• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

VOTE AGAINST

I see now that is in reference to Wrangor's post. Wrangor, would you please elaborate on this for me?
 
Rev - I appreciate your comments...RJ your comments are useless. I do not interpret the Bible literally, at least not the entire book. Some passages were meant to be literal, some were meant to be poetic, some were meant to merely give historical context. So while the Bible observes polygamy (even in some of its most famous heroes) you will never see the Bible promoting polygamy. Perhaps the best thing one can do when viewing the Bible is look for themes...they are present throughout the OT and NT, and they are consistent. When looking a the Bible as a whole it is clear that marriage/relationships are discussed at length. What is the theme that is presented? The theme of the Bible that is promoted throughout is one man, one man woman committed for life for the cause of procreation and enjoyment. That is the theme, and to be honest there is no real argument of that theme. Any attempt to take a microscope out at individual passages has to be observed under the umbrella of that theme. If you find a different theme when discussing relationships of the Bible I challenge you to make your claim.

So by taking a verse and claiming that it really isn't talking about homosexuality because that word didn't exist, or by saying that what this verse is really stating is that grown men shouldn't fondle little boys is missing the point. You are explaining your predisposition not trying to find the truth of the Bible. Assuming you love Jesus and place your trust in Him, here is the question that you should ask: what would Jesus want for this world's intimate/erotic relationships to look like? And then go find your answer in the Bible. Instead of asking if your natural desire is allowable, you should really search for what the Bible intends. And if you go and search the scriptures and find that what God wants for you is a man on man erotic relationship, then you have searched a different document than the one I know.

That is the reality of the Bible. It isn't comfortable or safe or full of worldly wisdom. It isn't a book of morality. It is a revelation of what God intends for humanity revealed through the story of his Son Jesus Christ...from Genesis to Revelation. Thanks for the discussion Rev...we obviously have great disagreements on how we see the Bible interpreted but I appreciate your tone...mine has come off much more aggressive than I intended so I am thankful for your civility.
 
RevDeac06 said:
Not at all. Don't really want to write a dissertation on the specifics, but the gist is this:
1) The Bible says nothing about sexual orientation, it may refer to homosexual acts, but my reading of these texts is more "don't do X, which is unnatural," but rather "don't do X if it's unnatural for you."
2) The OT references to homosexual acts makes sense in its historical context- you have a group that is wandering through the desert, trying to populate. Same reason why there are provisions against "spilling your seed."
3) The Bible is not the Word of God, that's Jesus, the Bible instead is the word of God. I put more trust in the Word than the word. It's about Jesus, not what people wrote about him, and I see Jesus continually going to the outcasts.
4) I trust in the Holy Spirit and in continuing revelation. The fact that we had a Reformation, that we now have ordained women, and no longer own slaves are all a testament to the fact that we've made mistakes in interpretation in the past, but the Spirit has guided us into new truths.
5) I do not think that the purpose of life is to procreate, but rather to build the Kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven. I think that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, can do that. I'd be surprised if God had a preference on who's building that Kingdom- black, white, latino, gay, straight, male, female, young, old, conservative, liberal. As long you abide in Jesus and act out of love, those other issues of identity aren't as important.
6) I think the canonical critical approach is the best for discerning the meaning of the Bible. You don't read 3-4 verses out of thousands and say "eureka, I know what the Bible says about ____." You read all of it, and then prayerfully look for the meaning using scripture, reason, and tradition. I think when we do this, the issue of homosexuality becomes a much more manageable one. Using the canonical approach, I read that God is about redemption, love, and justice. I see that God is constantly pushing us to new places and new understandings and that no one is cut off from God. I also believe that same-sex orientation is not a choice, nor is it a malignancy; so I do not see how it would be regarded as a sin or there being anything wrong about it.
7) The Bible does not speak about the Sacrament or institution of marriage, as neither, as we know it, existed at the time of it's writing. So to apply a literal reading of the text to a modern issue is rather ill informed, unfaithful, and illogical.

This is an issue I've done a lot of discernment, reading, and thinking about- but these ideas would apply to many other situations. Hope that clarifies my position.
Click to expand...

Just in case some of you missed this. Interesting thoughts.
 
