Gays in the Bible -- a must read

Well only one other problem ms. betty, the bible isnt truth.

In your uninformed opinion. For the believer the Bible is the word of God/ I understand you have trouble with that but do not denigrate the beliefs of others. The Bible has been verified in many aspects through historical analysis.

if you say so....... but u see, theres this called science. but anyways, lemme reword my comment up above then: "Well only one other problem ms. betty, Not everyone believes in YOUR bible." There.

Well, whether it's truth or not, the fact of the matter is that many Christians do NOT share your point of view about what the Bible has to say. It's a matter of belief and interpretation.

Unless, of course, you are the only TRUE Christians, in touch with the TRUE Christianity. In which case, never mind.

It does baffle me, however, how people who interpret the Bible just cast aside anything scholars have to say about what words mean and how they are interpreted. It's like how the Catholics say that Jesus had no brothers and sisters, despite the fact that the Bible SAYS he has brothers and sisters. If a Bible scholar says to you that the word used in the quoted story about Jesus and the centurion was the word for same-sex partner, NOT servant -- well, why let the facts of translation get in the way of what you believe, right?

well wendy.. its a huge fraud.. lotta control and money involved with religion... for now.

See, that is, was and forever shall be the problem -- interpretation.

The Bible may indeed be the word of God, but because humans have all been given that pesky little ability called "Free Will" we are each going to interpret the Bible through whatever colored glasses we happen to be wearing.

I would love to see the day when Jesus returns and says "Wow, did you people get it wrong!".

Jeez, Liz, I hope it doesn't get lost. The Boston Globe doesn't keep its articles up for an indefinite period of time. I have a copy of it so I could reprint it here, but you know, copyright and all that good stuff. Let me see if there's another link to it.

Tonia: sorta reminds me of one of my favorite bumper stickers: "Jesus is coming. Look busy!"

The whole point though is that all of this biblical stuff is based on faith and it is the glasses of faith that cause a person to see what they see in the bible. And TA, there are men of science - educated professorial types - that believe in the bible as the word of God so your argument that science prohibits a literal interpretation of the bible is simply not in touch with anybody's reality but those who believe like you do.

When Jesus returns, or perhaps even sooner when we die, some of us will learn that our interpretations were wrong but it is just as likely to be you as me.

Actually, the whole point is that religious text is open to a multitude of interpretations
"God spoke" may mean "God was saying something" to one person and "We should have tacos for breakfast" to another. (yes.....weird example, but have you met realigous zealots before?? WEIRD!!)

Its really a never-ending circle of irreverent reasoning!

Nanci -- My understanding of Jesus is that he sent forth a message of compassion, love and tolerance......

Towards individuals Tonia - not towards a behaviour. So my understanding of your understanding is that you are half right. Which means that He can still tell you that you blew it.

Nanci -- funny thing is that I know I lead my life in a loving and compassionate manner, and quite honestly, if Jesus were to reject me solely because of the gender of the person with whom I've chosen to love in my life, then perhaps he is not the one I want to follow.

No no no - you are missing my point here. He will never reject you if you have accepted him. What I am saying is that I think that he operates along the lines of love the person, hate the sin so if you say that he is love, compassion and understanding, that is true but I believe he also dislikes certain behaviours and will condemn the acts without condemning the actors so that is why I think He can still find you to be in error on your interpretation.

I just reread what I wrote in this comment and there is a 50-50 chance it makes sense but I am so tired I can't figure out any other way to say it. Except - a murderer can still go to Heaven if he passes the admission test in the Bible which I believe is simply to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour. However, you will always hear Jesus condemn murder. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

I think that Jesus owes the gays a thing or two. 1) Ruth, it was some powerful attraction that kept her glued to Noami's side. Then she got pregnant and raised the baby in a co-parenting arrangement with her, thereby keeping the lineage that would lead to the house of David alive. 2) Jonathan, David's special friend, who was of one spirit with him and whose mutual love surpassed that of the love for women. He saved David's life thereby ensuring the ancenstry of Jesus survived. 3) The apostles. 12 guys that prefered the company of men. 1 in 10, kids, the odds seem pretty good.

OK, I'm joking about the last one, but the first two contain some of the most passionate and loving language in the bible between individuals and in both cases, it's same sex directed.

Oh and the link worked for me, Wendy.

John, glad the link worked. And don't forget the story about Jesus and the centurion. To me, this is crucial because it's the ONLY story where Jesus might have expressed any kind of opinion of homosexuality -- anything else in the New Testament is basically by St. Paul, who had -- ahem -- issues. And it's a good example of how mistranslation MASSIVELY changes the meaning of the story.

