I don't get it...

[Lord_Barthok_Soc]

Paul's advice was cultural. We are free people and women do not have to adhere to ancient customs to please God. The Spirit-filled life goes way beyond how one presents oneself in the congregation. God looks on the heart, not the head.

Posted in a thread discussing whether on not women should wear head coverings, on the basis of text in 1Corinthians11. I have not included the poster, to emphasise that this is not meant as a personal slight. Please do not take it that way, or attempt to make it out as one. There are other examples that also back up my point; this one merely happened to be read tonight and struck me as being quite illustrative of our miserable situation.

The female poster is a fairly frequent writer in the DoH forum, often amongst those adamantly expounding that the Word of God must be obeyed as written and homosexuality is therefore wrong full stop.

What I find interesting is that when faced with a matter that is already pretty much decided by today's society and also more easily identified with, it is suddenly okay to dismiss (from the very same epistle used to condemn homosexuality) as "cultural" a fairly clear-cut demand of Paul's. Better yet, to denounce the following of "ancient customs" under the assumption that they please God and are right for us in this day and age.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that in this case her post is great and I concur fully with her interpretation. What bothers me is the contrast in attitude towards the perceived "sin" of head coverings/hair lengths (or lack thereof) and the perceived "sin" of homosexuality.

Do people here realise what they are believing/doing? Can you not see the sub-concious double-standard our society has imprinted on our minds? To take 1 Cor 11 in context, is as sinful as suggesting that the rest of the bible should be taken in context. IOW, it is perfectly fine! So why can't we apply the same treatment to the verses argued over with regards to homosexuality? How can you be so sure that one is interpretable and one isn't?

Please don't post the usual drivel of rah-rah-rabble-rabble sympathy/hostility. Instead, justify/explain how one can demand the following of the bible as God's timeless, infallible written word in one case, and dismiss something as "cultural" in the next. If those supportive of homosexuals are to be condemned as "picking and choosing bits of the bible as it suits them", then what, I ask, is the quoted post?

 

[catlover]

Posted in a thread discussing whether on not women should wear head coverings, on the basis of text in 1Corinthians11. I have not included the poster, to emphasise that this is not meant as a personal slight. Please do not take it that way, or attempt to make it out as one. There are other examples that also back up my point; this one merely happened to be read tonight and struck me as being quite illustrative of our miserable situation.

The female poster is a fairly frequent writer in the DoH forum, often amongst those adamantly expounding that the Word of God must be obeyed as written and homosexuality is therefore wrong full stop.

What I find interesting is that when faced with a matter that is already pretty much decided by today's society and also more easily identified with, it is suddenly okay to dismiss (from the very same epistle used to condemn homosexuality) as "cultural" a fairly clear-cut demand of Paul's. Better yet, to denounce the following of "ancient customs" under the assumption that they please God and are right for us in this day and age.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that in this case her post is great and I concur fully with her interpretation. What bothers me is the contrast in attitude towards the perceived "sin" of head coverings/hair lengths (or lack thereof) and the perceived "sin" of homosexuality.

Do people here realise what they are believing/doing? Can you not see the sub-concious double-standard our society has imprinted on our minds? To take 1 Cor 11 in context, is as sinful as suggesting that the rest of the bible should be taken in context. IOW, it is perfectly fine! So why can't we apply the same treatment to the verses argued over with regards to homosexuality? How can you be so sure that one is interpretable and one isn't?

Please don't post the usual drivel of rah-rah-rabble-rabble sympathy/hostility. Instead, justify/explain how one can demand the following of the bible as God's timeless, infallible written word in one case, and dismiss something as "cultural" in the next. If those supportive of homosexuals are to be condemned as "picking and choosing bits of the bible as it suits them", then what, I ask, is the quoted post?

Even fundamentalists pick and choose parts of Scripture they will follow...I notice those who believe The Bible gives them liberty to exploit and treat gays as less than human do this as well...

 

[D.W.Washburn]

We all have our selective ways of reading the Scriptures. Usually we get them from our denomination or theological tradition. I actually find a lot of the discussion in DoH to be about hermeneutics not homosexuality.

 

[Phinehas2]

To take 1 Cor 11 in context, is as sinful as suggesting that the rest of the bible should be taken in context. IOW, it is perfectly fine! So why can't we apply the same treatment to the verses argued over with regards to homosexuality? How can you be so sure that one is interpretable and one isn't?

Because with the issue of women we have some scriptures with which to debate, with the issue of same-sex unions we don’t, there is no debate or question.
As to women, the former argument would be in line with the general principle throughout the Bible that the man is the head of the family just as Christ is the head of the church and all apostles were men, yet the final passages of Romans for one example seems to refer to women in leadership.
So I can cite 1 Corinthians 14 and Romans 16 as apparently opposing opinions.
For same-sex unions I can cite Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5 as God’s purpose being man and woman excluding same-sex unions and Gen 19, Lev 18 & 20, 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 1 as direct and indirect condemnations of same sex. What evidence can you provide to support same-sex unions?

