Edge of Tomorrow. He discussed certain religious groups' denunciation of anaesthetic and lightning rods, claiming that both of them were "playing God".
I have the same reaction to the idea that anaesthetics are an affront to God as I do to the idea that genetic engineering is -- whatever god you think you're "thwarting" with this stuff is a lot smaller than the God I worship.
No, anaesthetic, modern agricultural techniques, and protective footware may all help us surmount the curses without any fear of divine retribution.

Skyscrapers, on the other hand...

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

No. The instructions against fornication are found in the New Testament. We know those rules are appropriate for Christians; the Bible is very clear on that point.
The question is why those rules are carried forward, when other parts of the Old Law were not. So now we're not talking about what Christians are supposed to do, but what the rationale is for keeping some rules and getting rid of others. There does seem to be a pattern, and I was explaining what that pattern was.
My theory, which I think is pretty persuasive, as to why certain rules were carried forward and others not is not Biblically binding or inspired revelation, and I would not base my religious conduct on it.

Ahh, I see, thanks for clarifying. I still don't agree with you even a little bit, but your position does make more sense to me now.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Christians are to obey Christian commandments, as expressed in the New Testament. Jewish commandments from the Old Law don't apply to us.

 

[thaiboxerken]

No, they don't.

So it's ok to thwart the will of your god, as long as we have the technology. Ok.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

No, they don't.
Isaac Asimov had a great essay on this; I think it was in The Edge of Tomorrow. He discussed certain religious groups' denunciation of anaesthetic and lightning rods, claiming that both of them were "playing God".
I have the same reaction to the idea that anaesthetics are an affront to God as I do to the idea that genetic engineering is -- whatever god you think you're "thwarting" with this stuff is a lot smaller than the God I worship.
No, anaesthetic, modern agricultural techniques, and protective footware may all help us surmount the curses without any fear of divine retribution.

Skyscrapers, on the other hand...

So then why did God put the curse on women at all if he didn't have a problem with it being circumvented? Wouldn't God, in his divine knowledge, have known these drugs would be developed and administered at one point? Why should all the women in the world who came before such drugs, or who live in areas without access to them, be subjected to such a curse and not someone like me simply because I have the fortune to be born in America in the 1980s? Why would God create a curse that would not be applied equally, as opposed to making sure no such drugs would ever work, or just not having the curse to begin with? Why should rural or non modern women be subjected to the curse and not me just because of the luck of my birth?

 

[Mirrorglass]

I think you're wrong. However, if it is just the pain in childbirth, do doctors thwart your god's will if they give women pain medication in the birthing process?

I think it's correct. At least in the translations I've read, God only refers to "pains of childbirth" and not menstruation when He banishes Adam and Eve from the Garden.

No. The instructions against fornication are found in the New Testament. We know those rules are appropriate for Christians; the Bible is very clear on that point.
The question is why those rules are carried forward, when other parts of the Old Law were not. So now we're not talking about what Christians are supposed to do, but what the rationale is for keeping some rules and getting rid of others. There does seem to be a pattern, and I was explaining what that pattern was.
My theory, which I think is pretty persuasive, as to why certain rules were carried forward and others not is not Biblically binding or inspired revelation, and I would not base my religious conduct on it.

I find this intriguing. May I ask, do you believe all of Paul's views on Jesus' teachings in the Bible are correct? After all, Jesus himself never condemns homosexuals, and there have been some arguments that he in fact approved of them. Paul, on the other hand, brings in several very bigoted opinions that don't seem to have any basis in the actual teachings of Jesus.

 

[AvalonXQ]

It's okay to expend effort to surmount the effects of God's curses. In fact, it's expected and encouraged. God likes it.
It doesn't thwart His will at all.