This issue of translation is crucial, and particularly on this subject, it really messes things up. Translations often confuse homosexuality (as a state of being) with the activities of pagan temple prostitutes.

"And TA, there are men of science - educated professorial types - that believe in the bible as the word of God so your argument that science prohibits a literal interpretation of the bible is simply not in touch with anybody's reality but those who believe like you do."

Nanci, I'm not sure, but it seems that you are confusing two issues here -- belief in God and literal interpretation of the Bible. Certainly, lots of scientists believe in God, but someone who believes in a literal reading of the Bible (specifically, the creation story) is not a "[man] of science."

Wendy, I am not confused. There are actual PHd scientists that believe in and teach creationism. Unfortunately, all of the information from my Genesis class is in a box in the barn where it reposes following our recent move. I believe that the guy I am thinking of at the top of my list is at Bryant College and then there is Ken Haam.

Nanci, having a PhD does not guarantee that you are a "scientist," by which I mean, someone who is committed to the scientific method of inquiry and knowledge. This is a conversation that occurs regularly where I work, a Catholic college where scientists and philosophers regularly explore this issue. The bottom line is this: there is not, and cannot be, any scientific evidence for creationist theory. There cannot be because a theory that PRESUPPOSES the existence of a divine being but cannot empirically prove the existence of said divine being, is a theory that is faith-based, not fact-based. Science, for all its limitations and theoretical limitations, is a fact-based activity. There are things that may be theory, but they look to facts, not faith, to prove or disprove the theory. Facts in the form of evidence, data, etc., are accessible to us through our perceptual senses -- in other words, it's stuff we can see, feel, measure, touch, examine. All of the evidence -- ALL of it -- points to evolution, not creationism. All of it points to an evolutionary explanation.

I recommend this article for an infinitely more articulate and intelligent conversation on the subject by a well-known naturalist and writer, Chet Raymo:

http://www.sciencemusings.com/2006/04/when-god-is-gone-everything-is-holy.html

In the article, he quotes physicist Heinz Pagels: "The capacity to tolerate complexity and welcome contradiction, not the need for simplicity and certainty, is the attribute of an explorer. Centuries ago, when some people suspended their search for absolute truth and began instead to ask how things worked, modern science was born. Curiously, it was by abandoning the search for absolute truth that science began to make progress, opening the material universe to human exploration."

Dr. Raymo notes, "But let me say clearly: All gods are idolatrous, especially any god we personify with a capital G. The great service to humanity of science has been to sweep the anthropomorphic gods away, or, at the very least, to show them for what they are, phantoms of the human brain. What we are given in their place is not Truth, but reliable empirical knowledge of the world, tentative and evolving."

I highly recommend Chet Raymo's blog and website for discussions on this subject by a man who is both a scientist and an explorer in the world of spirit.

There is no scientific basis for Creationism or Intelligent Design. It is religion, plain and simple. There is nothing wrong with religion but it will never be science.

Just some info on Ken Hamm from his bio on his website:

Ken's bachelor's degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) was awarded by the Queensland Institute of Technology in Australia. He also holds a diploma of education from the University of Queensland (a graduate qualification necessary for Ken to begin his initial career as a science teacher in the public schools in Australia).

In recognition of the contribution Ken has made to the church in the USA and internationally, Ken has been awarded two honorary doctorates: a Doctor of Divinity (1997) from Temple Baptist College in Cincinnati, Ohio, and a Doctor of Literature (2004) from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

His Australian accent, keen sense of humor, captivating stories and exceptional PowerPoint illustrations have made him one of North America's most effective Christian communicators.

Ken is also able to reflect on some of the "hot button" topics of our day (e.g., the breakdown of the society and the family unit, school violence, creation/evolution in public schools, abortion, homosexual behavior, lawlessness, etc.) and relate them to the Book of Genesis. In addition, he provides biblical and scientific answers to some of the most difficult questions people ask about the Christian faith, including:
How can we reclaim the culture for biblical truths?
Can we really trust the Bible from its very first verse?
How can we build a biblical worldview starting with Genesis?
How do we know there is a God?
Are dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible?
How can we evangelize more effectively?
Who was Cain's wife?
Why do we see death and suffering (tsunamis, terrorist attacks, etc.) in this
world?

LOL -- Great research John.

The question is: would you want an "honorary" doctor operating on you?

And why would THAT be?

