Homosexuality and Christianity. Warning: Reeaally Biiig Post!!
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... )
Where do you get that from? That seems like the most likely explaination to me.
I'm not 100% sure whether the opening of Genesis is literal fact or analogy (though I'm leaning towards literal fact - evolutionary explainations just don't explain enough), but either way, it portrays a man and a woman as meant for each other in marriage.
>"so clearly against the natural order"
The natural order has been corrupted by sin. The sin of humans has affected the whole world, animals included. I'd be wary of an argument the appeals to what seems to be against "the natural order", but even more wary about one that appealed to "what happens in nature". Even without the world being corrupted by sin, we are not the same as animals.
>It's not all doom and gloom, there were people in the debate I read who were not condemning homosexuality outright, and were saying why it shouldn't be condemned very nicely too.
Good. Homosexual people are still people, and homosexual behaviour is never singled out in the Bible as worse than any other sin. In fact, it's usually mentioned in part of a long list no-one can honestly claim to be completely innocent of.
Not all of the Bible is to be taken literally, but the parts usually refered to in debates on this subject tend to be ones that look fairly clearly literal (or very close to). Leviticus is a book of law, not poetry. Romans and the letters to the Corinthians are clarification on matters of doctrine: it's not the Psalms or the strange prophetic actions of Ezekial.
Reply
I agree that humans by their disobedience allowed evil into this world, and it has since been affecting everything. With the statement about "the natural order", I was merely wishing to make a point, namely how that specific argument was invalid and rather silly. I do not endorse using animals as a measuring rod for human behaviour, in most cases. (I will occasionally make comments like:"Animals kill to feed themselves and their family, not for fun or hate or greed like humans" because it is something that interests me).
The person who really caught my eye in that debate, was speaking about judgement and priorities, mentioning how it is silly to concern ourselves so much with the mote of dust in another's eye, and saying it is a shame that so many Christians seem to spend so much time doing just that instead of productive things, like helping people. This is something that really struck a chord with me, and something I feel quite strongly about. They mentioned that they had heard recently of a Christian advocacy group who's leader had suggested they spend more time helping the poor and less time in anti-gay lobbying. The group insisted that legislating against homosexuals was more important. I could almost quote the person who said this word for word here, because I agree so much with what they said; that it makes me so sad, when Christians decide that trying to force people to obey God unwillingly is more imortant than helping people.
I am aware that Leviticus is a book of law, I am also aware that like the rest of the bible, although it is the word of God, who is infallible, it has been perceived, interpreted and recorded by humans, who are. It has subsequently been translated countless times into other languages. This is in no way proof or even very strong argument that the specific verses in question are not correct, however it does mean that there is a possibility that their intended meaning and the meaning they now convey may be two different things. I should very much like to read it in it's original lanugage someday.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment