Conservatives and Homosexuality

Post Reply New Topic

Put plainly, aside from personal preferences, if there were no Bible there would be no objection to homosexuality.

False. Even according to the Renaissance era, they were trying to follow something called "the natural order" (from which the french built most of their language around...). Whilst the french were discussing among themselves, they were saying that languages that did not follow such "natural order", such as latin, were inversions, or abnormal, if you will. This later got coined to design/include homosexuals as well. =/

That attitude often reflects a lack of actual experience and study in the Bible.

The Bible often references itself when some symbolic language is used. We know that those specific things should not be taken literally because the Bible itself tells us not to and even interprets those symbols. This happens throughout the Bible. A prime example is the book of Revelation, which at times is very tricky to interpret. Not ALL of it is explainable, in my opinion. I'm fond of saying "what the Bible really means here is..." but I have trouble doing that with Revelation. Right now I'm reading the Bible cover to cover and actually making a study of it, not just a passive time-filler like the typical cheap romance novel, so I can't rule out that I'll change my mind when I get there. I enjoyed the "Left Behind" book series, which is just a fictional interpretation of current evangelical Christian eschatology as it is presented throughout OT and NT prophecy and interpreted as best we can at this time. That those fictional events provide an accurate depiction of the end times is debatable, but in my opinion there really isn't anything significantly better.

How about the parables of Jesus? Those are clearly demonstrated to be symbolic, only stories to make a point. Jesus also spoke in hyperbole, which was a common feature of the language of the time. For example, the passage about "faith moving mountains." Jesus could have picked anything to make his point, and the mountain was just a convenient device at that moment in time. Those people would have understood what He meant. If you didn't understand that, you might go up to a mountain, believe with all your heart, and tell it to fall into the ocean. Go try it and let me know how it works out. It won't happen because that's not what Jesus meant. Personal opinion here, but I think what Jesus is saying about the mountain is if you believe that you can tell it to throw itself into the ocean and maintain the belief that it did as you said, even if material evidence shows otherwise, then you have the kind of strength of faith that believes in the impossible and the unseen. That kind of faith is a total commitment, not just a whim you can shake off from day to day, and it is very hard for most of us to hang on to.

Can the creation story be taken literally? Certainly. In fact, I think the believer has to because, for the opposite reason that my previous examples cannot be taken literally, this passage gives no indication that it shouldn't be. It doesn't say "In the symbolic beginning, the proverbial God symbolically created the mythical heavens and the metaphysical earth." I don't personally believe, for instance, that you can use the Bible in support of evolution or big-bang theory, though there are even Christians who would disagree.

People who think that wishing will make it so, even if the wishing is quite total and there is absolutely no evidence of the power of wishing, have a negligible chance to win Lotto.

Well, you also have to thing about the temptation of Jesus, "If you throw yourself off this rock, the angels will catch you," excuse the paraphrase. His response was "Do not tempt God." All the faith in the world is not going to save me if I jump off the Empire State Building just to prove a point. One point is an exaggeration to encourage a "big" faith, the other is a warning to those who think faith allows them to get away with anything they want.

You forgot to mention the passages in Leviticus that condemn eating shellfish, making clothes from mixed fabrics, and touching a woman while she's on her period, among others.

I didn't forget... I'm just prone to being excessively wordy. But yes, that is also true.

Certain things, though, apply to different people in different contexts. For example: Touching a woman while she's on her period--that had to do with cleanliness and purity in the context of ceremonial ritual. You would not be allowed in the Tabernacle, for instance, and there are corrective procedures for that. Sex with a menstruating woman, I think, was actually even worse and may have carried stiffer penalties, no pun intended.

Food and clothing standards have to do with making a clear distinction between Israelites and other ethnic/religious groups. Same with circumcision. The NT is good about clarifying and differentiating between laws that apply to Jews and proper Christian conduct. Acts previously associated with idolatry, for instance are automatically off limits. Having sex with a menstruating woman--OK, even though that's up to your own conscience, why would you want to?

But you are now engaging in a process of picking and choosing what you choose to observe.

As soon as you demonstrate that Scripture is contextual (by not stoning adulterers, for example) you lose the moral authority to insist upon a strict interpretation of those verses that you would like to see continue in strict application.

Right. Which is why I can maintain the belief that homosexuality is a sin, but I can't condone "witch hunt" style persecution of gays. That would also be contrary to the Gospel message.

