Homosexuality and Religion

Remove all ads!

*tips his hat to Old One*
This is the sort of belief I can respect.

Hmm... so you are saying that if your religion was forbidden to practice, on the sentence of death, that you would not raise a finger in complaint and try and get the law to change?

Yes, I could also look at that as a way of supporting any descriminating beliefs, whether it be against different races, religions or class stations. The 'least of these' shows that there is a difference between people - and could be seen as a sign that a particular group of people are lessers. Or prehaps it could be refering to a dog contest, and he was talking about the different hair cuts of poodles.

Truth told with bad intent can beat all lies you can invent.


Also, osme of the passages Aiky mentioned. Looked them up out of curiousity and thought I'd save everyone else the trouble and post them here

Timothy 2: "11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control."

Corinthians 11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

Ephesians 5:23 "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body

And, please correct me if I'm wrong, but those are all from the New Testamant.

 

What Gnarff is referring to is the referenda conducted during the 2004 elections. In addition to voting for president, Congress, etc., there was a question on the ballots of (I think 11) states, asking one of two questions. While the exact wording differed from one state to the next, the questions essentially were asking the same thing. The question you got was one of the following:

1. Would you support an Amendment to the state constitution that defined marriage as between a man and a woman?

or

2. Would you support civil unions for same sex couples?

In every state that was polled, the answer was always "yes" for the first question, and "no" for the second question. Further, the vote wasn't even close. It wasn't just a small majority that favored defining marriage as between a man and a woman and being against same sex civil unions. The percentage in favor was around 70% in all cases - so that's really an overwhelming majority.

Regarding Sodom, et al. It is generally agreed upon that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality. There was a cultural norm at that time that all strangers seeking shelter for the night were to be afforded such a courtesy. The homosexual reference is because the text could be interpreted that the townspeople wanted to rape the visitors (the angels). That's hardly a showing of hospitality.

The actual quote from the townspeople was "Bring them [the angels] out to us, so that we may know them." While there is only one version of the word "know" in English, there were several versions of that word in the original language. The particular version of "know" in the original text implies to know in a sexual manner. It's the same version of know that was used in the sentence, "Eve was known to Adam." So that certainly does imply that the townspeople intended to rape the angels.

However, most theologians agee that the crime was inhospitality, which violated cultural norms at that time. However, it certainly seems that the specific form of inhospitality was the raping of strangers. Futher, the fact that Lot offers his daughters to the crowd to be gang raped instead, it does imply that it was specifically bad to rape men more than it was to rape women.

I'm no bible thumper, but it is generally accepted that the text in question is specifically saying that homosexual sex is really bad, and Gnarff's interpretation of the passages may well be correct. In fact, the only alternative interpretation of the text was that you shouldn't rape any stranger, but it was OK to rape people you knew, although that takes some twisting of logic to say the least.

 

@Equester:
I didn't address the rest of your post because I didn't see a reason, but re-reading it, I can see there is need.
1.) Catholicism and just about any Protestant belief system are VERY different. The Catholics even have books in their Bible that we don't because we couldn't show with proper justification that they were the word of God. Because of this, you can see that the official position of the current chruch leaders is not neccessarily the position of God. The Bible makes this quite clear in the New Testament when the religious leaders were looking to trip Jesus up and pass Him off as just another nut. Religious leaders are still human, so they can make mistakes.

As for slavery, see the above for the modern meaning, but the slavery in Biblical times was VERY different from what most of us think of as slavery. In fact, the 'slavery' in the OT was actually up to 7 years voluntary service, it could not be forced, the 'slave' got paid, and every 7 years, all these 'slaves' were set free by their masters. There was only one type of permanent 'slavery' and that had to be entered into voluntarily by both parties. In the NT, slaves were still treated with a great deal of respect and could attain a lot of power.

As regards context, you have GOT to be kidding, right? You actually support taking words out of context because doing otherwise is changing them? Now I'll agree that taking them in the WRONG context can change their meaning, but taking them in the wrong context is just as bad as taking them in no context at all.

Also, there is a specific Catholic Bible, and the differences between the Catholic and the standard Protestant are called the Apocrypha by the Protestants and deuterocanonical texts by the Catholics. These are books the Catholics believe are inspired by God and the Protestants don't.

@Aikanaro:
HA! I have my Bible with me this time! BRING IT!

1 Corinthians 11:3-9: The subject here is propriety, or respect and authority, in PUBLIC WORSHIP! That's why he talks about women PROPHESYING (generally associated with people of value ones to be respected) which was done in public. As for the head covering, a woman taking off her head covering in that society was a sign of loose morals and sexual promiscuity. Lastly, the bit about creation and authority is just that, a bit about authority. The Bible clearly says that the man should have authority over the woman in a marriages, but authority is not superiority. I had authority over several employees in my summer job, did that mean I was better than them? Did it mean I owned them? No. It meant I was supposed to lead them and direct them. Additionally, I would like you to read on a little bit further in that passage. It says:

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Again, this concerns PUBLIC WORSHIP only, and there is a very specific reason for Paul saying this to this church. Women in this church had something of a problem with gossip, and it was getting into the worship and prayer. That's kind of like someone talking in class while the teacher's teaching. Also note from the previous passage that women were not only allowed, but expected to pray and prophecy durring public worship, which generally involves speaking.

