|
Post by diet coke on Aug 7, 2007 9:11:36 GMT -5
I've never considered the relationship between David and Jonathan to be sexual in nature, but I don't deny that it was very strong...certainly more than casual human care, possibly more than the Spirit-felt, divine love of brothers in God. I do consider my soul knit with the souls of my brethren. I do understand when one could say to the other, "the Lord be between thee and me forever". But I don't understand the culture well enough to explain away what seems like intimacy, so I'm happy leaving it an unanswered question. Thanks, clearday, for your input.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2007 10:03:55 GMT -5
I wonder sometimes if today's fundamental literalist Christian is not our modern day Pharisee. "Do as I say, but not as I do."
Fundamental literalists will advocate following the whole Bible, but then proceed to pick and choose which parts to follow.
Fundamental literalists will never allow the Spirit of the Law to get into the way of the letter of law, at least not for other people's behavior.
Fundamental literalists will loudly proclaim the inerrancy of the Bible and then proclaim the world round! (and pretend the discrepancy does not exist)
Fundamental literalists will resist understanding the Bible where it doesn't fit their prejudices.
Here is a humorous ficticious letter written to Dr.Laura by an unknown author which underscores the fallacies of fundamental literalist thinking:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians.
Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness-- Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal, unchanging and inerrant.
Your adoring fan."
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Aug 7, 2007 10:06:56 GMT -5
thinking more about this...it's tuff since most everybody has a vested interest in "proving" one thing or another...but I sure wouldn't label David as homosexual. I mean, the guy was so aroused at the site of Bathsheba that he had a man killed. But if the culture of the day encouraged a man to be openly appreciative of both the male form and the female form, it does seem natural that a deep care one for the other would lead naturally to intimacy, and that it would be a healthy thing. My conclusion: men were obviously better-looking back then.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Aug 7, 2007 10:15:41 GMT -5
This is a very interesting question. And it leads to others: How could slavery be an acceptable practice for centuries but not today? How could it be a sin for women to cut their hair 150 years ago, but not today? How could parents think it was okay to stone their incorrigible children to death in the OT, but today most sane people find this notion abhorrent.
In a lot of ways, we are better and kinder and, yes, more tolerant of each other than we were...yet the Bible still says what it said when we were less tolerant. If the Bible hasn't changed and God hasn't changed, should we have changed?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2007 10:21:33 GMT -5
thinking more about this...it's tuff since most everybody has a vested interest in "proving" one thing or another...but I sure wouldn't label David as homosexual. I mean, the guy was so aroused at the site of Bathsheba that he had a man killed. But if the culture of the day encouraged a man to be openly appreciative of both the male form and the female form, it does seem natural that a deep care one for the other would lead naturally to intimacy, and that it would be a healthy thing. My conclusion: men were obviously better-looking back then. You assume he was aroused by her. What the story actually says is that he was taken by her beauty. Our heterosexual prejudices automatically make us jump to the conclusion that David was motivated by his "loins" only in this. We know David was a murderer and an adulterer, perhaps he simply wanted a trophy due to her beauty. Well, at least he checked and made sure she was not in the midst of her menstrual period, he got one thing right anyway. When David conceived Solomon, we read it was not in response to his arousal, but to bring comfort to Bathsheba. This is like putting together the pieces of a puzzle. Of course the Bible translators weren't going to give this up easily due to their own prejudices so modern readers have to be very discerning when reading the account about David. The truth always seems to have a way of emerging sooner or later. A year ago I would have utterly rejected this idea of David's possible homosexuality too, but the evidence is strong.
|
|
|
Post by And on Aug 7, 2007 10:34:22 GMT -5
It's not like people are necessarily exclusively heterosexual or exclusively homosexual. At least, according to Kinsey and others who would indicate that it is a bit of a continuum. (This is NOT from my personal experience.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2007 10:37:53 GMT -5
One fascinating aspect of the anti-homosexual movement amongst the fundamental literalists is that some of the most outspoken anti-homosexuals are practicing homosexuals themselves. I suspect that there are many non-practicing homosexuals masquerading as heterosexuals amongst them as well.