Otherwise one ends up with what we have choosing not to believe what is written and to believe what isnt written as the opposite of what is. Its not selective reading at all, its selective disbelief.

 

[Gishin]

Because with the issue of women we have some scriptures with which to debate, with the issue of same-sex unions we don’t, there is no debate or question.

Wow, that's a bold claim to make on a board called "Debates on Homosexuality".

 

[savedandhappy1]

Here let me show everyone why you started this post.

I was ask the question below on another thread, and so answered it.

women wearing headdressings is also spoken of in the NT, too. But people don't follow that anymore, and I honestly do not know why because it is as plain as day.

1 Cor 11:2-16
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.
12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Is the above scriptures the scriptures you are referring to? If they are I would ask what your understand the above scriptures to say, with special attention to verse 13, which ends with a question mark. Also, your understanding of verses 15 and 16, if you don't mind.

Here is my understanding of the above scriptures. First, we need to understand why this chapter was written. Paul had received a letter from the Corinthian church regarding many problems it was encountering. This epistle was written to help straighten out some confusing issues. One of these was the question of whether a woman should veil, or cover, her head in church since the custom was that most women kept their heads covered in and out of the church. The reason this was a much discussed issue was that one of the oral Jewish traditions dictated that when entering the temple for worship, the males, or "heads of the house," were to wear the Jewish tallith, or veil. According to the Jewish tradition this was a sign of reverence toward God and a condemnation of sin. Paul was very strongly against all Jewish legalism (circumcision being one of these) being imposed on new Christian converts. He was also opposed to the veiling or covering of men because they were no longer under any condemnation or guilt since Jesus took that away through His sacrifice.

Now the question had come up over women veiling or covering in church. What would he say for them to do? Paul seized the opportunity to teach them by presenting a spiritual analogy that would enable them to arrive at their own conclusion. We find Paul's conclusion to their question of women veiling in verse 16, "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." He simply says this is a custom of the women, but it is not a church ordinance.

Even fundamentalists pick and choose parts of Scripture they will follow...I notice those who believe The Bible gives them liberty to exploit and treat gays as less than human do this as well...

Please show me how after reading verse 16, which plainly states that the head covering................................nevermind you can read it if you want or continue to make false statements like above.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that in this case her post is great and I concur fully with her interpretation. What bothers me is the contrast in attitude towards the perceived "sin" of head coverings/hair lengths (or lack thereof) and the perceived "sin" of homosexuality.

What perceived "sin" of head covering/hair lengths? It plainly says in verse 16 there is no sin, because it.............................nevermind. It's right there in black and white as is the other issue and subject of this forum.

 

[Lord_Barthok_Soc]

savedandhappy1:

Firstly, I wasn't quoting you in the OP; I'm not sure if you got the impression that I did or not, but just to clarify. And do forgive me for being unclear, as it seems you have misinterpreted a number of my sentences.

I don't quite see from your post how you explained my motives for starting this thread, nor how you would be able to discern them so surely based purely upon my few writings from all the way across the world, having never met me face to face.

But then again, people seem to love doing a similar thing to God, so why should I be an exception to such treatment? Please continue to assume you know my mind.

For those who care, I started this thread to call out people on their double standards. Not to rub their noses in it, but to honestly ask "do you realise you are doing this?"

Moving back to savedandhappy1's post, how wonderful that you should demonstrate once again the picking and choosing, lifting verses 13, 15 and 16 to support your point, ignoring in particular verses 12 and 14. Read without your added emphasis, the question in v13 sounds rather like rhetoric to me. Paul seems to state that men should have short hair and be uncovered, and women have long hair/covered heads (because in that culture, shaved women were shamed harlots and long-haired men were effeminate).

However, v16 concedes that this issue isn't of God, but the perceived sin is in the minds of certain humans, and the issue should not be allowed to split the church, or become a point to be bickered about.

Hint hint.


Is my view right, or yours? Who knows? One interesting fact is that written communication is one of the worst forms available to humans. So much meaning can be completely altered by intonation, inflection, pauses, body language, facial expression etc that the actual words used are but a small percentage of human communication. So although pen and ink was the best recording form available to Paul, it's not actually that great and we should be careful how we use it. Especially after so many copies/translations through the ages.

 

[Lord_Barthok_Soc]

Because with the issue of women we have some scriptures with which to debate, with the issue of same-sex unions we don’t, there is no debate or question.

There. The double standard. With the more "harmless"/mostly decided issue (in today's day and age) of women actually being human beings, you can accept question. But with the issue of sexuality, because of your world view, you cannot see or accept any arguments against your opinion. You flatly refuse to debate.

In the past bibles read "brothers" where today they read "brothers and sisters", because in the Greek language and culture there was no need to cite both genders. It is a little bit silly to say "the bible only says man and woman" as concrete evidence towards discerning God's apparent design. Large portions of the book were meant as a record of lineage, history, rulers and wars. The only time lovers, or barren couples, or unimportant people are mentioned are when they play an important part of the story, show God's glory, or when they eventually have important children.

As people are so fond of mentioning, homosexual couples cannot reproduce. Why would the bible want to record their love? And there are biblical couples that people may or may not view as being gay. As with most verses on this issue, very open to personal interpretation.

