Here is the thing (IMO). There are absolute rights and wrongs, but sometimes we humans are wrong in determining what those things are. In the past many Christians defended slavery. That did not make it right. I do believe the Bible is very clear on homosexuality. I also believe the Bible is very clear about reaching out in love to homosexuals (or fill in any other sinful behavior). We can stand firm against certain issues, but we better be examining ourselves at the same time. We also need to make sure we don't think certain people are beyond the saving grace of Jesus Christ. I can vote for people who don't want homosexual marriage legalized. I can voice my opinion in debates when they are friendly and civilized. I can live my life as close to Christ as possible and share the Gospel with others. I have often wondered if my son were in school, would I mind if he had a homosexual teacher. I don't think I would as long as that teacher did not promote his/her lifestyle in the classroom. If they stuck to teaching the subject they were assigned to-that would be alright. If I choose to stand on a pedestal and openly condemn any homosexual, I had better be prepared to condemn a large part of the population for all the other sexual sins AND I had better condemn myself for my own sexual sins. Instead I should just live my life as an example and I mean a minute by minute walk with Jesus type of example. I should be prepared to share the Gospel whenever He asks and only speak to certain issues when He wants me to and be quiet when He asks me to. I am not totally there yet (will I ever be?), but He has transformed this negative type "A" personality person into a much more joyful person who truly loves to get to know a lot of the un-churched people I work with. They aren't horrible scary people, they just don't know the great grace offered by their creator. I also don't think I need to openly speak of how horrible homosexuality is all the time, because most people know Christians (or most Christians) are not for homosexuality. One more thing I once heard or read that Christian should not only be known for what they are against but also what they are for.
Well said, Cabsmom. The local elementary school did have a gay principal. She was an EXCELLENT educator, from everything I've heard (since my children never attended there, but I did sub and I personally was impressed with my limited contact). HOWEVER, the older children were aware of her lifestyle choices and were subtly being taught that it was "OK". How do you explain to a child that Ms. F is a WONDERFULLY NICE PERSON, but her behavior and life choices are not acceptable in the sight of the Lord (regardless of what society says about it!)? I also heard (and I admit this is hear-say, but I do know the person and trust this person) that she had a teacher as a lover, and it did cause trouble, as she ignored problems dealing with that teacher. But this would be wrong even if it were a hetersexual relationship.
I have met some wonderfully "nice" people who sinned in other ways also. OH Yeah, I fit that category also before I met Christ. Here is what I would tell a child that was old enough, that even though this person's sin does not affect us personally it is still a sin. I would remind them that all people are sinners in need of the Savior's grace and forgiveness. The world's standards can't be used in light of eternity. God's standards are quite different-hating someone is the same as murder (that makes a lot of us murderers). I never watched the show "Ellen", but I don't watch any sitcoms anymore and haven't for a long time, except reruns of older ones. I personally think she is a funny person from the limited times I have seen her on TV. That doesn't make her homosexuality right. It does illustrate that she is human though. I have met some pretty amicable people who smoke pot. I don't agree with their decision and I don't join in and I am not present when they indulge. I find that some people that are rough around the edges are much more honest about who they are and more down to earth. I can really get along with them. I also really love meeting Christians who have backgrounds that are "rougher" for lack of a better word. Boy, I am wandering...I guess I am just saying let's not throw people out because of their sin, but let's not fall into the "tolerance" bull either.
Well said! My bosses (one of whom is a long-time friend) are a lesbian couple. They are two of the funniest, sweetest people I know. They come to my house to hang out at least once a month. One of them has watched my children a few times. But they know that if they want me to respect them, they have to respect me. And for that reason, my children have no idea there is anything "couple" about them. I never had to ask for the arrangement, either. They made it clear that out of respect for my friendship they would never let on in front of my boys. Now, once they're older, I'm sure they'll put 2 and 2 together. The last time they were here, my 5 yo pointed out that S looked like a boy. I'm assuming that by the time they start to catch on, they'll be old enough to discuss it.
