Why is Fundamental Christians so down on Homosexuality?

[paladin_carvin]

Because homosexuality is gross.

I'm not a fundamentalist and I'm not down on homosexuality, but as a naive, judgemental, fundamentalist teenager, I formulated several reasons and quoted several scriptures to justify my hateful bigotry, but the real reason always was I simply thought homosexuality was gross. Not my proudest moment.

All sexuality is kinda gross. Liquids, body parts... blah blah... but when you are in it, such things aren't really a factor.

 

[icedtea]

Amen! I hope I will never have it again.

 

[hithesh]

The authors of the Bible didn't live in a culture that was obsessed with western scientific thought and technology, so that means what they said about nature and the world is somehow inaccurate? I'm sorry, I think you lost me. Are you also saying that we should glorify man's ability to understand nature in the same post? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that come across as terribly ironic? Are you also saying that there is no water in clouds?

"God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it."

Just to point out, water in the clouds is below the dome, not above it. But what the verses are saying, though is that the water above had to be separated from the water below, like how Moses departed the red sea.

These writers assumed that since they see rain coming from the sky, that there must be some huge bag or ocean of water, above the sky, above the dome of the earth, that sprinkles down rain from time to time. Instead of realizing the rain forms and falls by the Bergeron process. So of course, these authors are inaccurate in their science, just as Aristotle and Plato were inaccurate in their assumption that the earth is the center of the universe. I'm sorry to say but a huge vat of water does not exist above the dome of earth.

Who said anything about glorifying man's understanding of nature?

What I was trying to show was that the author's of the bible are limited in understanding things relative to their time, they don't see homosexuality the way we do today, they see and understand homosexuality relative to their time.

 

[paladin_carvin]

I think what hithesh is trying to say (poorly, I'm afraid, my brother) is we are missing the context. There are many scholars that think what we've been translating as 'homosexual offenders' is indeed mistranslated, and that it should be 'homosexual slave trader' take a look on the subject http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/arsenok.htm . Honestly, in my oppinion, the research is far stronger for this than 'homosexual offender', but then again, it's pretty imposible to know given the limited use it ever had.

 

[GenemZ]

"God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it."

That was the state of the earth pre-Noahic flood. We do not know what that dome really was. What ever it was, it allowed men to live to be 800 years old. It may have had an effect on life on earth somewhat like the ozone layer does today.

Just to point out, water in the clouds is below the dome, not above it.

What dome? We have a dome today?

But what the verses are saying, though is that the water above had to be separated from the water below, like how Moses departed the red sea.

These writers assumed that since they see rain coming from the sky, that there must be some huge bag or ocean of water, above the sky, above the dome of the earth, that sprinkles down rain from time to time.

That part of Genesis spoke of the initial separation of the waters. No rain had appeared on the earth until Noah's flood time.

Genesis 2:4-6 (New International Version)

​

"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground."
​

Instead of realizing the rain forms and falls by the Bergeron process. So of course, these authors are inaccurate in their science,

At that point the earth did not receive rain. The earth was watered from below... Rain came with the time of Noah's flood and the world was transformed at that point.

What I was trying to show was that the author's of the bible are limited in understanding things relative to their time, they don't see homosexuality the way we do today, they see and understand homosexuality relative to their time.

What you were showing was this. That when the Word of God is not understood, its meaning will be perverted... Just like some pervert God's design in sex.

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[hithesh]

That was the state of the earth pre-Noahic flood. We do not know what that dome really was. What ever it was, it allowed men to live to be 800 years old. It may have had an effect on life on earth somewhat like the ozone layer does today

lol, are you serious??? Of course we know what the dome really was,
you look up at the sky, and you see a big blue dome .
You see rain pouring down from the big blue dome,
and you assume there must be a vat of water hovering above the dome,
that god pokes holes in from time to time to produce rain.

What dome? We have a dome today?

Well for the untrained eye, it sure looks like it.

That part of Genesis spoke of the initial separation of the waters. No rain had appeared on the earth until Noah's flood time.

