GeorgeW Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Is there no written record from surrounding cultures to add light? If one wanted to pursue the issue. Dutch, I would find evidence from Persian culture, as an example, interesting but not compelling given the textual evidence in the Hebrew Scriptures. The Israelites differentiated themselves from other cultures. In many ways, I think they were more tolerant and progressive than others at the time. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 I think I, as well as others, often conflate the long period of Jewish culture in the Bible. The texts represent more than a thousand years of history and very different social structures. I read a book several years ago by an anthropologist who divided the culture in three major segments: the bedouin period, represented in the Torah, the period of monarchy and the Second-Temple period. As we might expect, the family and social structure in a bedouin society would be quite different from a more urban centralized society. And, in the Second-Temple period, there was considerable Persian and Greek influence. The Torah (Pentateuch) reflected (with some later editing) the structure of a bedouin society. But, even with the later editing, the editors were quite conservative in preserving old traditions and writings. The air-brushing occurred later in Chronicles. (The book was very dense and I have forgotten the title) George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted June 17, 2012 Author Share Posted June 17, 2012 Neon, Perhaps your questions of Why? above in post #30 are flawed because your assumption is that the Bible is really going to answer your question. By your own admission, the Bible can be used in both sides of the issue. Why then look there for an answer (persuasive evidence) ? It seems to me that an open mind and reason and real life subjective experience will do a better job than looking for proof in the Bible of your claim.. Joseph The U.S. constitution is also a human-made document made up of the opinions and biases of the Founding Fathers and has been used by both political parties in legislative debates yet we still consider the constitution to be an important document to consult and interpret both within its historical context and in light of modern developments. Likewise, while the bible is a human-made document made up of the opinions and biases of the authors who wrote it and has been used on all sides of theological and moral beliefs, the bible, for many Christians, is still the most important book in Western civilization, which people still turn to for guidance in their moral lives. And I think that's an important reason for why we need to rethink the way we've looked at the bible in light of historical context and in light of modern developments and not just blindly accept the way we've always been taught about the bible just because that's what we've always been taught it says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 And I think that's an important reason for why we need to rethink the way we've looked at the bible in light of historical context and in light of modern developments and not just blindly accept the way we've always been taught about the bible just because that's what we've always been taught it says. Absolutely, we should look at the"Bible in light of historical context." That is exactly what Joseph and I have been trying to convey. No one here has even hinted that we should "blindly accept" the way we have been taught. We have explicitly said that we should view and interpret the Bible objectively. And, that means not spinning it either way on social issues. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 The U.S. constitution is also a human-made document made up of the opinions and biases of the Founding Fathers and has been used by both political parties in legislative debates yet we still consider the constitution to be an important document to consult and interpret both within its historical context and in light of modern developments.. Likewise, while the bible is a human-made document made up of the opinions and biases of the authors who wrote it and has been used on all sides of theological and moral beliefs, the bible, for many Christians, is still the most important book in Western civilization, which people still turn to for guidance in their moral lives. And I think that's an important reason for why we need to rethink the way we've looked at the bible in light of historical context and in light of modern developments and not just blindly accept the way we've always been taught about the bible just because that's what we've always been taught it says. Your point seems to me to be mute because you are on a progressive christian forum with the great majority here because they don't buy what they were taught in traditional Christianity of our times. So that last statement in your quoted post goes without saying and was never in dispute. Also, yes the Bible is an important document to many but what it says is proof of nothing to support your claims concerning God and homosexuality for either side but rather the opinions of what some men of their time (OVER 2000 YEARS AGO IN OTHER LANGUAGES) believed of God and morality as you have indicated yourself above. To compare that with the founders original intentions of the Constitution which are well documented in English in the Federalists Papers and other preserved writings of our times seem to me to make for an unequal comparison in support of your claim. It seems to me that George has asked you to present something more persuasive in supporting documents than just your own interpretation of what the Bible says. I have chosen personally not to interpret it either way as i find it unreliable as far as speaking for God on the issue. joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted June 17, 2012 Author Share Posted June 17, 2012 Most members here may be progressive Christians but many progressive Christians were raised in the homes of fundamentalist Christians or