I need some opinion from the homosexual community. Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4Next
Author
Thread
Architect
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 5
I need some opinion from the homosexual community.
Hello there. My name is Phil. I'm 19 years old, male, and I'm a Christian, and I'd like to share with you a paper that I wrote about homosexuality and the Bible. I have noticed that many Christians see it as a sin, and cite references from the Old Testament as their justification. I'm not gay, but I do not agree that it is a sin. I don't support gay marriage nor do I not support it, heck, I could care less about it. The only thing that I see as a sin relating to homosexuality is lust (as in obsession; sexual in this case), but that is a problem with both gays and straights. I had a little talk with a friend of mine, he thinks gays/lesbians should get the same penalty as murderers - death, because that is their penalty in the Old Testament. I wrote this essay in light of this discussion, and I'd like to know what you think. This paper is for my friend. And please, do read all of this before you reply. I know it's a lot, but it's worth it.
Homosexuality and The Bible
Sexual issues are tearing our churches apart today as never before. The issue of homosexuality threatens to fracture whole denominations, as the issue of slavery did one hundred and fifty years ago. We who are Christians naturally turn to the Bible for guidance and find ourselves mired in interpretive quicksand. Is the Bible able to speak to our confusion on this issue?
The debate over homosexuality is a remarkable opportunity, because it raises in an especially acute way how we interpret the Bible, not in this case only, but in numerous others as well. The real issue here, then, is not simply homosexuality, but how Scripture informs our lives today.
Some passages that have been advanced as pertinent to the issue of homosexuality are, in fact, irrelevant. One is the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Gen. 19:1-29). That was a case of ostensibly heterosexual males intent on humiliating strangers by treating them "like women," thus de-masculinizing them. (This is also the case in a similar account in Judges 19-21.) Their brutal behavior has nothing to do with the problem of whether genuine love expressed between consenting persons of the same sex is legitimate or not. Likewise, Deuteronomy 23:17-18 must be pruned from the list, since it most likely refers to a heterosexual prostitute involved in Canaanite fertility rites that have infiltrated Jewish worship; the King James Version inaccurately labeled him a "sodomite."
Several other texts are ambiguous. It is not clear whether I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 refer to the "passive" and "active" partners in homosexual relationships, or to homosexual and heterosexual male prostitutes. In short, it is unclear whether the issue is homosexuality alone, or promiscuity and "sex-for-hire."
Putting these texts aside, we are left with three references, all of which unequivocally condemn homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 states the principle: "You [masculine] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." The second (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty: "If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."
Such an act was considered as an "abomination" for several reasons. The Hebrew pre-scientific understanding was that male semen contained the whole of nascent life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubating space. Hence the spilling of semen for any non-procreative purpose -- in coitus interruptus (Gen 38:1-11), male homosexual acts or male masturbation -- was considered tantamount to abortion or murder. (Female homosexual acts and masturbation were consequently not so seriously regarded.) One can appreciate how a tribe struggling to populate a country in which its people were outnumbered would value procreation highly, but such values are rendered questionable in a world facing total annihilation through overpopulation.
In addition, when a man acted like a woman sexually, male dignity was compromised. It was a degradation, not only in regard to himself, but for every other male. The patriarchalism of Hebrew culture shows its hand in the very formulation of the commandment, since no similar stricture was formulated to forbid homosexual acts between females. And the repugnance felt toward homosexuality was not just that it was deemed unnatural but also that it was considered un-Jewish, representing yet one more incursion of pagan civilization into Jewish life. On top of that is the more universal repugnance heterosexuals tend to feel for acts and orientations foreign to them. (Left-handedness has evoked something of the same response in many cultures.)
Persons committing homosexual acts are to be executed. This is the unambiguous command of Scripture.
Whatever the rationale for their formulation, however, the texts leave no room for maneuvering. Persons committing homosexual acts are to be executed. This is the unambiguous command of Scripture. The meaning is clear: anyone who wishes to base his or her beliefs on the witness of the Old Testament must be completely consistent and demand the death penalty for everyone who performs homosexual acts. (That may seem extreme, but there are actually some “Christians” urging this very thing today.) It is unlikely that any American court will ever again condemn a person who is a homosexual to death, even though Scripture clearly commands it.
Old Testament texts have to be weighed against the New. Consequently Paul's unambiguous condemnation of homosexual behavior in Romans 1:26-27 must be the centerpiece of any discussion.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their woman exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those whom he condemns are heterosexual, and are acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up," or "exchanging" their regular sexual orientation for that which is foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychological understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, persons for whom having heterosexual relations would be contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up" or "exchanging" their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them.
In other words, Paul really thought that those whose behavior he condemned were "straight," and that they were behaving in ways that were unnatural to them. Paul believed that everyone was "straight." He had no concept of homosexual orientation because the idea was simply not available in his world. There are people who are genuinely homosexual by nature whether genetically or as a result of upbringing; no one really knows, and it is irrelevant. For such a person it would be acting contrary to nature to have sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex.
Likewise, the relationships Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships of consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple. That was something Paul simply could not envision. Some people assume today that venereal disease and AIDS are divine punishment for homosexual behavior; we know it as a risk involved in promiscuity of every stripe, homosexual and heterosexual. In fact, the vast majority of people with AIDS around the world are heterosexuals. We can scarcely label AIDS as divine punishment, since non-promiscuous homosexuals are at almost no risk.
And Paul believes that homosexuality is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is manifested by a wide variety of species, especially, but not solely, under the pressure of overpopulation. It would appear then to be a quite natural mechanism for preserving species. We cannot, of course, decide human ethical conduct solely on the basis of animal behavior or the human sciences, but Paul here is arguing from nature, as he himself says, and new knowledge of what is "natural" is therefore relevant to the case.