What's really troubling about the OT (which at the moment is the focus of my reading) for me, though, is how weighty each infraction seems to be. EVERYTHING seems to have a death penalty. That's the impression I get when I read it, even though that's not really true except for idolatry, sexual sins (because of their ties to idolatry, among other reasons), and murder. But another way of looking at it is that the remission of sin isn't possible without a sacrifice. If you committed sin, with the above exceptions, you would be required to offer a sacrifice.

In the NT, it is written "For the wages of sin is death..." In our minds today, not thinking about the past context, we tend to think this ONLY means that mortal death is a result of our sin nature. Those Israelites (in the OT and maybe even in Jesus' time) would have experienced this in a REAL way. Every time they came to atone for all their sins, something had to die in their place.

As far as the picking and choosing goes: Yes, if you're going to rely on Law for absolution, you must follow ALL of it perfectly. I believe it was King Solomon (correct me if I'm wrong) who once said that no one keeps the Law (should be somewhere in 1 Kings if you want to look for it). In the Law, if you sinned against someone, you incurred a debt. If you couldn't pay it, you could work it off, which basically made you enslaved to that person. In the year of Jubilee, however, all debts were canceled, everyone returned their land to the original owners, everyone went home. So if it was impossible to follow all the Law in Joshua's day, comparatively soon after it was given, I can't even begin to imagine how bad it must have been in Jesus' day with so many other things tacked on. Many in Israel and Judah had just given up by that point.

We believe that the self-sacrifice of Jesus, being God-incarnate, paid the final sacrifice which cancels all sin-debts. That negates the need for any further sacrifice. It also supersedes any other ceremonial laws or laws that only served the purpose of establishing national identity. That means Greeks can still be Greek, Romans can still be Roman. One early misunderstanding was that new converts had to be Jews first, and one order of business that had to be addressed was the role of the Law in Gentile Christian life.

I am still puzzled as to why Jesus, who merely returned to Heaven after being kicked around a bit (which many less privileged humans experience as a common experience) is considered to have made a supreme sacrifice. Sure he suffered but that's tough. Why should that have changed the world if he still exists in Heaven?

I apologize for doing this, but I have to answer your question with a question: What difference would it really have made if Jesus had stuck around? No right or wrong answer, I'm just curious about what you think.

Probably he would have said a few more things. But that's avoiding my question. The basis for Christ's death being significant in an ultimate personal sacrifice is that he lost something hugely precious in dying. But there seems to be a logical conflict in that his continued existence in a delightful place indicates no sacrifice at all.

And, of course, the absence of God's fulfillment of total faith in his beneficence should indicate that faith is not a two way street. One may be punished for a lack of faith but one is never rewarded for having it. Ask Job.

I don't mind answering your question at all. You have to make up your own mind as to whether you believe it or not. Faith is not an issue for me, but I suspect it IS something you'll have trouble with if you don't live with it and experience it for yourself.

To answer your question, you have to, at least for the sake of argument, assume just as I do that Jesus was who He claimed to be--that is, He's the Son of God and God Himself. Now, don't ask me how that can be. It just IS. It's a mystery to me, but I nonetheless believe it. God is a perfect being and therefore cannot be tainted with human imperfection. The incarnation of Jesus represents God taking on human flesh. Apart from also being God, He lived a life not unlike that of others at the time, which means He has to accept the imperfection of a human, sinful world. Immaculate conception means He was born of the Spirit, not of the union of man and woman. So even though being human, He was still born without sinful nature. This doesn't mean that He wasn't vulnerable to temptation--the Bible tells us that He did face temptation. It just means that He had the ability to live a sinless life.

I won't get into all the details, just pick up a Bible and read it if you want to know. Jesus showed his followers that He was the Messiah of OT prophecy and that His purpose was to redeem people of their sins. He did this in different ways, one of which was performing miracles. Many people believed, and those that didn't had enough earthly power to put Him to death. In crucifying Jesus, those people took part in the fulfillment of prophecy and offered a perfect sacrifice. Remember, under the Law there is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood. Jesus, in being perfect, took upon Himself the debt of sin owed not by Israel, or Judah, or Greece, or Rome, but for all people of all nations for all time.

If you were God, in all perfection and glory and bliss or whatever, would you really subject yourself to the uncleanness of a rebellious creation? Could you really send your son (or any of your children) to do that kind of dirty work, even self-sacrifice knowing full well that people would still reject your offer? I couldn't do it. It doesn't make sense to me. God did something that is logically pointless (in human terms, anyway) and defies human comprehension.