Most Christians I know are not against homosexuality. But I'm in Eastern Canada, more moderate and liberal churches are the norm here. Regardless, I respect your post (and Amie's). We may disagree on homosexuality but I think we'd fundamentally agree on how we should conduct ourselves as people of faith and how we should treat others, even those who would seem to be sinners in our eyes. It's common ground I'm VERY glad to share with you and other people here. :love:
Dawninns, Thank you for debating in such a nice manner. In fact, I think we have all presented our arguments without being ugly at all. One thing though (and I am not trying to be ugly), how do people defend homosexuality as right from a Biblical perspective? I can almost (not totally) understand how people can think it is right without a Biblical perspective, but the Bible speaks out against it. I am truly asking and not trying to stir up a hornet's nest. In the end, it won't matter what WE think. It is what God has set as His standards that will count and we won't be able to argue our way out of it. This pertains to things I think are glaringly right or wrong from the Biblical perspective and things I may myself be wrong about. Someone even brought up the women in leadership position in this thread. I have had that come up with a friend of mine and she thought I was going to bash her for believing that women shouldn't be in leadership. I told her honestly that I don't have enough knowledge about that to argue one way or the other. I honestly need to do some research. I won't be offended either way. If women are not supposed to be leaders, I can honestly accept that.
I'm by no means an expert. Nor do I have a ton of experience with gay Christians. But... I've heard many people say that God wouldn't create someone to be gay (the "born this way" idea) if it was wrong. Sort of like saying, "God wouldn't have made me a lefty if I was supposed to use my right hand." Which is where I draw my previous statements about all of us being born sinners. The problem I see there is that argument could be used in any sinful lifestyle. Some could argue that sociopaths were born that way, so we should leave them be. Yes, I know, the homosexual issue is different because they "aren't hurting anyone." But the logic is the same. If we are supposed to give free reign to natural tendencies (read: carnal) because we're born with them so they must be the way God wants us, then why draw the line at victimless sin? I mean, who am I to say that God didn't send a sociopath to be His angel of death?! Right? [Coincidentally, the long-time friend I mentioned above is a Christian. When she came out to me 5 years ago, she said that she knows it's wrong and can't deny it.] To hear an answer from the horse's mouth, so to speak, check out Larry King's interview with (former) Christian musician Jennifer Knapp. She was one of my faves in the 90s. I still worship like crazy to her older music. But she's a lesbian. (The interview is in 4 parts. The link is to part 1)
There's a great deal of the Bible that we can't take literally. We just can't - it's not practical or kind. I was taught in Church that Jesus freed us from the old rules for that very reason. Here's a few... Deuteronomy 23:1: "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord." That poor disabled guy, barred from church! Is that kind or just? Deuteronomy 14:21: "Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner..." My goodness, I hope the Bible's not telling me it's all right to sell road kill to people just because they're foreign! And then of course there's always the sticky issue of God commanding Samuel to kill innocent babies. (I sent that one to a religion column in the newspaper and got back five different versions of "it was a different time and special circumstances which will never ever be repeated" from the religion experts.) I have a degree in Classical History, and my mother is a Religious Studies professor. In my opinion the Bible is the most important and holy text in the Western World. But the Bible has been passed down to us through human hands, and as such is just as flawed and damaged as we human beings are. We don't listen perfectly. We let our own ambition get in the way of God's word. We've chopped large chunks out of the Bible and mistranslated other bits. A classic example - that whole bit about the camel through the eye of a needle. Now the linguistic experts are saying, "oops, the word isn't camel, it's a similar word meaning rope." Which changes the chances of a rich man getting into heaven from ludicrously impossible to just plain difficult. There are also two separate accounts of Creation, one in which humans were created before animals, and another in which humans were created after - which is correct? Bible scholarship is a complex and fascinating area of study. I am FAR from an expert on it, and I'm in awe of scholars who dedicate their lives to it. However, for a fun glimpse at just how hard it would be to live a literal Biblical life in the modern world, I strongly recommend reading "The Year of Living Biblically" by A. J. Jacobs. I think the MOST important thing isn't worrying about sin. It's simply trying to live a good, kind, compassionate life, full of love and joy. Try to bring peace, and try not to create conflict where none is needed. If you've done your best to lead a good, ethical, honorable life, then no matter what religion you follow, no matter who you are, I believe God will welcome you into his Kingdom.