Nevertheless, the Bible quite clearly takes a negative view of homosexual activity, in those few instances where it is mentioned at all. But this conclusion does not solve the problem of how we are to interpret Scripture today. For there are other sexual attitudes, practices, and restrictions which are normative in Scripture, but which we no longer accept as normative:
† Old Testament law strictly forbids sexual intercourse during the seven days of the menstrual period (Lev. 18:19; 15:18-24), and anyone who engaged in it was to be "extirpated," or "cut off from their people (Kareth, Lev. 18:29, a term referring to execution by stoning, burning, strangling, or to flogging or expulsion; Lev. 15:24 omits this penalty). Today many people on occasion have intercourse during menstruation and think nothing of it. Are they sinners?
† Nudity, the characteristic of paradise, was regarded in Judaism as reprehensible (II Sam. 6:20; 10:4; Isa. 20:2-4; 47:3). When one of Noah's sons beheld his father naked, he was cursed (Gen 9:20-27). To a great extent, this taboo probably even inhibited the sexual intimacy of husbands and wives (this is still true of a surprising number of people reared in the Judeo-Christian tradition). We may not be prepared for nude beaches, but are we prepared to regard nudity in the locker room or at the old swimming hole or in the privacy of one's home as an accursed sin? The Bible does.
So, if the Bible allowed polygamy and concubinage, why don't we?
† Polygamy (having many wives) and concubinage (a woman living with a man to whom she is not married) were regularly practiced in the Old Testament. Neither is ever condemned by the New Testament (with the questionable exceptions of I Timothy 3:2,12 and Titus 1:6). Jesus’ teaching about marital union in Mark 10:6-8 is no exception, since He quotes Gen. 2:24 as His authority (the man and the woman will become "one flesh"), and this text was never understood in Israel as excluding polygamy. A man could become "one flesh" with more than one woman, through the act of sexual intercourse. We know from Jewish sources that polygamy continued to be practiced within Judaism for centuries following the New Testament period. So if the Bible allowed polygamy and concubinage, why don't we?
† A form of polygamy was the levirate marriage. When a married man in Israel died childless, his widow was to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bore him a male heir. Jesus mentions this custom without criticism (Mark 12:18-27 par.) I am not aware of any Christians who still obey this unambiguous commandment of Scripture. Why is this law ignored, and the one against homosexual behavior preserved?
† The Old Testament nowhere explicitly prohibits sexual relations between unmarried consenting adults, as long as the woman's economic value or
bride price
is not compromised, that is to say, as long as she is not a virgin. There are poems in the Song of Songs that eulogize a love affair between two unmarried persons, though commentators have often conspired to cover up the fact with heavy layers of allegorical interpretation. In various parts of the Christian world, quite different attitudes have prevailed about sexual intercourse before marriage. In some Christian communities, proof of fertility (that is, pregnancy) was required for marriage. This was especially the case in farming areas where the ability to produce children-workers could mean economic hardship. Today, many single adults, the widowed, and the divorced are reverting to "Biblical" practice, while others believe that sexual intercourse belongs only within marriage. Which is right?
† The Bible virtually lacks terms for the sexual organs, being content with such euphemisms as "foot" or "thigh" for the genitals, and using other euphemisms to describe coitus, such as "he knew her." Today most of us regard such language as "puritanical" and contrary to a proper regard for the goodness of creation. In short, we don't follow Biblical practice.
† Semen and menstrual fluid rendered all who touched them unclean (Lev. 15:16-24). Intercourse rendered one unclean until sundown; menstruation rendered the woman unclean for seven days. Today most people would regard semen and menstrual fluid as completely natural and only at times "messy," not "unclean."
† Social regulations regarding adultery, incest, rape and prostitution are, in the Old Testament, determined largely by considerations of the males' property rights over women. Prostitution was considered quite natural and necessary as a safeguard of the virginity of the unmarried and the property rights of husbands (Gen. 38:12-19; Josh. 2:1-7). A man was not guilty of sin for visiting a prostitute, though the prostitute herself was regarded as a sinner. Even Paul must appeal to reason in attacking prostitution (I Cor. 6:12-20); he cannot lump it in the category of adultery (vs. 9). Today we are moving, with great social turbulence and at a high, but necessary cost toward a more equitable, non-patriarchal set of social arrangements in which women are no longer regarded as the chattel of men. We are also trying to move beyond the double standard. Love, fidelity and mutual respect replace property rights. We have, as yet, made very little progress in changing the double standard in regard to prostitution. As we leave behind patriarchal gender relations, what will we do with the patriarchalism in the Bible?
† Jews were supposed to practice endogamy -- that is, marriage within the 12 tribes of Israel. Until recently a similar rule prevailed in the American south, in laws against interracial marriage (miscegenation). We have witnessed, within the lifetime of many of us, the nonviolent struggle to nullify state laws against intermarriage and the gradual change in social attitudes towards interracial relationships. Sexual mores can alter quite radically even in a single lifetime.
† 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 mentioned homosexuality at all, but explicitly condemned divorce? Yet we ordain divorcees. Why not homosexuals?
† The Old Testament regarded celibacy as abnormal and I Timothy 4:1-3 calls compulsory celibacy a heresy. Yet the Catholic Church has made it mandatory for priests and nuns. Some Christian ethicists demand celibacy of homosexuals, whether they have a vocation for celibacy or not. But this legislates celibacy by category, not by divine calling. Others argue that since God made men and women for each other in order to be fruitful and multiply, homosexuals reject God's intent in creation. But this would mean that childless couples, single persons, priests and nuns would be in violation of God's intention in their creation. Those who argue this must explain why the apostle Paul never married. Are they prepared to charge Jesus with violating the will of God by remaining single? Certainly heterosexual marriage is normal, or else the race would die out. But it is not normative. God can bless the world through people who are married and through people who are single, and it is false to generalize from the marriage of most people to the marriage of everyone. In I Cor. 7:7, Paul goes so far as to call marriage a "charisma," or divine gift, to which not everyone is called. He preferred that people remain as he was - unmarried. In an age of overpopulation, perhaps a gay orientation is especially sound ecologically!
† In many other ways we have developed different norms from those explicitly laid down by the Bible: "If men get into a fight with one another and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand." (Deut 25:11). We, on the contrary, might very well applaud her for trying to save her husband's life!
† The Old and New Testaments both regarded slavery as normal and nowhere categorically condemned it. Part of that heritage was the use of female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual toys, breeding machines, or involuntary wives by their male owners, which II Samuel 5:13, Judges 19-21, and Numbers 31:17-20 permitted -- and as many American slave owners did some 150 years ago, citing these and numerous other Scripture passages as their justification.
These cases are relevant to our attitude toward the authority of Scripture. They are not cultic prohibitions from the Holiness Code that are clearly superseded in Christianity, such as rules about eating shellfish or wearing clothes made of two different materials. They are rules concerning sexual behavior, and they fall among the moral commandments of the Scripture. Clearly we regard certain rules, especially in the Old Testament, as no longer binding. Other things we regard as binding, including legislation in the Old Testament that is not mentioned at all in the New Testament. What is our principle of selection here?
For example; virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting:
* incest
* rape
* adultery
* intercourse with animals
But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors which we generally allow:
* intercourse during menstruation
* celibacy
* exogamy (marriage with non-Jews)
* naming sexual organs
* nudity (under certain conditions)
* masturbation (some Christians still condemn this)
* birth control (some Christians still forbid this)
* and the Bible regarded semen and menstrual fluid as unclean, which generally, people do not today.
Likewise, the Bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn:
* prostitution
* polygamy
* levirate marriage
* sex with slaves
* concubinage
* treatment of women as property
* very early marriage (age 11-13)
And while the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it. In short, of the sexual mores mentioned here, we only agree with the Bible on four of them, and disagree with it on sixteen!
Surely no one today would recommend reviving the levirate marriage. So why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices? Obviously many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary. Mormon polygamy was outlawed in this country, despite the constitutional protection of freedom of religion, because it violated the sensibilities of the dominant Christian culture, even though no explicit Biblical prohibition against polygamy exists.
If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these Old Testament sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit. We cannot then, take even what Paul says as a new law. Christians pick and choose which laws they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing just that. And this is as true of evangelicals and fundamentalists as it is of liberals and mainstreamers.
The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is simply that the Bible has no sexual ethic. There is no Biblical sex ethic. Instead it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand-year span of Biblical history. Mores are unreflective customs accepted by a given community. Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow, and many that it allows, we prohibit. The Bible only knows a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, culture, or period.
The very notion of a "sexual ethic" reflects the materialism and split-ness of modern life, in which we increasingly define our sexual identity. Sexuality cannot be separated off from the rest of life. No sex act is "ethical" in and of itself, without reference to the rest of a person's life, the patterns of the culture, the special circumstances faced, and the will of God. What we have here are simply sexual mores, which change, sometimes with startling rapidity, creating bewildering dilemmas. Just within one lifetime we have witnessed the shift from the ideal of preserving one's virginity until marriage, to couples living together for several years before getting married. The response of many Christians is merely to long for the hypocrisies of an earlier era.
I agree that rules and norms are necessary: that is what sexual mores are. But rules and norms also tend to be impressed into the service of the Domination System, and to serve as a form of crowd control rather than to enhance the fullness of human potential. So we must critique the sexual mores of any given time and clime by the love ethic exemplified by Jesus. Such a love ethic is non-exploitive; hence, no sexual exploitation of children, no using of another to their loss. It does not dominate; hence, no patriarchal treatment of women as chattel. It is responsible, mutual, caring, and loving. Augustine already dealt with this in his inspired phrase, "Love God, and do as you please."
Our moral task, then, is to apply Jesus' love ethic to whatever sexual mores are prevalent in a given culture. This doesn't mean everything goes. It means that everything is to be critiqued by Jesus' love commandment. We might address teenagers, not with laws and commandments whose violation is a sin, but rather with the sad experiences of so many of them who find too much early sexual intimacy overwhelming, and who react by voluntary celibacy and even the refusal to date. We can offer reasons, not empty and unenforceable orders. We can challenge both gays and straights to question their behaviors in the light of love and the requirements of fidelity, honesty, responsibility, and genuine concern for the best interests of the other and of society as a whole.
Christian morality, after all, is not an iron chastity belt for repressing urges, but a way of expressing the integrity of our relationship with God. It is the attempt to discover a manner of living that is consistent with who God created us to be. For those of same-sex orientation, as well as for heterosexuals, being moral means rejecting sexual mores that violate their own integrity and that of others, and attempting to discover what it would mean to live by the love ethic of Jesus.
Some go so far as to argue that homosexual orientation has nothing to do with morality, any more than left-handedness does. It is simply the way some people's sexuality is configured. Morality enters the picture when that predisposition is enacted. If we saw it as a God-given gift to those for whom it is normal, we could get beyond the acrimony and brutality that have so often characterized the unchristian behavior of Christians toward gays.
Approached from the point of view of love, rather than that of law, the issue is at once transformed. Now the question is not "What is permitted?" but rather "What does it mean to love my homosexual neighbor?" Approached from the point of view of faith rather than of works, the question ceases to be "What constitutes a branch of divine law in the sexual realm?" and becomes instead "What constitutes obedience to the God revealed in the cosmic lover, Jesus Christ?" Approached from the point of view of the Spirit of Christ rather than of the letter, the question ceases to be "What does Scripture command?" and becomes "What is the Word that the Spirit speaks to the churches now, in the light of Scripture, tradition, theology, psychology, genetics, anthropology, and biology?" We can't continue to build ethics on the basis of bad science.