RevDeac06 said:
Of course. I just think that once you move away from literal interpretation that fewer people hold such beliefs. And to be clear- the Bible is a book, an inanimate object, it has no morals. I once hear someone respond to the question "what does the Bible say about __________" with "a lot." The Bible is too wonderful and rich a text to only say one thing about anything. That's not to say it isn't consistent, but there other than love God, self, and neighbor, I'd be weary of interpreting too much of a specific "moral," as you put it.
Click to expand...

That's fine, but under that condition I don't see how it's unreasonable to make the Bible say whatever you want. From an outsider's perspective, it seems like your agreements with the Bible are simply due to ontogenic happenstance, and your disagreements, derived by the same process, have been dismissed simply by fiddling with syntactic, and in the more difficult cases semantic, content.

Not to be rude, but to me it seems like your interpretations of the ethical implications of the Bible are simply a reflection of your upbringing and cultural surroundings. I may be wrong, but if I'm not, then what purpose does the Bible actually serve other than being a quasi-accurate historical account?

I think it's fine that some Christians choose to interpret the Bible figuratively. I certainly think they are more reasonable than those who choose to interpret it literally. But you have to draw the line at some point, otherwise you go from being a Christian to being "spiritual".
 
Wrangor said:
Rev - I appreciate your comments...RJ your comments are useless. I do not interpret the Bible literally, at least not the entire book. Some passages were meant to be literal, some were meant to be poetic, some were meant to merely give historical context. So while the Bible observes polygamy (even in some of its most famous heroes) you will never see the Bible promoting polygamy. Perhaps the best thing one can do when viewing the Bible is look for themes...they are present throughout the OT and NT, and they are consistent. When looking a the Bible as a whole it is clear that marriage/relationships are discussed at length. What is the theme that is presented? The theme of the Bible that is promoted throughout is one man, one man woman committed for life for the cause of procreation and enjoyment. That is the theme, and to be honest there is no real argument of that theme. Any attempt to take a microscope out at individual passages has to be observed under the umbrella of that theme. If you find a different theme when discussing relationships of the Bible I challenge you to make your claim.

So by taking a verse and claiming that it really isn't talking about homosexuality because that word didn't exist, or by saying that what this verse is really stating is that grown men shouldn't fondle little boys is missing the point. You are explaining your predisposition not trying to find the truth of the Bible. Assuming you love Jesus and place your trust in Him, here is the question that you should ask: what would Jesus want for this world's intimate/erotic relationships to look like? And then go find your answer in the Bible. Instead of asking if your natural desire is allowable, you should really search for what the Bible intends. And if you go and search the scriptures and find that what God wants for you is a man on man erotic relationship, then you have searched a different document than the one I know.

That is the reality of the Bible. It isn't comfortable or safe or full of worldly wisdom. It isn't a book of morality. It is a revelation of what God intends for humanity revealed through the story of his Son Jesus Christ...from Genesis to Revelation. Thanks for the discussion Rev...we obviously have great disagreements on how we see the Bible interpreted but I appreciate your tone...mine has come off much more aggressive than I intended so I am thankful for your civility.
Click to expand...

I seriously don't think Jesus would care if gay people that were born gay, were gay. Nor would he care if straight people that were born straight, were straight. Pretty sure the common theme of the bible was don't be an asshole and be cool to the outcasts. This ain't rocket science: Jesus wasn't a bigot and would not want others to act in such a way in Jesus' name.
 
so how does one know what is supposed to be literal and what's an allegory?

That seems like an awfully convenient way to pick what you like and don't like.
 
I honestly couldn't care less if it passes or doesn't. I'm just glad i don't have to read anymore annoying posts on my facebook although I am eagerly anticipating tonight's facebook meltdown. It's going to be even better than the UNC vs. Duke ones I read after the games.
 
stonevilleicetea said:
I honestly couldn't care less if it passes or doesn't. I'm just glad i don't have to read anymore annoying posts on my facebook although I am eagerly anticipating tonight's facebook meltdown. It's going to be even better than the UNC vs. Duke ones I read after the games.
Click to expand...

The differences is that the Duke Carokina game is meaningless in the grand scheme of life while attacking individual freedoms and civil rights while creating a chasm of hostility in the state has a much more long term effect
 
This would explain how your opinion on homosexuality begins with what feels natural for the person, where as my opinion begins what what God defines as natural. A massive difference obviously.
 