Recent prominent examples are Rep.Foley and Rev.T.Haggard. Their vehement support of homosexual suppression really makes no sense on the surface. A cover perhaps? Perhaps these two fellows are homosexuals who were once non-practicing and began their campaign to force gays into the same miserable life as their own? Misery loves company? Is it like workers who feel the burden and misery of their sacrifice of a home and a spouse, and want the friends to be miserable also by sacrificing a long list of things too?
|
|
|
Post by Brother Schrock on Aug 7, 2007 10:50:11 GMT -5
Clearday, Forgive me if I do not offer a point-by-point response to your previous post. The verse I think is most appropriate to begin with is as follows: Gal 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. And then the next one: Gal 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. I believe this sets the stage for how we should deal with our brothers and sisters who are struggling with the sin of engaging is homosexual relations, adultery, or any other biblically defined sin. They should be approached with a spirit of meekness and the recognition that we are all sinners. I take exception to the portrayal of anyone who takes God at his Word that engaging in homosexual relations is committing a sin has a “bigoted, anti-homosexual, persecutorial hatred”. Scott has identified some of the verses that clearly illustrate God’s position on engaging in homosexual relations. I don’t think they need to be reiterated. Someone else (Hope For All?) did a good job of pointing out that there is a difference between compromise and compassion. They are not (always) interchangeable. I like the following excerpt from Randy Alcorn’s book “The Grace Truth Paradox”: “If you see someone canoeing down rapids a hundred feet from a waterfall, getting his attention and shouting a warning may cause the canoeist some anxiety. But is smiling, waving and keeping quiet the loving thing to do? Of course not. That would be apathy or rank cowardice.” You see, to allow someone to perpetuate in any sin isn’t tolerance; it’s apathy. It certainly doesn’t qualify as bearing another’s burden in love. Beautifully said Scott. A fitting bow on your post.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Aug 7, 2007 10:59:29 GMT -5
Brother Schrock - you've piqued my curiousity: do you consider yourself susceptible to being tempted into homosexual activity?
|
|
|
Post by Brother Schrock on Aug 7, 2007 11:18:09 GMT -5
Brother Schrock - you've piqued my curiousity: do you consider yourself susceptible to being tempted into homosexual activity? I have have never been tempted by homosexual activity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2007 11:21:06 GMT -5
Brother Schrock, I admire your approach to errant brothers. I agree with it 100%.
However, if you are going to choose to live by Levitical law, then you should follow it all the way. God mandated capital punishment under Judaism for homosexuality, according to Bible literalists. To advocate anything different, even Gal6:1&2, is pure hypocrisy.
So then, if you choose to reject Levitical law, then where do we go from there in helping errant brethren? Who is an errant brother? Is he not someone who has caused an offense? Is not an offense caused when there is a victim? Is that not the spirit of even the Levitical law, to prevent offenses? Between two adult individuals who are naturally attracted to each and agree to an intimate relationship, where is the offense? Who is the victim? Do you claim God is the victim, if not man?
I still haven't gotten to the "overarching principles", timeless truths and God's Laws by which believers should be governed as yet Brother Schock, but we are getting there! I haven't forgotten your original question.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Aug 7, 2007 11:21:29 GMT -5
Do you think you are likely to be tempted by homosexual activity in the future?
|
|
|
Post by juliette on Aug 7, 2007 11:40:08 GMT -5
Mr. Leo: You're much cuter and fluffier than usual... it's a good look for you! Juli
|
|
|
Post by Brother Schrock on Aug 7, 2007 11:46:47 GMT -5
Do you think you are likely to be tempted by homosexual activity in the future? I have to wonder what your point is......
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Aug 7, 2007 11:48:12 GMT -5
Thanks, Juli!
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Aug 7, 2007 11:49:14 GMT -5
I have to wonder why you aren't answering the question...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2007 11:49:16 GMT -5
Brother Schrock, thanks to MrLeo, I realize I may have misunderstood the intent of your post.