In a little-remembered statement, Jesus said, "Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57). Such sovereign freedom strikes terror in the hearts of many Christians; they would rather be under law and be told what is right. Yet Paul himself echoes Jesus' sentiment immediately preceding one of his possible references to homosexuality: "Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!" (I Cor. 6:3). The last thing Paul would want is for people to respond to his ethical advice as a new law engraved on tablets of stone. He himself is trying to "judge for himself what is right." If now new evidence is in on the phenomenon of homosexuality, are we not obligated -- no, free -- to re-evaluate the whole issue in the light of all available data and decide, under God, for ourselves? Is this not the radical freedom for obedience which the Gospel establishes?
Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant all that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct. The Bible sanctioned slavery as well, and nowhere attacks it as unjust. Are we prepared to argue that slavery today is Biblically justified? One hundred and fifty years ago when the debate over slavery was raging, the Bible seemed to be clearly on the slave holders' side. Abolitionists were hard pressed to justify their opposition to slavery on biblical grounds. Yet today, if you were to ask Christians in the South whether the Bible sanctions slavery, virtually everyone would agree that it does not. How do we account for such a monumental shift?
What happened is that the churches were finally driven to penetrate beyond the legal tenor of Scripture to an even deeper tenor, articulated by Israel out of the experience of the Exodus and the prophets and brought to sublime embodiment in Jesus' identification with harlots, tax collectors, the diseased and maimed and outcast and poor. It is that God suffers with the suffering and groans toward the reconciliation of all things. Therefore, Jesus went out of his way to declare forgiven, and to reintegrate into society in all details, those who were identified as "sinners" by virtue of the accidents of birth, or biology, or economic desperation. In the light of that supernatural compassion, whatever our position on gays, the Gospel's imperative to love, care for, and be identified with their sufferings is unmistakably clear.
In the same way, women are pressing us to acknowledge the sexism and patriarchalism that pervades Scripture and has alienated so many women from the church. The way out, however, is not to deny the sexism in Scripture, but to develop an interpretive theory that judges even Scripture in the light of the revelation in Jesus. What Jesus gives us is a critique of domination in all its forms, a critique that can be turned on the Bible itself. The Bible thus contains the principles of its own correction. We are freed from bibliolatry, the worship of the Bible. It is restored to its proper place as witness to the Word of God. And that word is a Person, not a book.
With the interpretive grid provided by a critique of domination, we are able to filter out the sexism, patriarchalism, violence, and homophobia that are very much a part of the Bible, thus liberating it to reveal to us in fresh ways the in-breaking, in our time, of God's domination-free order.
What saddens me in this whole raucous debate in the churches is how sub-Christian most of it has been. It is characteristic of our time that the issues most difficult to assess, and which have generated the greatest degree of animosity, are issues on which the Bible can be interpreted as supporting either side. I am referring to abortion and homosexuality.
We need to take a few steps back, and be honest with ourselves. I am deeply convinced of the rightness of what I have said in this essay. But I must acknowledge that it is not an airtight case. You can find weaknesses in it, just as I can in others‘. The truth is, we are not given unequivocal guidance in either area, abortion or homosexuality. Rather than tearing at each others' throats, therefore, we should humbly admit our limitations. How do I know I am correctly interpreting God's Word for us today? How do you? Wouldn't it be wiser to lower the decibels by 95 percent and quietly present our beliefs, knowing full well that we might be wrong?
I know a couple, parents of a friend of mine, who have both spoken out on the issue of homosexuality. She supports gays, passionately; he opposes their behavior, strenuously. So far as I can tell, this couple still enjoy each other's company, eat at the same table, and, for all I know, sleep in the same bed.
We in the church need to get our priorities straight. We have not reached a consensus about who is right on the issue of homosexuality. But what is clear, utterly clear, is that we are commanded to love one another. Love not just our gay sisters and gay brothers, who are often sitting besides us, unacknowledged, in church, but all of us who are involved in this debate. These are issues about which we should amiable to agree and to disagree. We don't have to tear whole denominations to shreds in order to air our differences on this point. If that couple I mentioned can continue to embrace across this divide, surely we can do so as well.
~ Fin ~
----------
These are just some side-notes of mine:
In the book of Acts, chapter 15, verses 19 and 20 it seems to say that Gentiles are not bound by any of the rules of the Old Testament.
So, does this mean that some (most) of the Old Testament rules don't apply to Gentiles who are Christians? Is the author of Acts saying that the infamous verse in Leviticus, which people claim states that homosexuality is an "abomination" , does not even apply to Gentile Christians?
This entire chapter must be considered, and the context. The Church was undergoing a major transformation, and the Apostles that Jesus Himself had appointed were setting down what could be called "The Covenant with the Gentiles" -- what would be required of Gentile Christians.
If I remember rightly, the condition set down are essentially those required of Noah -- so all the Apostles were doing was setting on the new Gentile believers what God had once commanded of all mankind! That was a slick move.
And it's also a move that stands, as far as I'm concerned. Later Councils set out rules, but since the Apostles said, "nothing more than this", anything further is contrary to the Apostles, who I have to regard as the highest authority. So, nothing in the Levitical law applies to Gentile Christians, except as it may define "fornication".
If you with to truly understand all of this, you have to start with one of Jesus' quotes from the Bible: "I did not come to abolish the law, I came to fulfill it." What was the law? Well, the law was the first five books of the Bible, also called the Pentateuch and it listed out how the world was created with order, how Adam was allowed to be tested by the devil and failed, how the people gradually turned from God and then how he entered into a covenantal relationship with them. If you follow the read of the Old Testament and then turn to Matthew's Gospel, you will see just about a mirror image: Matthew divides into five distinct sections and begins with Jesus being tested but meeting the test ("Away from me Satan..." and Jesus then quotes Scripture which shows that the new Adam succeeds where the old Adam fails).
