The 'gay vs the Bible' debate......

I know you don't intend to come across that way thelt. It is simply a function of the language of your belief system. Language carries great significance and words carry more weight than most people realize.

That goes back to the discussion earlier on biblical translations. A single word translated differently in the Bible isn't simply a minor thing, it can carry the weight of actually changing doctrine.

One of my issues with literal Biblical interpretation is that along with the lack of historical context. As has been pointed out, many of the Biblical laws were of sociological/anthropological nature. The protection of the bloodline and the growth of the tribe. Cultural standards that now carry with them Divine standards. If one is to accept the notion that the entire Bible is the inerrant Word of God, one has to ignore reason to a very large degree. By being allowed to ignore reason and embrace doctrine, it is much easier to accept ideas that independently would hold no value or even be abhorent, such as slavery, persecution and oppression.

Such thinking has not only allowed but encouraged the mindset of superiority of one's own tribe and the inferiority of the outsider. The outsider is someone who does not adhere to the strict doctrine of the tribe. It may be a non-believer or in the context of this thread, a homosexual. Once someone or some group is view as being outside of the accepted frame work, it is much easier to simply dismiss them or to do much worse and dehumanize them as something less than worthy.

While this type of thinking is prevelant in nearly all cultures, we are discussing Biblical thought vs Homosexuality in our culture where Christian doctrine holds primacy.

 

I think a superficial understanding of the bible leads to the "us verses them" mentality you describe. A true christian should have compassion and concern for all. Regardless of whether or not you take a literal view of the bible the salvation message remains a key part of any religion that can be considered christian. That message does not depend on one word or one passage it is the key theme of the whole new testament. The message says that all are sinners and all need God's forgiveness. It does not single out a group such as homosexuals and say that only they need salvation. It is the same for everyone. The term "dehumanize" should have no place in christianity because to be human is to be a sinner.

 

But you use terms readily that lower the stature of others in regards to your standing. You are "saved" yet they are "lost."
That simple word choice carries greater connotations than you might expect.

While a true Christian should have compassion and concern for all, in reality we both know that isn't the practical case. It is a goal but not a fact.

The entire basis of Christianity seems to be that humans are unworthy and flawed and less than God wishes them to be. While flawed, they still are loved by God but yet they still are unworthy of spending eternity in some sort of metaphysical paradise unless they declare themselves unworthy and truly believe themselves to be unworthy and beg God's forgiveness for simply being human.

 

Isn't there scripture that say's Love thy neighbor as thyself, if not then you have failed Jesus? Something like that? HB?

 

HH- I can imagine a straight man being 'repulsed' by the thought of them doing homosexual acts. Because that's exactly the way I feel about having sex with a woman. To me it isn't normal, doesn't feel right and leaves me unsatisfied. Throw a big hairy man into the picture and it's another story.

Good try Holly- but many Christians have the need to look down on someone to feel superior. They tend to pick and choose Bible verses at will to throw at you to support their stance.

The Bible mentions many 'abominations'. Why don't the Christians go after those people for a change?

 

I am not sure I follow how the "saved" vs "lost" lowers the stature of one person from another. The Bible doesn't say that to my knowledge at least. It's just two words to decribe one person that believes in the Bible and how you go to Heaven while the other doesn't.

Say two people are to leave North Carolina and travel to California, one of them has directions that they believe in and follow, while the other one doesn't. The one with directions makes it to California, while the other doesn't and we have no idea where they are and think of them as lost. That doesn't make them any less of a person.

 

My stature or anyone elses stature should not be changed by the words saved or lost. It is all about Jesus and none about me.

Prehaps that last part is an unavoidable consequence of being created with free will.

 

Christianity isn't a 'culture'. :banginghe

 

HB do you use the terms "lost" and "saved" and what is your thought on the terms?

 

The terms themselves don't particularly matter, thelt. I take it that your a literalist?