Believe me, I fully understand that a person in a married situation who has temptations of anyone outside the marriage (same or opposite sex) does need help from brethren when tempted, or upon succumbing to the temptation. Any kind of sexual activity outside the marriage is profoundly wrong.
The situation is doubly difficult for the case of a homosexual man married to a woman. It was an error and a lie, a sin if you will, for that man to marry in the first place. It is completely unfair to the heterosexual spouse. However, given those circumstances, the marriage vow is powerful and should not be broken lightly. I feel deeply sorry for couples caught in this situation. I spoke to a woman who was married to a homosexual man. She said that her main anguish was not even the potential adultery, but the fact that there was utterly nothing she could ever do to compete with the attractions of another man, unlike her ability to divert the attractions of another woman for a heterosexual husband. What a difficult life to be caught in! These folks need understanding and help, especially if they are determined to live an honourable married life.
When there's a victim, these sins are unequivocally obvious, even heathen know that. You don't need a Levitical rule book to interpret the letter of the law for you.
I applaud your efforts to help others avoid sin which would destroy their soul. Gal6:1&2 should be first and foremost for all Christians in these circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Schrock on Aug 7, 2007 11:50:41 GMT -5
I have to wonder why you aren't answering the question... Then feel free to keep wondering.
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Aug 7, 2007 13:19:29 GMT -5
like so many topics on this board, it's important to understand that there are often two approaches. We should answer questions such as tolerance of homosexuality two ways.
1. ethically/morally as a question of humanity 2. bibically/theologically as an exercise in interpreting the Bible
If we don't try to confuse these two ways of teaching tolerance, things will make a lot more sense,. It's perfectly fine to accept that the humane approach will differ from the theological approach & that pretty much ends the argument, doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Hope For All on Aug 7, 2007 14:27:56 GMT -5
HFA Thank you for making the distinction between tolerance and compassion. Terms so often erroneously used as interchangeable While I'm all for HFA's call for compassion, I disagree with his/her assertion that the bible does not teach tolerance. It does indeed. Here's a couple of examples: "Love is patient, kind, not easily provoked, endures all things" (I Corinthians 13)" "But the fruit of the Spirit is ..... longsuffering......." (Gal5) "I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love" (Eph4) Unfortunately, in the modern lexicon, "tolerance" practically means "no morality", and anyone promoting moral behavior is considered "intolerant" and worthy of (intolerant) persecution. It's complicated and confusing, I suppose a favorite tool of Satan's. I would submit that the verses quoted above are actually demonstrations of true compassion- not tolerance-but that would be splitting hairs. However the following quote expresses what I believe to be true: "What's so bad about tolerance? We are in a transitional period where there are two totally distinct definitions of tolerance: one known by parents, the other by kids. And what is being taught to our kids is totally different than what is in your mind as a parent. Traditional tolerance (as we know it) is now referred to as negative tolerance. This is defined as ‘respecting others beliefs and practices without sharing them,' or ‘to bear or put up with something not especially liked.' The new tolerance is called positive tolerance, which says this: every single individual's beliefs, values, lifestyle, and truth claims are equal.” - Josh McDowell Peace, HFA
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 7, 2007 15:45:24 GMT -5
But HFA, I think, then, that you and I agree as to what tolerance should be!
I do not for a moment expect mainstream Christians to accept homosexual behavior as being acceptable within their theological framework or their personal code of ethics. Respecting my beliefs and practices without sharing them is even more than I could hope for.
I would be content with tolerance in the sense of simply allowing gay people to live their lives unencumbered by the Christian's expectations that we conduct our lives according to their beliefs!