RevDeac06 said:
I think this is really what our disagreement boils down to. I don't think the Bible is a book of answers, and actually I think we end up with eisegesis, instead of exegesis when we treat it as such.

Agreed, good conversation.
Click to expand...

This right here is where my friends and I differ. I find the people who know a lot of the text, but don't know the heritage and historical context etc. extremely frustrating. My grandfather, who was a minister and is a biblical scholar, always emphasized that heritage, history, and context were the most important things. He traveled to the holy lands often and he and his friends studied the Bible extensively, both the text and the circumstances around it. As such I have been educated on that front. However, I have read the text a lot less than some of my friends and they just throw verses at me and then claim I know nothing and its literal etc. because I haven't memorized things out of context.
 
TR1982 said:
That's fine, but under that condition I don't see how it's unreasonable to make the Bible say whatever you want. From an outsider's perspective, it seems like your agreements with the Bible are simply due to ontogenic happenstance, and your disagreements, derived by the same process, have been dismissed simply by fiddling with syntactic, and in the more difficult cases semantic, content.

Not to be rude, but to me it seems like your interpretations of the ethical implications of the Bible are simply a reflection of your upbringing and cultural surroundings. I may be wrong, but if I'm not, then what purpose does the Bible actually serve other than being a quasi-accurate historical account?

I think it's fine that some Christians choose to interpret the Bible figuratively. I certainly think they are more reasonable than those who choose to interpret it literally. But you have to draw the line at some point, otherwise you go from being a Christian to being "spiritual".
Click to expand...


Actually his interpretation is pretty much in line with the Orthodox view. There is a whole population that does not go in for the protestant view of the bible.
 
Last edited:
Wrangor said:
This would explain how your opinion on homosexuality begins with what feels natural for the person, where as my opinion begins what what God defines as natural. A massive difference obviously.
Click to expand...
Would you please elaborate on the "natural" aspect
 
TR1982 said:
Not to be rude, but to me it seems like your interpretations of the ethical implications of the Bible are simply a reflection of your upbringing and cultural surroundings. I may be wrong, but if I'm not, then what purpose does the Bible actually serve other than being a quasi-accurate historical account?.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course, I can't escape the lens of myself when reading the Bible, that's part of the reason why the Church is so important is Biblical interpretation and discernment, because you can become more aware of such biases.

The purpose of the Bible is that it tells a story, namely the story of God and humanity's relationship and the story of Jesus of Nazareth. Knowing the story is important, because it's awfully hard to take part in the continuing story if you don't understand it.

I agree that there does need to be an element of orthodoxy to avoid slipping into a religion of happy thoughts. For me, those elements are God's love, the fullest revelation of God in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Essentially, the Nicene Creed. This is really one of the gifts of Anglican theology and it's concept of the via media- the truth, as far as we can pinpoint it, isn't one thing, but rather a range. Doesn't diminish the truth, but rather, liberates it.
 
bojanglefunk said:
My grandfather, who was a minister and is a biblical scholar, always emphasized that heritage, history, and context were the most important things. He traveled to the holy lands often
Click to expand...

This- I was blessed enough to have spent March in Israel and to say that the experience blew the cover off the Bible would be an understatement. I realize not everyone has the chance to go, but just being aware of the context of the Bible is really crucial. If we can understand what the Bible meant to it's authors and audience, then we have a much better chance of understanding it today. It would be like reading Shakespeare without knowing anything about 16th century England.
 
bobknightfan said:
I have a couple of questions about the Bible. How many times has it been translated....by how many people speaking how many different languages....over how many hundreds of years? Considering all of this, how can you be sure, with any degree of certainty, of the accuracy of anything in it today?

I'm not trying to put the Bible down. I'm only saying that trying to defend a position....any position....with some quote in the Bible is very problematical, at best.
Click to expand...

Translations- dunno, try Google, but thousands, in pretty much every language ever spoken, and probably some not spoken (Klingon, etc.) The Old Testament was likely written over a 500 (give or take) year period, the New Testament over about a 60 year period.

How am I certain? I trust in the Holy Spirit, but more than that, as I've said in other posts here- personally, I put much more stock in Jesus than I do the Bible. I agree, quoting the Bible isn't the most helpful way to discussion, and I'm glad this thread hasn't gone there. That's why I advocate looking at larger frames, such as the whole Bible and the tradition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top