are former fundamentalists themselves and as someone who is also a former fundamentalist, I know how ingrained their interpretations of the bible can get into your head. Even when you reject the bible as a divinely inspired authority, when you've been raised to interpret the scriptures in one true way, it can be difficult to let go of that interpretation and to reconsider a different way of looking at the bible that you weren't taught to believe before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 I agree Neon. It can be difficult and was indeed difficult for me also. My point is that while yes there are other ways of looking at the Bible and its writings that make more sense , there comes a point where reconciliation of some things in the Bible may not make sense. The issue of homosexuality may be one of them. It is just too big a stretch to me to believe that the writing of Paul in Romans mean other than what he says. He is allowed his opinion if that is what he really wrote but for both sides to continue the argument makes no sense to me. In my view, the argument will end when people get their hearts focused on God/Love and social justice and not on a book even if it is called The Bible.. Just my final thoughts on the issue, Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 The real problem and a more interesting debate that I think they should have brought up is that the English translations of the bible that condemn homosexuality are mistranslated into English and have nothing to do with homosexuality between consenting and loving adults at all. It is very interesting, indeed. My fellow Jews (Reformed and Orthodox) had this discussion several decades ago. Their conclusion: while the Torah and the majority of Talmudic teaching clearly condemn the homosexual act (note: not the homosexual), modern experience and teaching suggest such a ban is not consistent with today's views on the subject. In other words, in the evolution of faith, one must distinguish between those things postulated in ignorance and those things which retain value. Condemning homosexuals based on the writings of ancient scribes, when in your heart you know it is wrong, ignores one of the greatest lessons of Rabbi Hillel; "What is hateful to you, do not do unto others." NORM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted June 18, 2012 Author Share Posted June 18, 2012 It should also be noted that whether or not Leviticus condemns homosexuality is irrelevant to Christians because according to the teachings of Paul, Jesus' sacrifice put an end to the old law and Christians are now under the law of grace. In the case of Romans, there is considerable debate as to whether Paul was condemning all forms of homosexuality or more specific sexual acts such as pagan temple prostitution rituals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Like others here, I think the OT is most likely anti-homosexuality, just as much as it was pro-slavery. Times change and just as we don't stone to death daughters who aren't virgins on their wddding day, don't deny ourselves shellfish, etc etc, in the light of modern developments and the scientific understanding of homosexuality, we can accept people of all sexual orientations as being equal citizens in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 In other words, in the evolution of faith, one must distinguish between those things postulated in ignorance and those things which retain value. I like this way of expressing it. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murmsk Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 I have reasonably good success using the argument that the attitude of religious discrimination against gays is entirely a personal choice and shouldn't be blamed on the bible. I point out ..even the literalists interpret the bible . And can point out several NT several bible verses to support things like slavery, subordination of women and the like that they have rightly chosen to read in such a manor that their interpretation is likely much different than those of the past and more inline with Jesus's message of grace and compassion for all.And if they had the choice for slavery and women then they have the same choice now with GLBT. If thier attitude is based solely on bible interpretations then they have no choice but to view slavery as non-sinful and subordination of women as non-sinful . Further if they get hung-up on the whole NT as a new direction and OT lessons can be ignored only when directed by the NT then any cloth that is not 100% would be sinful........ the list could go on .... Care to discuss the Year of Jubilee with an affluent fundamentalist? Try and get them to take responsibility for their views. We can spend our time trying to figure out what early Christians thought without asking why is their interpretation more important than our own. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Further if they get hung-up on the whole NT as a new direction and OT lessons can be ignored only when directed by the NT then any cloth that is not 100% would be sinful........ the list could go on .... Care to discuss the Year of Jubilee with an affluent fundamentalist? I have heard a moral vs. ritual law distinction given for ignoring certain OT prescriptions. So, where does the death penalty for sassy children fit - the ritual law? I think this, like many of the attempts to explain what one accepts and rejects, is superficial. I think our underlying worldview guides how we interpret the Bible and what we choose to cite or ignore. Change the worldview and the biblical interpretations will follow. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murmsk Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 I think our underlying worldview guides how we interpret the Bible and what we choose to cite or ignore. Change the worldview and the biblical interpretations will follow. EXACTLY!! which makes ones view on religious bigotry a personal one rather than a biblical one. steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.