As you continue in the first five books, Leviticus, has to be looked at as a health and life guide. At the time of its writing, the reason that many foods were forbidden was that they were prone to disease and could cause serious illness or death. Shellfish and other fish were prone to a disease much like red tide today; pigs routinely ate garbage that caused parasitical infestation and there were no antibiotics. It was really the first health code!
As you look at the High Holidays that were called to be celebrated in order to mark the covenant, you'll find Yom Kippur (day of atonement), Feast of Tabernacles, but in particular, the feast of the Passover.
If you look at the atonement that would forgive sins and then restore the person to a relationship with God, it involved an animal sacrifice that resulted in the death of the animal and the use of the blood to restore the covenant (a covenant is far different from a contract in that it requires an oath and blood while a contract does not). What was one of the heresies of Jesus that resulted in his being put to death? "He forgives men's sins." I can't remember the verse and quote but he tells the Apostles that those whose sins they bind on earth are bound in heaven; those that they loose on earth are forgiven in heaven. Sounds like the Catholic sacrament of reconciliation doesn't it? Also, Jesus died once and but became a living sacrifice that results in the new covenant with God.
Passover is a special feast and one that is fast approaching. It is no mere coincidence that Jesus celebrated Passover with his disciples. At the first Passover that is contained in Exodus, the Jews came together as a people, fled the land of Eygpt and then went through the waters and onto the other side towards the promised lands. In the Christian tradition, we go through the waters called baptism and as a result, we come out changed and headed towards the promise of heaven.
But Passover has a lot of other symbolism. At the Passover celebration, a chair is set for Elijah which the Jews believe will proclaim the coming of the Messiah. Look at Elijah and then look at John the Baptist. You'll find so many descriptions (ate honey and locust, went about in camel hair, kind of obnoxious...) that mirror each other. There are three uses of the bread; four cups of wine.
On the bread, one is broken, wrapped in a clean cloth (or put into a special pouch) and hidden. It is called the afikomen or "dessert." It is brought out at the end of the meal.
The cups of wine are: the cup of blessing, the cup of thanksgiving, the cup of redemption, the cup of completion or consummation. It is interesting that if you follow the Passover ritual, the cup that Jesus would have used was the cup of redemption. It was red wine that symbolized blood just as was found in the first Passover. So when He told his disciples to "drink this, all of you, this is My blood..." remember He would have celebrated at least three other Passovers with them. They must have been wondering, "what the heck is going on this time and why the change?"
The bread is a main focus. But the Afikomen is "ransomed" with children bidding on finding where it is hidden and then it is brought back out as the dessert at the end of the meal. Imagine Jesus saying, "take this, all of you and eat it...." The symbolism is identical to the Passover use of the bread and the Eucharist.
Actually listen to words at a Catholic Mass; it talks about the Passover feast, the blood, etc. Actually start with the word "Hallelujah." I hear Christians use it all the time. The Hallel was the part of the psalms that is used specifically at Passover (memory says vs. 113-118 but I could be off one or two). Read them and follow, imagine them being used at different points and culminating at the cross. The verses for Passover are referred to as "the Great Hallel" or "Praise." The name that would never be uttered for God by a Jew--Yahweh--was so special, so intense, so personal, that one would not just throw it out. Now put them together....Hallel..u...yah or Praise You God the most high, most personal, that I could not utter thy name! It should be shouted with all emotion; instead most people just dribble it out of the mouth like spit at a dinner table.
The Scripture never mentions the fourth cup. Actually Jesus got up after the third (drank when supper is ended) and goes out to sing psalms of praise. Hmm...Jewish Tradition does not waiver. Why then did He not finish and drink the cup of consummation? Well, follow Scripture through to the cross. Jesus is tried, He is led back and forth across Jeruselem. There is no mention of him drinking but instead he tells the disciples back at the table, "I will not drink of the fruit of the vine...."
Now fast forward to the cross. He's hanging there, he's been beaten, he's walked and been tormented. And what does he say..."I'm thirsty." He had already turned away the offer of gall. Now he takes some wine but not just plain wine. It is put on a branch...what kind (I believe it is John that mentions it)...a hissop branch. Now flip back to Exodus and see what branch was used to mark the door post with the blood of the lamb...a hissop branch! He takes a drink and then says the words, "it is finished." Kind of like drinking the fourth cup of wine and fulfilling the feast of Passover. Actually, Jesus became the "first fruit" as it was known (and I believe it was Paul that mentions First Fruit in Corinthians).
After Passover, follow 40 days and you get to another Jewish feast, the last of the year, and you get to the start of the church, the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Jesus fulfilled the first covenant which means that the law was no longer binding.
So if you want to live by the first covenant, that is great. But if you are going to live by the covenant that was established by the Son of God, Jesus, then you have to know what the first said but know that He fulfilled it. He left but two orders: Love your Lord God with all your heart, all your soul, and love your neighbor. He didn't get all hung up in the other minute details. He was challenged on it repeatedly but stuck to it. Because if you follow those two, you won't commit sins of omission or sins of commission. You'll usually be living like He intended.
