homosexuality and the bible-part two.

homosexuality and the bible-part two.

Poor Saul, "(who is also called Paul,)" Acts 13:9. how could he have known the firestorm he would create by conservative christianity reading literally the passage of Romans 1:18-32. for how many lives and loves have been destroyed by this passages interpretation-god only knows! this is the linchpin of which all the passages against homosexuality rest upon in the new testament. Paul couldn't have know that this passage is a theological mess and can't possibly be taken seriously.

Taste and see that reason is good...

We all know that Paul was a biblical scholar, and as such often quoted from the old testament as a means of doing what is right in god's eyes. in romans 1:32 he mentions "Who knowing the judgement of God," what is the basis of "the judgement of God" he mentions? the meaning of the word "judgement" according to the Strong's bible concordance says dik-ah'-yo-mah; from 1344; an equitable(meaning, fair and just) deed: by impl. a statute or decision:-judgement, justification, ordinance, righteousness. the question then becomes, what is the basis of these statutes or decisions? we know that Paul would have no proof in any of the four accepted gospels as Jesus never said a word against homosexuality in them so where else could he look? for a biblical scholar such as Paul the only place he could look. the old testament! specifically Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. he is quoting the Levitican law as means to condemn homosexuality in the new testament. that puts Paul directly in contradiction with Jesus himself. Matthew 22:36-40 says "Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said onto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like onto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Jesus is saying that we are no longer under the law of the old testament. we are now under not the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law. so when Paul is quoting from the law to condemn homosexuality, apparently god forgot to tap Paul on the shoulder and let him in on this little piece of information. considering all god did to Paul to turn him around on the road to Da-mas'cus it seems more than a little strange that god failed to send him the memo!

The second problem with this passage is that Paul defines richeousness in this by using the law as a basis of condemnation. Romans 1:18 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodlyness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness." in order for paul to assert that homosexuality is a basis of "unrighteousness" he is once again quoting from the old testament law in order to make his case. this actually puts him in direct conflict with himself! Galatians 2:21 says "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." and that is exactly what Paul is doing. OOOPS!

Thirdly, what is the essence of Paul's argument against homosexuality? if we read further into Romans 1:32 it says "Who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." where did Paul get the idea in the first place to write this? Leviticus 20:13 which says "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Paul is just reiterating the old testament in the new. i guess this makes Paul the devine plagiarist! not exactly an original thinker!

And fourthly, this idea of the bible being "the word of god" is highly suspect when you take into account the theological meaning behind the two words in Romans 1:32 in the phrase "that they which commit such things are worthy of death," the word "worthy" is translated to: ax'-ee-os; prob. from 71; deserving, comparable or suitable (as if drawing praise):-due reward, meet, [un-] worthy. "death" means: than'-at-os; from 2348: (prop. an adj. used as a noun) death (lit. or fig.):-x deadly, (be...)death. 2348 thnay'-sko; a strengthened form of a simpler prim. than'-o (which is used for it only in certain tenses); to die (lit. or fig.):-be dead, die. so, the question becomes: is it o.k. to kill homosexuals on the basis of the theological meanings? the answer is-MAYBE? since the word "death" can be used literally or figuratively we don't actually know. is this what a devine typo looks like? Hebrews 4:12 says "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." NOT THIS TIME!

If god can't get his act together enough to let us in on weather or not it's permissible to kill the homosexual for their supposed "abomination" of acts. why should we trust god on anything else? besides, if this is supposed to be the "god of love" how can one rectify this open ended interpritation? it's not like were talking about weather you can have a couple of beers and still be in the plan. were talkng about another human life! just beacuse gays and lesbians believe in another way to love and be committed to each other. HOW CAN THIS NOT BE OF LOVE?

I have to agree with Richard Dawkins when he called the god of the old testament a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. the guy of the new testament isn't any better! when he says if you don't do what god wants you will be sent to a place of everlasting torment. gheh'-en-nah: valley of (the son of) Hinnom; gehenna (or Ge-Hinnom), a valley of Jerus., used (fig.) as a name for the place (or state) of everlasting punishment:-hell. actually this place was known as the garbage dump of where refuse was discarded and distroyed-the eternal blue box! why believe any of it? my suggestion is to see that you have the answer within yourself already! Genesis 3:22 says "And the Lord God said, behold, the man has become one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" you have the mind of God in you. trust yourself and enlighten yourself. It is by disobedience that you are free to take devinity in your own hands-take the gift!

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear" Matthew 11:15.

"Love is greater than god"

Written on march 19th/2010.

Originally posted by scottydog13:

If god can't get his act together enough to let us in on weather or not it's permissible to kill the homosexual

Thou shalt not kill.

Interpret this.

God gave people consciousness the freedom of choice to choose what you want to be.

Point one-the old testament law is no longer followed-Matthew 22:36-40. interprit this! you are wrong!

Point two-god doesn't play fair, and kills without reason. this supposed being of good can't make up his mind about who his "worthy of death". god is evil-you are better than god

Genesis 3:22-you have the mind of god-trust in yourself.

The author!

By point one then you effectively do away with all of your problems - such as point two, killing with no apparent reason. If the old testament doesn't apply, you should have no problem with it.

As to homosexuality, the way I interpret it, the core issue is not with gays, but with the purpose of sex. If sex has a purpose, then sexual behaviour outside that purpose is a problem.

Just for the record, I am not an American fundie, because I am not American. I am not affiliated to any church. I am not a Christian by any standard, never was. I simply read the book twice.

Hello Ersi! you really get around! the context was that the apostle Paul uses the old testament as a means to condemn homosexuality which Jesus clearly contradicts what Paul is asserting. that is the problem. these fundamentalists believe that the whole bible-all 66 books are "the word of god" i am challenging them with everything i have-their whole book!

The inherent problem is that fundamentalists all try to put all things on a linear plane. sex is not simply for procreation-this is what they are saying. i always show them they are wrong by one point-is procreation the only function of sexuality? the answer is no, therefore they are wrong!

Sorry Ersi! i didn't mean to come off not so nice but lately, i am just losing my patience with these limited thinkers. nothing against you Ersi.

The background problem is what rules are essential to live by, so that life would be livable, and what rules not to care about for the very same reason - so that life would be livable.

Let's have two big groups of people: the believers and the worldly. For the worldly, the ultimate test of integrity, in my opinion, is about the source of ethics. Ethics is that which is right anytime anywhere. The source of that is obviously bigger than any human individually and even bigger than entire humanity collectively. The source is spiritual. The worldly have trouble defining it. As long as they proclaim themselves atheists, they have trouble acknowledging the spiritual source of ethics. If they proclaim themselves ethical, they are uneasy with their own atheism.

There is an integrity test with a similar effect for the believers too. That is sexuality. "Don't fornicate" is, superficially (to keep things simple), a prohibition of sex outside marriage. It applies both to those who are married and those who are not - no marriage, no sex.

We can debate about the possible various purposes of sex, but the purpose of marriage should be clear enough - procreation is definitely there, among other things. A family (mother, father, child) is the atom or nucleus of the society, for several essential reasons, which - to return to the topic for a moment - rules out homosexuality, for example, but also violence against the spouse, with the exact same severity. The current worldly laws seek to guard what's left of family, but ancient religious precepts sanctify family absolutely and unconditionally. That's why homosexuals are condemned.

Undoubtedly, the believers routinely fail in their lithmus test (sexuality) the same way as the worldly fail in theirs. This does not mean that failing is allowed. Such failings are absolutely forbidden. Integrity is vital for everyone to be at peace with oneself.

Note that the believers and the worldly are not equals. To be a believer is to be above the worldly test: ethics must not flutter. No killing, no lying, no stealing, etc - absolutely. Only after this can one proclaim oneself to be a believer. Religion is profound. I guess we can easily agree that fundies are not that profound.

Hello Ersi! i pleasure to have such informed discussions about the depth of the soul, ideology and ethics. i am preparing to release a way between these polarized absolutes. i am creating a new religion i call "Spiritual secularism" i want to combine the beauty of ritual and science into a new amalgam. or to put it another way, the new mythology. Camille Paglia emphasises the idea of religion is a part of culture, and culture is in part built upon mythology. we all create a narritive of which we live off of. the question is can the mythology change? i would say now is the time for a new mythology to be born. a secular mythology-as we are living in a secular society. these fundamentalist movements have run their course and are running out of room as secular science keeps pushing them further out all the time. we need to fill the void left for many souls that will have nowhere to put themselves into that i believe is hardwired into the human soul. i believe that evolution is the spiriual process of man. i remember reading a hundu text that said "Man is god in the embryonic stage".

I have a lot more to say Ersi. got things to do!

Blessings!