At that point the earth did not receive rain. The earth was watered from below... Rain came with the time of Noah's flood and the world was transformed at that point.

Well, perhaps Noah never did see rain until the flood, but Moses sure did.
As I've said, the writers of bible are limited to understanding things relative to their time,
not relative to the time of their characters, they wrote about, or relative to our time.

But since you mentioned the Flood,
let's not forget that most of the themes (angry god, chosen survivors) of Genesis flood,
where around for a couple centuries before Moses penned his version of events.

You can try and deny it all you want,
you can even present elaborate theories to suggest that science of the bible is accurate,
but what you forget is that in doing so, the only person you are convincing is your self.
Because there no lessons in science that the bible is capable of teaching us.

In the same vain, there is no cohesive bible,
unless you are well aware of the anthropological influences that shape it.

No one stoned the adulterer because god willed it,
they stoned the adulterer because they willed it, and then wrote god sanctioned their will.

These individuals had no understanding of future, or evolving morality,
just like they had no understanding of modern science. These writers, wrote their books,
with the audience of their time, in mind, not us.
Paul particularly, he's writing confronting issues in Churches during his time.
Paul was concerned with issues facing his time, he is not aware, nor is he confronting moral issues of our time.
Christ is the only figure that teaches in future and current tense,
and that's why he places special value on the gospels, compared to other books.

it takes a cultural understanding of the terms presented. A failure to understand those terms is to do exactly what you claim literalists are doing; reading our culture into the text. it.

And as intricatic, so nicely pointed out, you can't use your culture to understand the text,
you have to peer through the eyes of the culture the authors were living in.

But this "putting yourself in past shoes" understanding, is not limited to just a few portions of the OT,
you have to keep these shoes on for the reading of the entire bible.

The writers of the bible are not writing of Today's homosexuality as sinful,
they are writing of there day's "Homosexuality" as sinful.

None of these Biblical writers explored the questions that have arisen today,
when we see a homosexuality beyond the sexual act,
that did not exist (or was not known about) in the times of the authors.

Our understanding is much different, than their understanding,
we live in a time, when we can see homosexual couples beyond the sexual act,
who are capable of a loving, committed, relationships just as their heterosexual counterparts.

Perhaps it's time we allow them to live in peace.

 

[cubanito]

Surely then, with enough context my becoming a serial killer/cannibal is justifiable.

 

[lilymarie]

lol, are you serious??? Of course we know what the dome really was,
you look up at the sky, and you see a big blue dome .
You see rain pouring down from the big blue dome,
and you assume there must be a vat of water hovering above the dome,
that god pokes holes in from time to time to produce rain.



Well for the untrained eye, it sure looks like it.



Well, perhaps Noah never did see rain until the flood, but Moses sure did.
As I've said, the writers of bible are limited to understanding things relative to their time,
not relative to the time of their characters, they wrote about, or relative to our time.

But since you mentioned the Flood,
let's not forget that most of the themes (angry god, chosen survivors) of Genesis flood,
where around for a couple centuries before Moses penned his version of events.

You can try and deny it all you want,
you can even present elaborate theories to suggest that science of the bible is accurate,
but what you forget is that in doing so, the only person you are convincing is your self.
Because there no lessons in science that the bible is capable of teaching us.

In the same vain, there is no cohesive bible,
unless you are well aware of the anthropological influences that shape it.

No one stoned the adulterer because god willed it,
they stoned the adulterer because they willed it, and then wrote god sanctioned their will.

These individuals had no understanding of future, or evolving morality,
just like they had no understanding of modern science. These writers, wrote their books,
with the audience of their time, in mind, not us.
Paul particularly, he's writing confronting issues in Churches during his time.
Paul was concerned with issues facing his time, he is not aware, nor is he confronting moral issues of our time.
Christ is the only figure that teaches in future and current tense,
and that's why he places special value on the gospels, compared to other books.



And as intricatic, so nicely pointed out, you can't use your culture to understand the text,
you have to peer through the eyes of the culture the authors were living in.