LOL

I suggest you guys to read the mumbo-jumbo that Dr. David Berman wrote on here, he calls himself a Th.D. and hes basically saying this is a christian nation... YUP another one of those. The title of his article is "As the bible goes.... so goes the Constitution" .. hate to break it to him but the Constitution aint going anywhere.

One could use a little common sense on the intent of God. If we assume we are designed by God, well By God, I am designed to mate with the opposite sex.

If God wanted sexual orientation to be optional, he would have provided us all with a full set of genitalia - a penis and a vagina for everybody!

Okay Don, if you want to use a little common sense on the intent of God, why did he/she/it create homosexuality, not just in humans but in the animal kingdom as well?

God HAS created people with a full set of genitalia -- used to be called hermaphrodites, now called intersex. I mean, how stupid could God be that he couldn't get THAT straight? (Pun intended)

Bottom line: this argument evolves from a very simplistic understanding of God, which is basically, "I am capable of comprehending this kind of God, therefore I this is the God I create." Consider the possibility that God has his/her/its OWN "logic" which we cannot understand with our puny little minds.

So what you are saying, Brent, is that the Bible is outdated? lol

I won't answer for Brent, Don, but yeah, actually, a lot of the Bible IS outdated. Most of the figures of the Old Testament were polygamists, for instance. Slavery was acceptable. Women could be stoned for committing adultery. etc. etc. etc. etc. A lot of it we just plain don't believe any more. Indeed, when it's a MUSLIM who's doing it -- like stoning women who have committed adultery -- we call it barbaric.

You can't have it both ways.

Or I dunno, maybe you're in favor of polygamy, slavery, and public stoning, in which case oh well, never mind! ;-)

I'll just retort with the fact that God does not approve of polygamy.

Plain Truth About OLD TESTAMENT POLYGAMY

Besides, we were designed to be heterosexuals, there is no arguing that.

That site is just plain circular hooey. Propaganda, pure and simple. Read the paragraph about Abraham slowly and carefully. It basically says that Abraham WAS in fact a polygamist but it didn't count because it was a sin. Sez who? Sez the author who has a rhetorical brownie point to make, that's who.

This is what makes it difficult to have discussion with people like yourself, who confuse "fact" with "opinion." It is your OPINION that God doesn't approve of polygamy (despite the Biblical evidence to the contrary). It is your OPINION that there is a GOD, for that matter. There is no "proof" that it exists. It is not a fact.

Then why is the church against polygamy, yet you say the Bible approves? Somehow, the theologists (which I don't claim to be) have figured out that things like slavery and polygamy are wrong. And, they also say the homosexuality is wrong. So, did they just get two out of three right?

The bible really supports slavery, and theologists, for a long time, would use the bible for its justification.

Don, the point is, the Bible doesn't prove or disprove ANYTHING, it doesn't justify or invalidate ANYTHING. The Bible is part mythology, part quasi-historical record, part spiritual teaching. You can find a Bible verse to justify or explain ANY point of view. The notion that the Bible is "clear" about anything is laughable. For instance, the Gospels themselves contradict each other in terms of the details of the story. There is just no possible way to take it literally. You are ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS, whether you want to admit it or not, cherry-picking. You choose what you want to believe and declare that to be true and ignore or explain away whatever it is that you don't want to believe.

The difference between people like you and people like me is that I am at least clear that I choose to believe what I choose to believe. You locate the power of choice outside of yourself. You say that it's not you that's making the decisions -- that God decided. Even in your post, you do not actually argue the assertion itself, but say instead "well experts seem to have figured it out, so..." But the fact of the matter is that theologians have FIGURED OUT that slavery and polygamy is wrong, but not because of what they've found in the Bible, but because of what THEY'VE decided is right and wrong, based on their culture's values, their upbringing, their own personal moral code, their own intellectual insights. They have to have interpreted the Bible in an idiosyncratic way in order to fit their conclusions.

There are, btw, infinitely more theologians who say that the Bible can NOT be taken literally, for precisely the reasons described -- its stories are histories of and rules for a specific people at a specific place and time.

This is not to negate the teachings of Jesus, which I consider to be probably the most profound "rules" for living that anyone has ever defined. Interestingly -- and perhaps ironically, given the nature of most religious debates here on Gather -- Jesus' rules for living have more in common with the situation ethics than traditional religious thought. Because what Jesus said was very basic -- judge the virtue of your actions based on what you would like done to you. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. Jesus did not say to judge anyone -- he said precisely the opposite. Want to know how to get into heaven? Do that, and also take care of the sick, the weak, the outcasts, those in prison. The most profound story ever: Jesus telling you that you get into heaven because (I'm paraphrasing, not quoting directly): "I was sick and you comforted me, I was poor and you fed me, I was in prison and you visited me, I was outcast and you took me in." "But Lord, I don't remember seeing you -- when did I do that?" "Inasmuch as you have done this to THE LEAST OF THESE, MY BRETHREN, YOU HAVE DONE THIS TO ME."

This conversation actually makes me sad, in a way, because it is a demonstration of why I left organized religion. When I was a kid, even a teenager, I loved the story of Jesus and what he had to say about life. I found it profound, comfortable, loving. I thought he was a wonderfully brave and great person. And when I went to church, that Jesus was absent. He was replaced by some plastic Jesus on a cross who was more into being right than in being loving. He wasn't the Jesus I grew up with.

I actually do wish, sometimes, that that Jesus would come for a second time. I'm quite sure he'd be doing a lot of "dope-slapping". I'm also sure that he'd be crucified once again.

Especially since Jesus specifically mentions adultery, but never homosexuality.

But I suspect the answer to your question is that it's because so many of those religious people are "doing it." Remember Jim Baker and Jessica Hahn? Ah, now THERE was a scandal!

Wendy,

You just invited me to be your colleague - does that mean you want to buy Tupperware?

I cannot believe all that I am reading here and all from the same people. Why are you all yelling at Wendy for an article that she didn't even write - she posted a copy of what was written in the newspaper.

For many years I thought I was a Christian, and then I thought I was an Athiest, but could not believe there was just a VOID, then I figured I must be Agnostic - but was afraid I would go to Hell - (that came from all my Christian upbringing).

Then.....I followed my heart, I started seeking many different paths and trying each one on. I loved the Native American path, but it was not quite right for me. I loved the path of Buddhism, but again my steps didn't quite fit into the cobblestones, I kept looking and then I Remembered Who I Was. My mother never took me to church, my father did. My grandmother never went to church. Sadly these two most powerful women in my life stopped walking the earth very early in their lives, too early to pass the secrets of my history on to me. Too early to tell me who I was. But...One day I Woke Up And I Remembered! I remembered that my grandmother was a mid-wife and an herbalist (of course those terms were not used). I remembered that my mother was able to soothe a baby with a touch of a hand, was able to draw wild birds to within inches of her and talked to them, knew each fish that swam in the creek bed along side her house, was also an herbalist. I Remembered Who I Was. I was the daughter of not only God, but also of the Goddess. I was a Pagan. I was able to adore the Universe in its whole. I was able to adore everything and everyone regardless of their belief system.

We are all of the Same. We are all One. Why must we argue and name call. Yes, if you must put lables on me, I am also a lesbian....but not before I was a hetrosexual and gave birth to 5 children. I have been with my partner for 25 faithful years.

If the Christian Bible says that it is God alone that is the One to judge, are not some of these posts being a bit anti-Christian? I am sorry to say that and I mean no harm or ridicule by pointing that out. I just wish that this bickering would come to an end and we could all see each other as the beautiful Creations we are ~Donna

Well, Donna, I couldn't figure out how to connect with you without buying tupperware, but I suppose you could sell me -- potentially, anyway. I'm a sucker for a burping top.

Quit making sense. It is completely out of place in this discussion.

well said donna!!!

I agree with Donna on this one!

Very interesting, I am going to have to check it out

I was a bit disappointed in the article you linked to in that it did not offer any real examples of mistranslations, of which I am quite sure there are copious amounts.
I also agree about Saul of Tarsus's possible/likely misinterpretations and likely bastardization of Jesus' legacy.
But, honestly Wendy, it was worth trudging through all of these comments if only for Donna's
" I remembered that my mother was able to soothe a baby with a touch of a hand, was able to draw wild birds to within inches of her and talked to them, knew each fish that swam in the creek bed along side her house, was also an herbalist."
Donna, your mother sounds amazing. Thanks for sharing this.

Do we all understand how babies grow in the womb? First they are a feamale and then a gene if they have it turns them into a male. Science says this is so, so why do we fight amount each other using a written text to base our being on? Maybe, it is just that some babies have too little of the gene to make a full change? If God makes millions of us to be similar, why can't he error once in a while? Also, if we study our history, gay people many times are the ones that push the people forward from their past to the present. I am old enough that I don't care who my friends are as long as they treat me as an equal. Why can't you all do that?