If you want some verses to debate (in a new thread please) try the passage in Corinthians about men taking life partners to satisfy and control their sexual desires, to be built into the context of a relationship rather than giving into rampant fornication. The bible only mentions men and wives, but again, Greek language and culture has already been interpreted in other parts of the bible to substitute "man" for "man or woman". Why not here?

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Lord BArtok-Soc,

There. The double standard. With the more "harmless"/mostly decided issue (in today's day and age) of women actually being human beings, you can accept question. But with the issue of sexuality, because of your world view, you cannot see or accept any arguments against your opinion. You flatly refuse to debate.

No, because, as I said with the issue of women we have some scriptures with which to debate, with the issue of same-sex unions we don’t, there is no debate or question. So there is no double standard on my part.

It is a little bit silly to say "the bible only says man and woman" as concrete evidence towards discerning God's apparent design.

let me stop you there as I don’t agree with you and I think what you are saying about what the Bible says is denial. The Bible says God made woman for this reason, so there is nothing apparent about it.

As people are so fond of mentioning, homosexual couples cannot reproduce. Why would the bible want to record their love?

Well for a start homosexual couples can reproduce providing they are of opposite sex, ie a gay man and a lesbian woman, so that’s nonsense. Secondly their love doesn’t mean sex is involved, that error in thinking as well. God’s love in the Bible is agape and not sex. Sex between a man and a woman is just part of God’s loving creation purpose.

As with most verses on this issue, very open to personal interpretation.

So Fred Phelps might be right for you then, as he might interpret the Bible as saying God hates [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]. If interpretation is ok with you fine, but disbelief and denial is not ok with me.

If you want some verses to debate (in a new thread please) try the passage in Corinthians about men taking life partners to satisfy and control their sexual desires, to be built into the context of a relationship rather than giving into rampant fornication.

there is nomention of life partners only men marrying women.

The bible only mentions men and wives, but again, Greek language and culture has already been interpreted in other parts of the bible to substitute "man" for "man or woman". Why not here?

so as to make sure you know same-sex sex is error? Sorry here the words clearly mean man and woman not partners.

You see I am not interested in what I see your disbelief of the Biblical evidence I can put forward to support my case, I am interested in the Biblcal evidence you can put forward. For all we know I might reject it.

 

[FindingaWay]

I asked the poster in question about this double standard.. but the answer was not very helpful.
There is certainly a tendency.. in all of us, I suspect, to ignore those parts of scripture we find hard to understand or to obey. And there seems to be a converse tendency , amongst fundamentalists at least, to concentrate on those parts which point out other people's shortcomings...
What it boils down to, I guess, is that we are all fallible humans, and none of us, whatever we may think, can fully understand

 

[KCKID]

We all have our selective ways of reading the Scriptures. Usually we get them from our denomination or theological tradition. I actually find a lot of the discussion in DoH to be about hermeneutics not homosexuality.

Excellent observation. I agree. Oftentimes one's interpretation of scripture tallies with one's mindset on a given issue.

 

[Crazy Liz]

We all have our selective ways of reading the Scriptures. Usually we get them from our denomination or theological tradition. I actually find a lot of the discussion in DoH to be about hermeneutics not homosexuality.

Very true.

 

[Floatingaxe]

God says that homosexual acts are an abomination. He doesn't say that women with no head covering in the Christian churches of the New Testament, which included Jews and Gentiles is an abomination.

You have to get to know God, and read His word continually, and allow Him to speak to you what the truth really is. Thank God that most Christians have no problem with these issues.

 

[KCKID]

??????

Oh my! Since I really DO want to continue to participate on the forum I've decide to play it safe and say nothing in response to the above.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Good.

 

[Lord_Barthok_Soc]

So, from the horses' mouths, there is to be no debate on this issue of homosexuality in the Debates on Homosexuality forum, a man and a woman can be a same-sex couple, I will have to answer for my insanity (I thought insane people were usually deemed not culpable by our legal system?) and I should live in fear of a confrontational new generation who will fix me.


Nice.

And phinehas, I'm not deigning to respond to your specific points because you said you don't care for debate and will likely reject anything I say. No need to feel proud about 'silencing' me.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

God says that homosexual acts are an abomination. He doesn't say that women with no head covering in the Christian churches of the New Testament, which included Jews and Gentiles is an abomination.

What if the head covering is made of mixed fabrics? Then is it an abomination?

 

[Floatingaxe]

What if the head covering is made of mixed fabrics? Then is it an abomination?

Keep scratching.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Keep scratching.

I'm not just scratching...



I'm laughing and scratching and having a good time!

May God be as good to you as he has been to me, FloatingAxe.

 

[Floatingaxe]

It's a sorry situation indeed, when one finds this issue and the serious debate it incites funny. Laughing and mocking people who are serious about God's word and about living holy lives unto God is shameful...but then, why would I expect respect for God or His people here?

Proverbs 9:12
If you become wise, you will be the one to benefit.
If you scorn wisdom, you will be the one to suffer.