But this "putting yourself in past shoes" understanding, is not limited to just a few portions of the OT,
you have to keep these shoes on for the reading of the entire bible.

The writers of the bible are not writing of Today's homosexuality as sinful,
they are writing of there day's "Homosexuality" as sinful.

None of these Biblical writers explored the questions that have arisen today,
when we see a homosexuality beyond the sexual act,
that did not exist (or was not known about) in the times of the authors.

Our understanding is much different, than their understanding,
we live in a time, when we can see homosexual couples beyond the sexual act,
who are capable of a loving, committed, relationships just as their heterosexual counterparts.

Perhaps it's time we allow them to live in peace.

Is it really living in peace though... or denial?

Matthew 15

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Matthew 15
[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying,

2 "Why do your disciples disobey the tradition of the elders? For they don't wash their hands when they eat bread."

3 He answered them, "Why do you also disobey the commandment of God because of your tradition?

4 For God commanded,'Honor your father and your mother,' and,'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.'

5 But you say,'Whoever may tell his father or his mother, "Whatever help you might otherwise have gotten from me is a gift devoted to God,"

6 he shall not honor his father or mother.' You have made the commandment of God void because of your tradition.

7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,

8 'These people draw near to me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9 And in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine rules made by men.'"

10 He summoned the multitude, and said to them, "Hear, and understand.

11 That which enters into the mouth doesn't defile the man; but that which proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man."

12 Then the disciples came, and said to him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended, when they heard this saying?"

13 But he answered, "Every plant which my heavenly Father didn't plant will be uprooted.

14 Leave them alone. They are blind guides of the blind. If the blind guide the blind, both will fall into a pit."

15 Peter answered him, "Explain the parable to us."

16 So Jesus said, "Do you also still not understand?

17 Don't you understand that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the belly, and then out of the body?

18 But the things which proceed out of the mouth come out of the heart, and they defile the man.

19 For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual sins, thefts, false testimony, and blasphemies.

___________________

Adulteries and sexual sins or fornications are also two separate issues.

I don't think sexual sins were just for heterosexuals.

_____________________

However, you want to be a selective Bible reader, there is no one stopping you.

Denial is very blissful. I remember being there once for a short time until I started becoming miserable by the perverted blind guides of "the world".

I was lost. I am found.

_____________________

However hithesh, you still didn't answer my question... do you have a scripture in your NAB that says homosexual acts are not sins?

Or are you just "believing" this in your own mind and deflecting the issue by using some kind of "dome" issue?... which I see no relevance to the topic at hand. So, hopefully you've spoken enough about domes and clouds and rain and things.







[/FONT]

 

[paladin_carvin]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]However hithesh, you still didn't answer my question... do you have a scripture in your NAB that says homosexual acts are not sins?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Or are you just "believing" this in your own mind and deflecting the issue by using some kind of "dome" issue?... which I see no relevance to the topic at hand. So, hopefully you've spoken enough about domes and clouds and rain and things. [/FONT]

Alright, I'm lost on this dome crap. Listen, does anywhere in your scripture tell you that cars are ok? Or cell phones? I have no doubt in my mind that God is perfectly fine with a man loving a man, or a woman loving a woman. And I don't think the Bible contests this. I think for a long time, people have looked and saw something vaugely homosexual next to something negitive and not really looked into what exactly everything is, what every word means in original greek, take into the context the time they were speaking of, and the rest of the fine Biblical studies that are shown for the rest of the Bible. [/rant]

 

[lilymarie]

Alright, I'm lost on this dome crap. Listen, does anywhere in your scripture tell you that cars are ok? Or cell phones? I have no doubt in my mind that God is perfectly fine with a man loving a man, or a woman loving a woman. And I don't think the Bible contests this. I think for a long time, people have looked and saw something vaugely homosexual next to something negitive and not really looked into what exactly everything is, what every word means in original greek, take into the context the time they were speaking of, and the rest of the fine Biblical studies that are shown for the rest of the Bible. [/rant]

What do cars and cell phones have to do with anything? That's like saying ALL things are sin.