Jesus, being supernatural as well as human, has the power to bring Himself from the dead. Think about that: How is it that God can allow His own creation to kill Him? How can an immortal being die? On the one hand, God is spirit and thus cannot be destroyed. On the other hand, He did take on human form that was vulnerable to physical attack and destruction. Given the severity of his punishment, there is no way He could have survived the cross, been buried that day, and come back on the third day. Those that mocked Him on the cross told Him to come down. He went a step further. He died and brought Himself back, which was a bigger miracle.

The resurrection is necessary because it represents the newness of life after sin.

Jesus stayed a while later and continued teaching until His ascension.

Now, more directly...

The world changed in the sense that all people, not just Israel, not just the Jews, but everyone has access to redemption through faith. Jesus had served His purpose. He returned to heaven because there was nothing left to do. He left it up to us to decide where to go next--to believe or not. The question I asked you was "What difference would it have made if He never ascended?"

Here's how I would have answered: If Jesus never ascended, one of two things would have happened. On the one hand, because of His human body, He might have aged and died again. If He'd died an earthly death, how could one claim that He was immortal and had control over Death itself? He'd just have been another teacher or wise man, no one special, no more authority than other teachers and wise men. If He'd stuck around and never ascended, then He'd be the oldest living human. Because we are free to make up our own minds, there would still be many of us who would believe Him. But there would also be those who'd just call Him some 2000-year-old freak. The Israelites of Moses' time could see a manifestation of their supernatural God, and many of them chose not to believe. Even those who have believed at some point showed doubt, like Moses himself. Jesus worked supernatural miracles and the priests and other people didn't believe. Every time God shows Himself, people fail to believe. If Jesus had stuck around, not ascended to heaven, would it really have made anything any different? Somehow, I doubt it.

Those who want to believe, will believe. Those who don't want to, won't.

The significance of Jesus still existing in Heaven is that He didn't die to get there. We're not even sure exactly where His grave was, except somebody built a church over where they think it was. Even if we DID know, we wouldn't find anything in it. All we have is the witness of people who were close to Him (the disciples) and others who had just as valid a personal relationship (Paul).

Christians believe that after Jesus' return to Heaven, the Holy Spirit was sent to reside within each believer. In that sense, God is still with us and within us. We KNOW God for ourselves because of our experience. We can prove it, but only because we believe it. That's not something I can give you because I can't paint a picture of it or even put it into words. It just IS, and the only way you can prove it is if you believe it for yourself. That's up to you.

Why should that have changed the world? I don't know. I'm not sure CHANGING the world was exactly the point, though. The point is that the world has access to a personal relationship with God. He's not some quiet observer behind a cloud somewhere that only listens to us when it's convenient for Him. He is unseen, but not unknowable. I guess the ultimate sacrifice of Christ changed the world in that God went from being the sole property of Israel (which was never the intention in the first place) to God of all people. No need for bloody sacrifices. Because we believe God dwells in ALL believers, there is a personal relationship that the Israelites never had. Before the crucifixion, this didn't exist.

I've really tried to answer the question, anyway. It's very hard to understand if you don't believe all this "nonsense." Many of us, if we're being honest, anyway, don't really understand it either. For us, understanding isn't requisite for believing.

That's a critical point. For you understanding is not required to believe. For me it is. I appreciate your effort but it is ineffectual on a crucial point.

For the record, Job was rewarded. Go back and read the ending.

Under the Law, obedience to God resulted in blessing. Disobedience resulted in curse. The books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings demonstrate that, not to mention the books of the Law.

Christians have a different view of reward: Our reward is not of this world, but of the next. Either you want to be with God or you don't. I think the best earthly reward is spiritual peace and peace of mind, and next to it is the companionship of other believers. If God blesses me with wealth, great. But the idea of accumulating great wealth for myself is troubling to me because it won't follow me into the afterlife. What good is a reward if you can't use it? If I've reaped all of my reward on earth, what good is it to me, and what will I care about my reward in Heaven if I've already gotten it here?

If it isn't a two-way street, so what? The creation exists for the Creator's purpose, not its own. All I know is that my needs are provided for. There's nothing more for me to seek, other than to do what God wants me to do. For me, the privilege of being God's slave is better than personal, moral freedom. God gives me life. For me, that's reward enough. At least I'm certain about where the road leads, and there's a lot of peace to be found in that.