View Single Post
Old 12-07-2004, 05:39 PM   #82
sturm und drang
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,063
sturm und drang has a spectacular aura aboutsturm und drang has a spectacular aura aboutsturm und drang has a spectacular aura about
Default RE:Religious/Political Question

KG wrote:

"And while we're talking about the authority of the Bible, there is a big difference between reading the Bible with an understanding of historical context so that you can fully understand the message of the Bible and trying to "interpret" the Bible to fit what you want it to say."

KG, then what about the historical context of homosexuality? When Paul wrote to condemn it, "there were no homosexual relationships, only homosexual acts committed by force, by rank, by ownership of slaves as property, or by lustful abandon that itself abandoned God. The only homosexuality Paul knew was exploitation and debauchery. When he condemns “degrading passions,” he’s talking about compulsions so powerful they deny God. He’s talking about emotional idolatry. As Paul puts in the immediately preceding verse: “they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!” The sin is idolatry, not homosexuality. Paul had no idea—he had no basis for knowing—that people of the same gender could love each other and God, that they could bind themselves each to the other as faithfully, as devoutly, as tenderly as anyone."

So just as you interpret his support of slavery in context of historical times – which the both of us do – so should you interpret the condemnation of homosexuality.

I'm not dodging an "honest discussion of the issue at hand." I believe that the Bible should be read contextually. I believe that it is very much a product of its times. Obviously, the Bible doesn't explicitly condone or promote homosexuality; the Bible (specifically the OT) spends a lot more time dwelling on the don'ts than the do's. However, I think the scant - and they are scant indeed - passages that refer to homosexuality should all be read in context of the realities of the time. Why should we justify Paul's slavery advocacy in terms of the contemporary situation, but not homosexuality? I believe that the "sin" of homosexuality must be viewed through the lens described above – and that, as such, the real sin against god is that of idolatry. Phillip Yancey's excellent book "What's So Amazing About Grace?" (a book that won the Gold Medallion Christian Book of the Year Award in 1998) delves into this idea even further.

__________________
Hey, Kool Thing, come here. There's something I got to ask you. I just wanna know, what are you gonna do for me?
I mean, are you gonna liberate us girls from male white corporate oppression?
sturm und drang is offline   Reply With Quote