I'll stick with what the word of God has said is sin.

All the sins of the Bible have been proven to be destructive to either the body, mind or soul, or all three.

What does drunkenness bring about? A lot of destruction.

What have homosexual acts brought about? STD's and death.

I've studied all the things the Bible calls sin; thus sin can no longer be tested as "theory" as though it's going to produce a better outcome next time.

No where in the Bible does it say two men can become one flesh, nor does it say two women can become one flesh.

This gets old. Pervert the Bible if you want; however, you are simply worshipping a God of your own mind. That's an idol God that is quite comfortable, isn't it? I call that "comfortable" Jesus; a Jesus that one suits to their own flesh and mind.

And the Greek word porneia (sp?) means fornications, as in plural, and thus is the root word for pornography. Or if you want to shorten it "porn". So what do you consider porn? Just something the world made up? I see how the lusts of the world seek after porn, but that doesn't mean God accepts this as acceptable.

I believe in a God of very intelligent design, not one who created camp run-amok; a do whatever you please God.

 

[127Rockledge]

Lily, your last post, just wow. You need to re-check some of your sources for info.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Every verse you brought contains the same thing, they speak of homosexuality as only "sex". If I lived at that time I would consider homosexuality a sin too, the homosexuality they saw, was the "sexual immorality" of Ted Haggard. If i lived at that time I would also assume water existed above the heavens.

Think of it, how much of the behavior advocated in the OT, we would we find deplorable now? If I went off to war, and brought back a woman as a war prize, or if a general gave the order to his men, to kill every woman and child, think of how deplorable we would view such behavior. You see morality on the basis of the culture relevant to you. Your understanding of morality, is limitied to what you can understand of the world you live in, at a given time. Writers of the Bible are not immune to this limitation, and you see this limitation show, time and time again.

Romans 1:26
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Vile affections which go against nature.

Romans 1:27
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

It is not natural and it is unseemly.

Romans1:31
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Without natural affection.

So are you saying it is ok for a man to be with a man or a woman to be with a woman as long as they don't have sex? These scriptures plainly say it is against nature, vile, without natural affections for them to have sex. There is no where that it says that it isn't vile, or doesn't go against nature if they say they love each other and want to marry.

Can you give me a scripture that says they never wanted to marry or that they had this unnatural sex but didn't feel like they loved each other in those days?

Place show me the scriptures that say homosexuality was different back then then it is today.

All the scriptures I have read say that the act of having a homosexual relationship is not natural affections. How do you define affections? I can have affections for someone without having sex with them.

Verses 24 plainly state that God gave them up to uncleanness through the lust of their hearts, what does that mean to you? It tells us that those lust dishonoured their bodies, also. We are talking about the heart here, which lead them to the sexual acts that dishonoured their bodies. Both the love of man for man and the sexual act are spoke to here not just he sexual act.

Romans 1:24
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

In the 26 verse we again see how God gave them up to vile affections.

Romans 1:26
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

We see here also that we are talking about affections/love which leads to the sexual acts that go against nature.

So I would have to disagree with you thinking that these scriptures just speak of the sex. God knew back then what would be going on today, and gave us His Word to lead us through all things.
​

 

[GenemZ]

lol, are you serious??? Of course we know what the dome really was,
you look up at the sky, and you see a big blue dome .

Really? They had U2 pilots back then?

You confuse what we see as common knowledge today, with what they had no means to know. When I look at the sky, I see no dome. It seems to go on forever..... You can see a curved horizon in the sky? Better be wearing an oxygen mask if you can.

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[paladin_carvin]

What do cars and cell phones have to do with anything? That's like saying ALL things are sin.

I'll stick with what the word of God has said is sin.

All the sins of the Bible have been proven to be destructive to either the body, mind or soul, or all three.

What does drunkenness bring about? A lot of destruction.

What have homosexual acts brought about? STD's and death.

I've studied all the things the Bible calls sin; thus sin can no longer be tested as "theory" as though it's going to produce a better outcome next time.

No where in the Bible does it say two men can become one flesh, nor does it say two women can become one flesh.

This gets old. Pervert the Bible if you want; however, you are simply worshipping a God of your own mind. That's an idol God that is quite comfortable, isn't it? I call that "comfortable" Jesus; a Jesus that one suits to their own flesh and mind.

And the Greek word porneia (sp?) means fornications, as in plural, and thus is the root word for pornography. Or if you want to shorten it "porn". So what do you consider porn? Just something the world made up? I see how the lusts of the world seek after porn, but that doesn't mean God accepts this as acceptable.

I believe in a God of very intelligent design, not one who created camp run-amok; a do whatever you please God.

Whoa whoa whoa... I'm sorry... I can't take you serious any more. Homosexuals spread STDs? Anyone with a lick of common sense knows it has to do with UNPROTECTED SEX, and last I checked, heterosexuals spread STDs quite a bit too. But I digress. Cars have proven to be quite deadly themselves. Do I need to dig up how many died last year in auto accidents? I am not 'perverting' anything. I am taking a different view that is more logical and is backed up by traditional Biblical interpretation techniques.

 

[icedtea]

Absolutely true! I once got an std (shamefully) from a straight man. My former husband had a big std, and I didn't get it. People pre judge too quickly.

 

[intricatic]

"God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it."

Just to point out, water in the clouds is below the dome, not above it. But what the verses are saying, though is that the water above had to be separated from the water below, like how Moses departed the red sea.

These writers assumed that since they see rain coming from the sky, that there must be some huge bag or ocean of water, above the sky, above the dome of the earth, that sprinkles down rain from time to time. Instead of realizing the rain forms and falls by the Bergeron process. So of course, these authors are inaccurate in their science, just as Aristotle and Plato were inaccurate in their assumption that the earth is the center of the universe. I'm sorry to say but a huge vat of water does not exist above the dome of earth.

Who said anything about glorifying man's understanding of nature?

What I was trying to show was that the author's of the bible are limited in understanding things relative to their time, they don't see homosexuality the way we do today, they see and understand homosexuality relative to their time.

What dome are you referring to? I think you're reading way too much into the text than can actually be taken out of it. Water falls from the sky. Thus, there is somehow water in the sky. Does this mean they thought there was an ocean in the sky?

And as intricatic, so nicely pointed out, you can't use your culture to understand the text,
you have to peer through the eyes of the culture the authors were living in.

But this "putting yourself in past shoes" understanding, is not limited to just a few portions of the OT,
you have to keep these shoes on for the reading of the entire bible.

The writers of the bible are not writing of Today's homosexuality as sinful,
they are writing of there day's "Homosexuality" as sinful.

None of these Biblical writers explored the questions that have arisen today,
when we see a homosexuality beyond the sexual act,
that did not exist (or was not known about) in the times of the authors.

Our understanding is much different, than their understanding,
we live in a time, when we can see homosexual couples beyond the sexual act,
who are capable of a loving, committed, relationships just as their heterosexual counterparts.

Perhaps it's time we allow them to live in peace.

Perhaps you missed my point when I said that. When you make the claim;

The writers of the bible are not writing of Today's homosexuality as sinful,
they are writing of there day's "Homosexuality" as sinful.

Are you saying that homosexuality did not exist when the Bible was written, or just that the form they saw it in was sinful, but somehow it no longer is? Our understanding is only different in that our philosophical progression through the years has become more convoluted and transparent.

 

[hithesh]

Really? They had U2 pilots back then?

You confuse what we see as common knowledge today, with what they had no means to know. When I look at the sky, I see no dome. It seems to go on forever..... You can see a curved horizon in the sky? Better be wearing an oxygen mask if you can.

This is what I was trying to get at, they had no means of knowing what we know today. They see " a curved horizon in the sky", and assume it's a dome, and then they had to guess at where the water comes from when it's raining, and instead of knowing what we know today, that rain is formed from the water below, they assumed that a vat of water had to exist above "the dome" that produced the rain.

What done are you referring to? I think you're reading way too much into the text than can actually be taken out of it.

lol, I'm taking too much out of the text, than can actually be taken out of it!!?? Have you visited a YEC website recently? I'm adding nothing to the text, I'm just placing myself in the time of the Writers of the bible, who would did not have knowledge of things future (aside from a few prophecies of course). Just as someone of old who assumed the sun was some kind of fire, burning fuel, because he at his time had no knowledge of nucleur energy.

It was one of my teachers who asked us why Genesis writes of water above the dome, and the separation of the water above from below, and none of has had to really think about this, because we all knew the most rational explanation, and that's the one that I just presented here.

Water falls from the sky. Thus, there is somehow water in the sky. Does this mean they thought there was an ocean in the sky?

Yes, they thought there was an "ocean"/a large mass of water above the sky.

Are you saying that homosexuality did not exist when the Bible was written, or just that the form they saw it in was sinful, but somehow it no longer is? .

Yes, the form that they saw it in, was sinful.

Just as how, these writers saw pigs eating their own feces, and became disgusted by this, that they wrote god finds eating pigs deplorable. They saw homosexuality as a disgusting sexual act, and nothing more, just as they saw men having long hair as unnatural, and ungodly.

There are many things, that we would find "immoral" such as slavery, that the bible for the most part advocated. Now, we would find all forms of slavery "immoral", even if it adhered to the standards the bible advocated.

The bible never takes the liberty of openly condeming slavery, and this allows figures such as Jefferson Davis, to say:

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.", and you cannot from a Biblical based opposition to this.

Now, how does a society, move from this, to where we are now, in believing all forms of "slavery" are immoral? Why doesn't the bible go on ahead of us, and say slavery is "immoral", long before we did? Because the writers of the bible were not prepared to answer every question of morality, because their understanding is lacking, when it concerns life today.

But see, homosexuality works in the reverse. Here an earlier society finds it inherently "immoral", while later societies find many homosexual relationships to be "moral". Here a society views homosexuality as pure lust between two men (or two woman), and not an inherent attraction, that leads to "real" relationships.

The writers of the bible did not foresee two men in a monogamous, loving and committed relationship, going to church on sundays, tending to the weak, and pretty much living as high a moral standard as a good christian heterosexual couple.

Today we don't view homosexuality by the sexual act, the sexual act is insignificant, in how we view homosexuals, while the writers of the Bible only saw or knew of the "sexual act.", they deplored the act, unaware that two men could love.

 

[UBERROGO]

Because it's one of the sins they don't participate in so it takes the heat off of them. On the other hand it's okay if they stuff their faces at a pot luck at church or change spouses like underwear...

Im glad you said this before I did.

 

[intricatic]

lol, I'm taking too much out of the text, than can actually be taken out of it!!?? Have you visited a YEC website recently? I'm adding nothing to the text, I'm just placing myself in the time of the Writers of the bible, who would did not have knowledge of things future (aside from a few prophecies of course). Just as someone of old who assumed the sun was some kind of fire, burning fuel, because he at his time had no knowledge of nucleur energy.

Are you saying YEC's are a definitive statement of Hebrew cultural perspectives? Are you also implying that the sun is not a large ball of fire, simply because it is fueled by nuclear energy?

It was one of my teachers who asked us why Genesis writes of water above the dome, and the separation of the water above from below, and none of has had to really think about this, because we all knew the most rational explanation, and that's the one that I just presented here.

I'd also present that there was no understanding of a dome or what the Heavens were in relation to the Earth - the same as when this quote was stated;

I looked and looked but I didn't see God.​

— Yuri Gagarin

But with the Hebrew cultural heritage, they also lacked knowledge of space and the Earth in the way we see it. To read into the text that it meant that there was an ocean above the "dome" being spoken of is to read into the text something that's not there.

Yes, they thought there was an "ocean"/a large mass of water above the sky.

According to...?

Yes, the form that they saw it in, was sinful.

Was it just the form that was sinful?

Just as how, these writers saw pigs eating their own feces, and became disgusted by this, that they wrote god finds eating pigs deplorable. They saw homosexuality as a disgusting sexual act, and nothing more, just as they saw men having long hair as unnatural, and ungodly.

Ahhh, so we're getting down to it then. What is the gospel if the Old Testament that fueled it is irrelevant and antiquated?

Was this the same, though, as when they saw murder as a horrible wrong because they were disgusted with the act of taking the life of another human? As far as hair is concerned, please read This Article.

There are many things, that we would find "immoral" such as slavery, that the bible for the most part advocated. Now, we would find all forms of slavery "immoral", even if it adhered to the standards the bible advocated.

Perhaps you're still reading modernized notions into the passages that aren't really there. The fact is that slavery in Biblical times is the same basic idea as a working class job is today. They operated the same way, and existed for the same reason, only in Biblical times, the employees were given a place to live.

The bible never takes the liberty of openly condeming slavery, and this allows figures such as Jefferson Davis, to say:

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.", and you cannot from a Biblical based opposition to this.

People will always misrepresent ideas and use them to further their own cultural traditions that have nothing to do with Biblical concepts (note: Christ has made it clear that to be truly great, one must be a slave of all).

Now, how does a society, move from this, to where we are now, in believing all forms of "slavery" are immoral? Why doesn't the bible go on ahead of us, and say slavery is "immoral", long before we did? Because the writers of the bible were not prepared to answer every question of morality, because their understanding is lacking, when it concerns life today.

I don't believe slavery, as it exists in our culture, is immoral. I rather appreciate the working class jobs I've had while I've been in school.

But see, homosexuality works in the reverse. Here an earlier society finds it inherently "immoral", while later societies find many homosexual relationships to be "moral". Here a society views homosexuality as pure lust between two men (or two woman), and not an inherent attraction, that leads to "real" relationships.

And yet....many people still view it exactly the same way, because the honest truth is that sexual pleasure is incredibly subversive and deceptive.

The writers of the bible did not foresee two men in a monogamous, loving and committed relationship, going to church on sundays, tending to the weak, and pretty much living as high a moral standard as a good christian heterosexual couple.

Because it's just as damaging to any consistency in Christianity as a religion to do so as it would be to regard it unforeseeable on their part that murderers would be pioud, loving and commited people, going to Church on Sundays and tending to the weak, while pretty much living as high a moral standard as a good Christian non-murderer.

Today we don't view homosexuality by the sexual act, the sexual act is insignificant, in how we view homosexuals, while the writers of the Bible only saw or knew of the "sexual act.", they deplored the act, unaware that two men could love.

By "we", I assume you mean that you see it a different way?

 

[LockeTheMagna]

"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." -Phil 2:12

Work out your own salvations. It is an abomination to the Lord that you are bashing on these people that have the supposed 'problem' you proclaim. Love is tender and knows no gender.

"Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king." -I Pet. 2:17

Men are allowed to love each other. Is it not sacred, the love that is between a son and his father? Why is this love different than any two other men? If sex is not involved, then you must 'honour all men' and 'love the brotherhood' which is inherent in our nature as people. We want to feel loved. If it feels better to be loved by a man than a woman, we can't stop that.

Even if sex mattered in this issue, there is no significant claim against men being together, or women being together. The only grounds you have that men have sex with men and women having sex with women is bad is that the lust is based in pleasure, which is a sin. Do you not lust after your spouse? (In a straight relationship?) Is this not a sin as well?

Someone mentioned earlier that homosexuality is a sin. Who are YOU to say that someone is imperfect, until you yourself have worked out your impurities into perfections. And when this happens, you won't be on the same plane of existence as these supposed 'sinners'. You will go to whatever God you believe, and whatever society you dream of, be it free from homosexuality, or a gay convent.

My point is to work out your own salvation, not others. It clearly states it in the quote at the top of this post that you must fearfully work out your own salvation.

Leave the homosexuals to work out theirs.

Locke

'Shining light into the darkness of ignorance.'