So why are some things still in play and others aren't? Well, marriage was not an original sacrament. It wasn't until the Roman Empire collapsed that it was elevated to that level and then only because the government had broken down and the church ended stepping in to validate and track who was married and who wasn't. Look at the Jewish wedding and it is a beautiful celebration but the action centers around the bride and groom. The rabbi blesses the union (very similar to our wedding philosophy). Why was Jesus so hard on divorce? Because under the Jewish viewpoint, the man and woman made a covenant; it was sealed in blood on the wedding night (there was a big ritual to make sure the woman had bled and was a virgin). The covenant was very much like that which Jesus was going to make with the people and covenants were not to be lightly discarded. There were reasons one could divorce under Jewish law and Jesus did not go against those. But he did value the covenantal relationship. It all boils down to traditions and the fact that marriage was really a secular governmental action that in the power vacuum created after the Roman Empire fell was brought into the church and has been kept there, by and large, since.
Just remember He fulfilled the first; He didn't replace it.
Fri Mar 24, 2006 7:15 am
Cavewoman
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 2056
Location: nearby
well..... i just finished reading the WHOLE essay.... right off the bat, "wow"... very nicely articulated
while i cannot speak with the same detailed grasp of book and verse as you so aptly do.... i've read several "bibles" of the world religions... did not go through the detailed book/verse rationalizing you did (and did well)... i did arrive at many of the same thoughts....
i DID all that reading and introspective thought because as a lesbian, i felt alienated from the very "church"/religious roots of my childhood ... as you said, hypocrites quoting verse with only one thought in mind to point out my "sin"....
i did finally determine that i was created perfectly and am as i am supposed to be... and yes, in the Christian tradition, i came to view God as a loving entity who created me to do just that, love... and if i can do that one thing well in life, then i have done well indeed.
As to the world at large? the Christian community at large?... well, they've dug themselves into quite the large hole... and i really don't bother myself with their hypocrisy, narrow mindedness or lack of worldly love...
Your statement, "how scripture informs our lives today"... well, frankly, other than the Golden Rule or the the 10 commandments, i don't think scripture IS informing us... I think scripture is being bent and twisted to fit the old patriarch, as it always has been. (but that is another discussion).
your essay? its fabulous ! and points out in detail some of the process of my own thoughts a long time ago as i came to accept and love myself as a child of the universe... perfect in every way.
as a lesbian, an actively loving member of the gay community, i think it would be grand if your thoughts could be read, understood, heard by the homophobic conservative right wingers (and lefties) out there... but, i also doubt they would bother to read or hear with an open heart or mind. I have no idea what they're afraid of or how they sleep in this great big world every night with peaceful dreams in their heads.
Just a thought, i really don't chalk some of the governmental homophobia up to a religious base... i think it has far more to do with economics... if ALL we gay people were to one day be welcomed into the land of economic equality, i believe the modern insurance and banking industry would have a rather large heart attack ... they make far more $$$$$$$$$$$$ "off us" by NOT recognizing our love or unions. Affording us the same economic advantages and recognition as heterosexuals would simply "break the bank".
Thanks for posting this... true, its a long read, but was well worth my time. AND finally, thank you for taking the time to so thoroughly discuss the subject inclusive of testament/book/verse, historical perspective, cultural inclusion .... AND, challenging modern practioners of Christian beliefs to seriously take a look at applying ALL of their laws, universally.
Moi? I no longer practice Christianity.... but i do believe in a cosmic energy .. in practice, I (as well as many of my friends) have reached back into time to more ancient forms of practice belief (Pagan) and blended them with a modern respect and recognition of sciences.
Religion and its practice MUST evolve... else, die.... its the way of metamorphosis, evolution, maturity ... YET, as you aptly point out, escaping the simple doctrine and law of Love is an impossibility - and lordy knows, its not a law i wish to escape.
The only statement you made which i found offensive was "certainly, heterosexual marriage is normal".... define normal?... my point being, that i find my 18 year old marriage to my wife normal. Why? because marriage itself is normal between lovers AND I am a normal female AND she is a normal female. To follow the basic rules of arithmetic, if a=b and b=c, then a=c. NORMAL.
We could go on for days about some of the most ridiculous marriages i have ever heard about or witnessed between heterosexuals... and they are far from normal and have little to do with love.
Good luck to you young sir... i wish you well... thanks for posting. _________________ " The sorcerers in life are created within each of us" --- Lynn V. Andrews
Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:41 am
Mairi bheag
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 5094
Location: Scotland
No, Cave, religion must not "evolve or die". Religion is a human construct and must perish. God didn't look down upon the nine hundred and ninety-nine religions of the world and say, "What the heck - I'll send my son down to make it an even thousand!"
Never mind religion, humankind must become open to what is eternal, not expect what is eternal to change to suit their fads and fashions.
Christ is eternal. He was before the Bible was and will be when the Bible is dust. The Light may be as little as a candle, but the darkness will never put it out.
Mb
xx
_________________ all posted material (c) Marie Marshall, unless otherwise stated.
Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:51 am
Cavewoman
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 2056
Location: nearby
Mb, i DO agree with your 2nd paragraph, never fathomed the pretext of your first paragraph, and the third?, well... to each our own ! _________________ " The sorcerers in life are created within each of us" --- Lynn V. Andrews
Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:56 am
Mairi bheag
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 5094
Location: Scotland
Don't cudgel your brains - it'll come.
_________________ all posted material (c) Marie Marshall, unless otherwise stated.
Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:59 am
Architect
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 5
quote:Originally posted by Cavewoman:
The only statement you made which i found offensive was "certainly, heterosexual marriage is normal".... define normal?... my point being, that i find my 18 year old marriage to my wife normal. Why? because marriage itself is normal between lovers AND I am a normal female AND she is a normal female. To follow the basic rules of arithmetic, if a=b and b=c, then a=c. NORMAL.
Sorry if that seemed offensive. What I meant by that was that heterosexual marriage is deemed normal, in general, by most cultures, particularly in this essay, the Jews and not to mention us in the U.S. Normal means: accepted by the given culture.
This is not to say that homosexual marriage is not normal however.
Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:29 am
Mairi bheag
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 5094
Location: Scotland
By definition, homeosexual marriage/coupling isn't "normal", because it isn't the "norm" - it is
exceptional
. What most homosexual people of either gender find offensive is that heterosexual partnerships, simply because they are truly normal, are assumed to be "normative" - i.e. they govern or force behaviour, or expectations of behaviour.
I for one have no trouble over not being considered normal. I am not normal.
Mb
xx
_________________ all posted material (c) Marie Marshall, unless otherwise stated.
Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:33 am
Architect
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 5
quote:Originally posted by Cavewoman:
Your statement, "how scripture informs our lives today"... well, frankly, other than the Golden Rule or the the 10 commandments, i don't think scripture IS informing us... I think scripture is being bent and twisted to fit the old patriarch, as it always has been. (but that is another discussion).
That's just it. Most Christians
want
to be under law but they also want some idea of freedom, so they twist God's Word to fit their own ideals (and those of ages gone by, not giving way to new culture), not thinking about anyone else but themselves.
What we need to do in this day and age, is forget about trying to think of how Scripture can be formulated to fit into a new law. But as I have stated, we need to pay attention to Jesus' love ethic, and apply that to our lives and principles. The Bible is not just some book of rules, regulations, and morals that we follow. It is God's Word, and if we truly wish to follow the Lord Jesus Christ, everyone who is at ends with one another should come together and reach a consensus that both can agree upon. However, I realize that this sublime embodiment of peace is not possible. There will always be another P*h*e*l*p*s or even another Hitler there to tear things apart.
Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:20 am
Cavewoman
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 2056
Location: nearby
I don't agree that the Bible is God's word....
nor do i want to become involved in a lengthy discussion regarding that statement....
Ideally, we should be able to agree on the very simplistic ideals of love's ethic... but as you can see... words have a way of not clearly expressing thought; which is why i don't believe the Bible is God's word.
I don't believe that "God's" word can be written or spoken... i DO believe it can be felt and understood.
and Mb... i won't crudgel my brains... eternity i accept and can innately comprehend yet not express in simplistic terms... Jesus? as a living being.... i have trouble with that.... the concept? i have no trouble with and can only clearly express the understanding by referring to parents and lovers who figuratively die each day for loved ones....
is ANYBODY normal? _________________ " The sorcerers in life are created within each of us" --- Lynn V. Andrews
Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:58 am
Architect
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 5
quote:Originally posted by Cavewoman:
I don't agree that the Bible is God's word....
I have no problem with this. To each their own.
quote:
Ideally, we should be able to agree on the very simplistic ideals of love's ethic... but as you can see... words have a way of not clearly expressing thought; which is why i don't believe the Bible is God's word.
I agree, words do not always clearly express thought.
However, I have a Greek-Hebrew translation Bible. It has translations of the original Greek and Hebrew texts. It is so much easier to understand. But that's beside the point.
quote:
is ANYBODY normal?
Simple answer: No. My girlfriend sometimes is still trying to figure me out...after 2 1/2 years of being together lmao.
Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:15 am
Mairi bheag
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 5094
Location: Scotland
I wish someone would show me where the Bible refers to itself as being the Word of God. As far as I can tell it doesn't, so every time a Christian "fundamentalist" calls it that, he or she goes against the very book they claim to believe in.
I know of the word of God coming to someone (1 Kings 12:22. Luke 3:2)
Of living not by bread but by every word of God (Luke 4:4)
Of hearing the word of God (Luke 5:1, 8:12, 11:28 )
Of speaking or preaching the word of God (Acts 4:31, 13:5)
Of the word of God increasing (Acts 6:7, 12:24, 19:20)
Of handling the word of God (2 Corinthians 4:2)
Of the word of God being the sword of the Spirit (Ephesians 6:17)
Of the word of God being fulfilled (Colossians 1:25)
Of being sanctified by the word of God (1 Timothy 4:5)
Of the word of God not being bound (2 Timothy 2:9) - although I know this does not necessarily mean bound between covers, LOL
Of the word of God being a discerner of hearts (Hebrews 4:12)
Of tasting the word of God (Hebrews 6:5)
Of the worlds being framed by the word of God (Hebrews 11:3)
Of being born again by the word of God (1 Peter 1:23)
Of the heavens being made by the word of God (2 Peter 3:5)
Of the word of God living in someone (1 John 2:14)
Of the armies of heaven following the word of God (Revelation 19:13)
The one thing that the word of God is never - it is never referred to as being READ!
The first chapter of John's Gospel talks about the word - what and who it is. It is the power of God, by which he spoke and made all things in the beginning, long before all Bibles were. This power was made flesh in Jesus, and lives for ever, long after all Bibles will have crumbled or burned. Jesus who sanctifies, and by whom a person is born again. That is what the Bible says. Now you may take it or leave it, believe it or doubt it; but if you call the Bible "the word of God" you make the Bible into something it doesn't claim to be, and by the same token you deny that title to the one who rightfully has it.
Why do I bother saying all this? Because there is an end and a fulfilment to all religion and to all religions. That end is humankind reconciled with God. There is only one way for this to come about, and it is not to keep one's nose stuck in a Bible (important and vital though the Bible is as a signpost). It is to listen for the word of God. It speaks in the darkest place - the human heart - a still small voice. A little light. But the light "shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not" (John 1:5) - which means how ever dark a place may be, the light will shine in it and not be put out. By looking towards that light, we learn directly from the word of God, without need for priest or shaman; the more we look to it, the more it shines. The more it shines the more we see our sins and flaws - yes that hurts, but the light also shows us how to move away from those sins, to conquer them, and to become the people God wants us to be.
I have two identifiable labels - "Christian" and "Lesbian" - they sit together not without some tension. One day - or rather some time in eternity, which is God's time - I hope that both those labels will fall away, and God will show me what I truly am.
