Comments | mickeyfelix: Homosexuality and Christianity. Warning: Reeaally Biiig Post!!

mickeyfelix

Homosexuality and Christianity. Warning: Reeaally Biiig Post!!

Mar 08, 2007 23:06

I've been reading a group of Christians debating on the subject of homosexuality, and being aggravated by the lack of one single person who even considers not taking what is said on the subject in the bible entirely literally ( Read more... )

Comments 17

becky44 March 9 2007, 00:54:40 UTC

Actually... there's another good point to be had in Genesis - that bit about God creating Eve from Adam... sounds a little bit like the other mainstay of the orthodox church and makes Eve to be MtF! So not only does the bible, in it's opening chapters, endorse homosexuality, it also endorses the transgender situation rather nicely. And people wonder where religions have lost the plot?

fredtheavenger March 10 2007, 00:34:13 UTC

Sorry, where does it endores homosexuality? I really can't see it.

And Eve was created as a woman, using part of a man. That sounds like how female babies are made to me, not like an MtF transgender person. She wasn't created male, then "converted", or created female but in a male body:
"And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man." Genesis 2 v22

mickeyfelix March 10 2007, 05:49:49 UTC

Hehe, well I think I know what you meant, and it is funny, and a nice thing to hear in my opinion! Thankyou.

Of course in the Garden of Eden everything was perfect, so no-one would be suffering with such an unpleasant condition as being transgendered, but I don't think that's what you were getting at. I see the symbolism, if you choose to look at it that way it kinda works, and it's fun to think of it like that lightheartedly. =D

*huggles*

covey March 9 2007, 10:09:42 UTC

I'm with you in your annoyance at people misreading and misusing the Bible; but (despite having leanings that way) I've not personally managed to reconcile being gay and Christian. Now, I'm not saying that it can't be done, and I would love indepth (face to face) discussions with people who have. It's just that, being in a long-term relationship with a girl who I love and will spend the rest of my life with, I've not been made to decide ( ... )

mickeyfelix March 10 2007, 06:10:45 UTC

I think that came across very well ( ... )

serpentstar March 9 2007, 10:46:07 UTC

A lot of the problem arises because certain Christians believe the portions of the Bible that fit their existing prejudices (e.g. against homosexuality) to be literally true, but not other portions of the Bible. (They're almost worse than the ones who believe the whole thing to be the Word of God... at least the latter are consistent.)

In the past, Church scholars didn't tend to portray the Bible as literally true, but as a series of inspiring, proverbial tales or myths which gave one guidance as to how to live. Said tales or myths didn't have to be in conflict with science, because science was a different kind of truth -- literal truth rather than moral/spiritual truth.

mickeyfelix March 10 2007, 06:16:46 UTC

Well said, sir!

As usual, you manage to express what I'm thinking of better than I could! Words have never been my strong point, I tend to overcomensate, hehe.

*hugs* 'n' such,
Was nice to hear from you!
FxXx

3firesburning March 9 2007, 17:16:44 UTC

Just a quick point:

Most Christians I've come across will actually cite Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, ""Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination," and "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they should surely be put to death...." respectively...

3firesburning March 9 2007, 17:19:08 UTC

Yes, I was surprised to find that one not actually quoted in the discussion I was reading. That was, however, what I was mostly referring to when talking about the fact that none of them seem to consider not taking what is said word for word literally.

mickeyfelix March 9 2007, 17:20:28 UTC

Doh! For some reason livejournal decided to sign me out when I clicked 'reply to this'... I was signed in before and didn't notice, sorry about that

3firesburning March 10 2007, 22:13:03 UTC

=) For the sake of debate then...

How else is there to take it? It's a word for word, "You will not do this", basically a "Thou shalt not". Homosexuality is called an abomination, as is bestiality. How else should you take it, if not literally? And if you can choose to ignore that, (or to take it to mean something else) why not apply the same logic to any other of the Thou shalt nots we find in the Bible? What other interpretation is there for a line that says, "You may not do this" ?

Thread 7

fredtheavenger March 10 2007, 00:25:54 UTC

> "and they do not marry their sisters, if they had any ( ... )

mickeyfelix March 10 2007, 05:37:03 UTC

Okay, I guess I shouldn't listen to all my teachers, heh. The idea that they didn't marry sisters came from a bible-study/learning session that I don't remember too clearly. We were looking at the text in it's original language (well, the leader was, since he'd studied the language, I wasn't ( ... )

mickeyfelix March 10 2007, 05:37:27 UTC

Sorry for the huge long comment!