Practically speaking, that manifests itself in at least two ways: 1. Don't support laws that make homosexual relationships illegal or less legitimate than heterosexual relationships 2. Ease up a bit on the proselytizing: gay reparative therapy, in general, is a failure. Dangling the hope of a 'cure' to the vast majority of gay people, young and old, is not much more than a cruel joke.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2007 17:37:52 GMT -5
While I'm all for HFA's call for compassion, I disagree with his/her assertion that the bible does not teach tolerance. It does indeed. Here's a couple of examples: "Love is patient, kind, not easily provoked, endures all things" (I Corinthians 13)" "But the fruit of the Spirit is ..... longsuffering......." (Gal5) "I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love" (Eph4) Unfortunately, in the modern lexicon, "tolerance" practically means "no morality", and anyone promoting moral behavior is considered "intolerant" and worthy of (intolerant) persecution. It's complicated and confusing, I suppose a favorite tool of Satan's. I would submit that the verses quoted above are actually demonstrations of true compassion- not tolerance-but that would be splitting hairs. However the following quote expresses what I believe to be true: "What's so bad about tolerance? We are in a transitional period where there are two totally distinct definitions of tolerance: one known by parents, the other by kids. And what is being taught to our kids is totally different than what is in your mind as a parent. Traditional tolerance (as we know it) is now referred to as negative tolerance. This is defined as ‘respecting others beliefs and practices without sharing them,' or ‘to bear or put up with something not especially liked.' The new tolerance is called positive tolerance, which says this: every single individual's beliefs, values, lifestyle, and truth claims are equal.” - Josh McDowell Peace, HFA Fair enough HFA. I think there is becoming an increasing awareness of how the meaning of this word is changing. In fact, just a few minutes ago I was chatting with a Christian friend about establishing an informal youth group for young Christian kids to support each other's faith and hang out with each other. She brought up the idea of "old" tolerance and "new" tolerance. I think Christians today need to be aware of this sea change of meaning and not be fooled by what is happening. Moral clarity is not advancing quickly these days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2007 17:51:31 GMT -5
But HFA, I think, then, that you and I agree as to what tolerance should be! I do not for a moment expect mainstream Christians to accept homosexual behavior as being acceptable within their theological framework or their personal code of ethics. Respecting my beliefs and practices without sharing them is even more than I could hope for. I would be content with tolerance in the sense of simply allowing gay people to live their lives unencumbered by the Christian's expectations that we conduct our lives according to their beliefs! Practically speaking, that manifests itself in at least two ways: 1. Don't support laws that make homosexual relationships illegal or less legitimate than heterosexual relationships 2. Ease up a bit on the proselytizing: gay reparative therapy, in general, is a failure. Dangling the hope of a 'cure' to the vast majority of gay people, young and old, is not much more than a cruel joke. Gene, you are being realistic about expectations of being fully accepted amongst mainstream Christians any time soon. This thread has reminded me again that there are still people out there who want you executed, and it's a horrific thought in this day and age. For now, the best you can hope for is to be left alone, and discriminatory practices minimized. If there is going to be a turning point for your group, I think it will come when science proves beyond any reasonable doubt that homosexuality is an inherent part of the way you were created. As long as this debate continues about biology vs environment and people think you can be ''cured", things will probably not change significantly amongst the heterosexual world. Once science proves the natural state of homosexuality, if it does, then heterosexuals are going to have to come to a better understanding of perversions and "abominations".
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Aug 7, 2007 23:19:02 GMT -5
Gene,
As a Canadian, many of the young generation have discussed the issue of homosexuality as it is legal to marry in Canada. Maybe to the surprise of most, no one cares and really why should we? If we do not agree with the practice, does it really affect our relationship with our saviour. Should it? Of course not. I believe many of my friends have realized that we have no right, no right whatsoever to push our religious beliefs on another, if we really even think that it is wrong at all. I found Clearday echos my thoughts on this subject. I really don't know. I don't understand homosexuality but what I do know, is that everyone is worthy of respect, compassion and love. Just because I don't understand it doesn't make it evil. Besides, what right does anyone have in the bedroom of two consenting adults.
|
|
3
Senior Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by 3 on Aug 8, 2007 9:33:54 GMT -5
Someguy:
Your post should win the 'post of the day' award for it's succinct content. Well said!