Mb
xx
_________________ all posted material (c) Marie Marshall, unless otherwise stated.
Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:15 pm
queen of the pack
Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 33
Re: I need some opinion from the homosexual community.
hi there Architect. How r u? I have my opinion to share with you. I think that the bible is the word and I do believe ib it, but I also believe that most christians misinterpret what the bible is saying. They don't read between the lines. Because they think man being with woman is normal, they are twisting God's words around to use at their advantage. Christians need to read and study the bible a million times before they can pass judgment. This is just like (for example) Catholics and Adventists. Catholics believe that their sabbath is on a Sunday, while the adventists believe that it is to be on a Saturday. So you see, christians use the bible to their advantage and to fit their needs.
Laterz
Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:22 pm
Mairi bheag
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 5094
Location: Scotland
Re: I need some opinion from the homosexual community.
quote:Originally posted by queen of the pack:
This is just like (for example) Catholics and Adventists. Catholics believe that their sabbath is on a Sunday, while the adventists believe that it is to be on a Saturday. So you see, christians use the bible to their advantage and to fit their needs.
Laterz
"
The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath
." (Mark 2:27)
Christ's words above mean that the Jewish sabbath (Saturday) was made for humankind to keep under the old covenant, but that it was not the ultimate destiny of humankind to live under a sabbath measured on the calendar. Therefore the day of the week is irrelevant. To a Christian, his or her whole life of faith, 24/7/365, is the Sabbath, because a Christian is in Christ, the Lord of the sabbath, and Himself the sabbath. In Christ we rest from all man-made religions and notions, and come to know God and our true rest.
Mb
xx
_________________ all posted material (c) Marie Marshall, unless otherwise stated.
Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:42 pm
Renee
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 88
I am uncertain what you want from us...do you want us to clap you on the back and praise you for your enlightened (for an evangelical christian, anyway) view of the "homosexual"? I have a question for you, Mr. "I don't support Gay marriage"...do you ever question the wisdom of taking so SERIOUSLY a text that was written by humans in bits and pieces that has been poorly interpreted from one language to the next? Heres an opinion. I am tired of people like you who think they deserve a ticker- tape parade for not believing we should be executed "with our blood upon us". I am tired of people like you who expect me to be "grateful" for their "enlightened" view points. You are young, so here is a valuable lesson for you. Upon reading your introductory post, my sense was that you were approaching us as less than you, as your religion and upbringing dictate we are. You cast down your masterpiece before us, the lowly homosexuals, and waited for us to heap our praises on you. If I believed in any God, I would pray that you become even MORE enlightened, Phil and realize that you are coming to us from a very weird and offensive place (your friends think we should be executed as the bible dictates! <shaking head>).
Fri Mar 24, 2006 2:38 pm
DanceofSorrows
Joined: 29 Aug 2004
Posts: 2837
I usually want to avoid this topic on here because it has been a thorn in my side for many years, struggling to reconcile homosexuality and Christianity though I know I have moved away from God in many ways. Counselors weren't able to help, friends were not able to, books and theological reads fell by the wayside to logic only. I have gone through cognitive dissonance with it all, because it deeply affected me. So if I babble here and get off topic, forgive me, it it just my thoughts and feelings on it.
As with all of us, we have our own sense of 'absolutes'. One of the reasons counselors, prayer and debate were not able to help is because I have had the moral absolute within that homosexuality is wrong. Try to change something like that... well, it is hard enough to change oneself, impossible to change another. Imposing thoughts or beliefs regardless of the end result will only come to frustration. Logic and good argument is not at the core of any issue but rather seeks to define it as we see here in this post.
I have read intensively both sides of the debate of whether the bible defines homosexuality as a sin or not and have concluded that both the old and new testament condemns homosexuality. I don't like that it does in my perception but it does. What do I do with this for myself? And how can I possibly live this way? How do I change my beliefs? How do I change my sexual, romantic, loving desires for my g/f? What is to change?
If you have compassion for me, than hopefully you will also have compassion for that 'right winger' who has the same sense of absolutes and struggles between his beliefs and loving someone whom he thinks is in the wrong but still loves him. We all have great conflict here though they may be different conflicts but they are just has stubbornly hard and raw to emotions. P*h*e*l*p*s and people like are are the extreme and most denomination heads of church dismiss him. And yes there are plenty of hypocritical people, but you will know by those who love you, not judge you, the real Christians period. Doesn't mean they have to agree or will condone homosexuality.
I don't understand everything either. Logic fails me more often than not.
I see most of the movements of churches today (especially political) a slap in the face to God. The USA is the most ungodly nation despite who founded it. People are blaming someone's else's sins for the wrath of God when a catastrophe strikes (as if they are perfect and do not sin). This is stupid even in logic. I am surprised most people don't find that rather odd and humorous. When was the last time you heard from a preacher, 'I have sinned myself and that brought on the wrath of God with a hurricane here?” You don't hear it though. The problem is, religion, without God's Spirit is meant to bring chaos. The bible is pointing to life, not being it itself. The bible without Gods spirit within, is going to bring law and judgment and false doctrine and hypocrisies and confusion etc... and we shouldn't be surprised.
So what do I do? Well based on my 'absolute' it was either to reject God or to reject homosexuality. But here is the clincher... Who and what am I period? Who is God really?
All the things I went through bring me to those things, those questions. Is the struggle in vain? No. Am I there yet? No. But in the meantime there must be love because I need love to survive. I need acceptance to survive. I need someone to love me as I am. This is the core issue we all face in this life on Earth. The real issue is about love. And as human beings we all fail that mark. As being perfect we all fail that mark.
The message “God will love you if you change” is on us everywhere in society. Who wants or needs that kind of God? Who is God really?
I am babbling, but I think the core issue is love.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Gallery
FAQ
Profile PM's 