Part of it is I likely have a different view of the Bible then you. I see it as inspired by God but written by men and subject to the biases and cultural influences of those men. There's a new Bible Study for kids written by a gentleman who describes that view as a parallel to how we view Jesus. Jesus was divine AND human. The Bible is divinely inspired but also the work of human hands. I also think the Word is Jesus. The Bible is not the Word, it's the witness to the Word. Anyhow, for me that means a statement like, "the Bible speaks out against it," doesn't really work. A certain author or several may have spoken against it but I'll weigh that against the context of their times and against the messages of Jesus. There are no passages condemning slavery in the Bible and many that seem to condone it yet we weigh those passages against the greater message of Jesus and find we can't justify slavery. Paul made it quite clear that celibacy was the ideal, not marriage and yet we accept that marriage is a reality and a even a virtue for most of us. Paul also told us ladies to cover our heads in church and yet we understand there was a specific context, embedded in the time he wrote that letter, to that command. Nevermind Leviticus, most Christians just ignore most of that. There are a handful of mentions of homosexual behaviour in the Bible. Balaam's talking donkey got more air time. I don't feel especially compelled to condemn it based on that. I'd also argue that Sodom and Gomorrah is not about the sin of homosexuality. The story's writer and the culture of the time certainly wouldn't have approved of it and it's used as an example of wickedness but another interpretation is that the sin that condemned both kingdoms was the violation of Lot's home and the hospitality he was providing the angels. This sounds rather trivial to us but in ancient times and in harsh conditions hospitality was paramount. It still is in the Middle East today. I am not saying you have no justification for believing homosexuality and I am by no means attempting to change your thinking, just explaining why I don't feel compelled to accept that it's sinful. I don't think my salvation hinges on this issue so I feel free in accepting the gay people I know as they are and not praying for a change in sexuality for them. There were female leaders in the ancient church, at least in Paul's time as he mentions a few. I'm thinking that as churches grew out of the households and Christianity took hold in more influential classes Roman paternalism took over. I can't remember which epistles he mentions them in at the moment Too late - must sleep) but I'll check if you'd like. Regardless, there's precedent. I do want ot make sure that by seeing that I see a human hand in the Bible it doesn't mean I think the Bible is untrue or flawed. We insist Jesus was fully divine AND fully human because without our humanity Jesus would not truly have understood us, been capable of suffering and there would have been no real sacrifice. It's his humanity we need as much as his divinity to accept Him. I see that with the Bible as well. Luckily I belong to the Anglican church which isn't a sola scriptura church and where my views don't raise any eyebrows but might inspire a few, "we've heard it all before," yawns. Anyhow, I've babbled. Again, none of this is to convince you I'm right. I very well might be completely wrong but I thought I'd give you a bit of a rundown on the matter. I just hope you understnad it because I am tired and not entirely sure I'm making sense.
I'm conflicted on the issue of flaws. The were errors. There were mistranslated words, chunks edited out, women turned into men (got to find the reference for that - an early bishop in the church I believe who went from being female to male once scribes in the Middle Ages started their work) but then that's humanity and even the flaws, in a sense, aren't because they're informing us about ourselves and our relationship with our God and faith. I think the problem is less the errors and more our narrow views of what constitutes truth. Those errors tell us key things abut past Christians and ourselves. A person of faith could quite easily look at those errors and see some divine hand giving us a lesson about how the Bible is a living book that changes or how prone to errors we really are and maybe we need to trust Him more and approach the Bible with our thinking caps firmly in place. These are just recent thoughts anyway. I don't have the degrees you or your mother have but I did go through Sewanee's Education for Ministry course and was steeped in the Documentary Hypothesis an Four Source Theory. Completely tainted.