|
|
|
Post by Hope For All on Aug 8, 2007 12:46:03 GMT -5
But HFA, I think, then, that you and I agree as to what tolerance should be! I do not for a moment expect mainstream Christians to accept homosexual behavior as being acceptable within their theological framework or their personal code of ethics. Respecting my beliefs and practices without sharing them is even more than I could hope for. I would be content with tolerance in the sense of simply allowing gay people to live their lives unencumbered by the Christian's expectations that we conduct our lives according to their beliefs! Practically speaking, that manifests itself in at least two ways: 1. Don't support laws that make homosexual relationships illegal or less legitimate than heterosexual relationships 2. Ease up a bit on the proselytizing: gay reparative therapy, in general, is a failure. Dangling the hope of a 'cure' to the vast majority of gay people, young and old, is not much more than a cruel joke. Gene, you are being realistic about expectations of being fully accepted amongst mainstream Christians any time soon. This thread has reminded me again that there are still people out there who want you executed, and it's a horrific thought in this day and age. For now, the best you can hope for is to be left alone, and discriminatory practices minimized. If there is going to be a turning point for your group, I think it will come when science proves beyond any reasonable doubt that homosexuality is an inherent part of the way you were created. As long as this debate continues about biology vs environment and people think you can be ''cured", things will probably not change significantly amongst the heterosexual world. Once science proves the natural state of homosexuality, if it does, then heterosexuals are going to have to come to a better understanding of perversions and "abominations". I disagree with this kind of reasoning. God created man with many charactor flaws that if fed or allowed to grow, are unacceptable to him. The ability to commit adultery and murder to name two. Isn't this why we need God's power and help? To overcome our own weaknesses? Where would it end- if one took this reasoning to it's logical conclusion? I could justify all wrong behavior because "That's the way God created me". Peace, HFA
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2007 13:23:31 GMT -5
Gene, you are being realistic about expectations of being fully accepted amongst mainstream Christians any time soon. This thread has reminded me again that there are still people out there who want you executed, and it's a horrific thought in this day and age. For now, the best you can hope for is to be left alone, and discriminatory practices minimized. If there is going to be a turning point for your group, I think it will come when science proves beyond any reasonable doubt that homosexuality is an inherent part of the way you were created. As long as this debate continues about biology vs environment and people think you can be ''cured", things will probably not change significantly amongst the heterosexual world. Once science proves the natural state of homosexuality, if it does, then heterosexuals are going to have to come to a better understanding of perversions and "abominations". I disagree with this kind of reasoning. God created man with many charactor flaws that if fed or allowed to grow, are unacceptable to him. The ability to commit adultery and murder to name two. Isn't this why we need God's power and help? To overcome our own weaknesses? Where would it end- if one took this reasoning to it's logical conclusion? I could justify all wrong behavior because "That's the way God created me". Peace, HFA Some faulty reasoning here of your own to think about. You automatically leap to the conclusion that homosexuality is a "character flaw", a "weakness", or some such leap to conclusion. This is what hung me up on this issue all my life, I couldn't get past my own prejudice because homosexual behavior is so foreign, and disgusting in my own eyes.. You really have to think about what sin really is, what offenses really are and then look at it from that point of view. There is no slippery slope here as you intimate, because for two consenting adults, there is no offense, there is no defiance of nature, no going after "strange flesh". On the contrary, a homosexual in an opposite sex marriage is going against nature, against God's creation, against the unsuspecting spouse. It is an offense. Similarly, there is a long list of sexual sins that will always be recognized as sins, as there are offenses attached to every one of them. Examples are: heterosexuals involved in homosexual acts, homosexuals involved in heterosexual acts, any sex act against the will of another, any sex act perpetrated against a minor person. Even unbelievers can understand the concept of sin and offense in these cases even though they don't call it sin. The offenses are clear. The reality is that between two consenting homosexual adults, there is no offense to each other or against their natures. And, as I mentioned, science will soon confirm or deny that homosexuality is congenital or a learned behaviour. If science confirms it is strictly a learned behaviour, I will gladly condemn any form of homosexual behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Schrock on Aug 8, 2007 13:37:55 GMT -5
Are you angling at some sort of victimless crime logic here? No offense = no sin?
|
|