Which is an idea that owes more to St. Augustine then to the Bible. Or rather, Augustine's interpretation of the Bible and his idea of Original Sin.
I've read this thread several times trying to decide whether or not to respond. I've not felt like I had anything to add. I'm still not sure I do, but I cannot just read this and not comment. I just so deeply disagree with this statement. You are certainly welcome to believe it, but I don't see how the Bible supports it. Jesus is the Way. He says so Himself.
That's cool - I respect your opinion! Me, I believe in a loving God who must certainly be at the root of all religious belief and expression. And I can't possibly know for certain that my particular religion is the right one and everyone else's is wrong, so instead I choose to believe in God's infinite mercy and understanding. Jesus showed us the way, but for me the Way is about how you live and what you DO, not what church you go to. I imagine we'll all find out who's right, someday! But in the meantime, I feel it's more important to live in peace with my neighbours, love my family, and take joy in the life I've been given. It's a good life! Harboring anger, hatred, contempt or even pity for people who mean me no harm, doesn't seem right to me at all.
Like! :love: God is Holy...perfect in all ways...He cannot tolerate sin of any kind. He is also JUST. He cannot overlook sin or pretend it doesn't exist, even if it exists with the best of intentions! So he made a way....a sacrifice. A perfect person bore the sin, was slain for it, and satisfied the penalty of it! This let's God accept us (because we become sinless IN CHRIST) and remain JUST because sin was paid for. WooHoo, makes me happy!!!
I understand you have a different viewpoint, but what do you do with texts such as the one where Jesus said that He is the Way, the truth, and the life and that no man comes to the Father except through Him? I agree that the way has nothing to do with the church you attend. I would also say it isn't about how you live and what you do. That would be a works-based religion. It is about who your master is.
I could spend all day commenting on the other points you made along with this one, but this is the most glaring.... The second account, where man was supposedly created before animals, is not a chronological account. That's plain and clear from the reading. It's a summary. Have you ever told a story and realized that, in an effort to be brief, you've left out a key detail and had to add it to your telling, even though it means your story is out of order? Yeah... that. If my husband asks me what I did today. And I tell him I went to the zoo and grocery shopping.... oh.. and to the dry cleaners. Even though I went to the dry cleaners first, that does not mean I can't be taken literally. If I say, "first I went to the zoo, then to the grocery store, and last to the dry cleaner" then I've erred. You can't get hung up on the use of the word "now," either. It's not indicative of a next step. It's a reference to something that already happened: like, "See now, I had gone to the dry cleaner already, so I had time for the zoo."
Couple points here: The Deuteronomy texts are part of the Torah law. This law was introduced to increase sin. (Romans) It points to the need for a Savior. But no, those laws have nothing to do with us. The are part of the covenant given to Israel. The new covenant is not like the old (Hebrews). The new covenant was fully given at Pentecost which happens to be the anniversary of the giving of the law on Sinai. Jesus didn't free us from the old laws because they aren't practical for us today, but because they were impossible to keep and the life we live in Christ is nothing like the life of ancient Israel. As born-again Christians we have God living in us guiding us. Israel had a prophet here and there that communicated with God and even that wasn't as good as we have now. It is important to consider that you can't just take a text here and there. You have to put them in context of the whole. Otherwise some things might sound pretty ridiculous. The rich man going to heaven? The passage wasn't about rich men going to heaven. I find that this passage is one of the most beautiful things Jesus taught. Notice He started out by teaching that there is only one who is good - God. The rich young ruler thought he was good and he declared he had lived according to all the rules and standards. Jesus proceeded to show him that he too was guilty before God and that it was impossible for man to save himself with his good works. But with God all things are possible. The Genesis issue is often an issue pointed at, but many view that Genesis 1 is an overview and Genesis 2 just goes into more detail.
OK - it's my turn to nit-pick. We are not made righteous; we are declared righteous. Does the Bible we read today contain errors? Most definitely. This may go against 'sound-bite Christianity', but it can't be denied.