Ephesians 5:22-24: Frequently quoted on this issue, this is the 'wives submit yourselves to your husbands' passage. This is again talking about authority, but more specifically, it is a specific application of the previous verse, "21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." Paul then goes on to show how wives, husbands, parents, children, slaves, and slave owners should all 'submit themselves' to each other. Notice that the term 'submit' appears in general and in the passage to the wives, but 'obey' only appears in the passages to the children and slaves. There is a difference. 'Submit' here refers to the type of obedience that results from respect. It is not general obedience, nor blind obedience. Paul told wives to 'submit' to their husbands as the Church submits to Christ. In the next passage, he tells husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church 'and gave himself up for her'. That refers to His death. Women are ordered to respect their husbands, men are ordered to be willing to die for their wives.

Colossians 3:18: This is actually a brief repetition of the previous passage (Ephesians 5) to the Colossians, so the same stuff applies.

1 Peter 3:1-7: I really have to let this one speak for itself, so here it is in the whole:

Did you notice that? Wives are supposed to be humble and 'submissive' (the same term used here as above) in order to convert unbelieving husbands, not that that is the only time they should be so, but the 'submission' here is an act considered honerable and great, a thing to be praised. It is described as a thing that produces inner beauty none can ignore. On top of that, husbands are told to be considerate of their 'weaker partners' (here refering to physical strenght only and not moral stamina or character) who are also equal heirs in Christ!

1 Timothy 2:11-15: Here is where context is especially important. Timothy is caring for the church at Ephesus. Now Ephesus had some of the same problems they had the last time we were there (Ephesians 5:22-24) and some new ones. Most noticable was a tendency for the women of the church, who generally could not read and were not well educated in the scriptures, to try and browbeat the church with verses taken out of context and even misquoted. They were teaching, quite literally, without knowing what they were talking about. This is the meaning of verse 13 and 14 "For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one decieved..." This 'For' is not a reason 'for' something, but rather a conection, like 'therefore just as..'. Here Paul is depicting the women in question as Eve being decieved by the serpent and suggesting that if they are allowed to pass it on to others, instead of themselves being corrected, similar results will follow. Verse 15, "women will be saved through childbirth..." actually means "women will be saved throughout childbirth..." and not that the act of childbirth will save them.

Now, I hope we have all learned a valuable lesson on context and the importance of reading things in the proper context. I've said it before, possibly even to the same people, and I'll probably say it again. You HAVE to read things in context or you don't actually know what its saying.

Rotku:
Matthew 25:40: Revealing the truth of God to people would be considered doing a good thing for them. Abusing or attacking them because they didn't believe you would be considered bad thing. The 'least of these' means the least noticable or socially important, specifically those in prison, the homeless, the poor, and the sick. It does not contain an inherrant value judgement. In fact, it seems to be the reverse, as these 'least' are then shown to be valued by God equally with His own Son.

Just thought I'd clear these things up.

 

Im Sorry NOG whatever christian sect you belong to, i do not know of your bible. the Catholics and the protestants shares a semiliar bible, namely the book that was put together at the first Convent in 300-something. when The emperor of rome commanded that a structure of believe was made. at this convent the leading christians of that time decided what Books should be put into the bible and which shouldn't. The bible has be retranslated but never changed since then.

As to you biblical slavery, the stuff you refer to is the slavesystem for Jewish debt slaves, not for all slaves. Slaves from other countries was threated quite differently.

 

Looking at those interpretations begs the question "how do you know?" I mean, who is to say that he wasn't talking about a lesser race of people, or that he wasn't saying that the only way women can be saved is through childbirth, not throughout childbirth? Surely unless told otherwise by God, Jesus or a prophet, we must take what is written at face value? Or are you claiming that we have right to interpret the words in what manner we see fit?

 

Nod and big smile to Rotku

I saw quite a few Mormons trying to practice that way of living as they turned themselvs in to serve a 5 year fed prison sentence as viet nam protesters while still keeping my respect after I volunteered for the draft. Quiet conviction. That is how my bible tells me to live.
Sorry, off subject don't burn at stake!

 

@Equester:
This isn't a random sect thing, it's pretty big. If any protestants include the Apocrypha at all, it's the Anglicans and them only. Here, read some yourself: Noncanonical Literature: OT Apocrypha Be sure to read the disclaimer link on that site. The Catholics take these books as part of the Bible, and most if not all Protestants don't. As I said, I'm not sure about the Anglicans and I haven't a clue about the Orthodox Churches. They are books that are present in some early christian copies of the Old Testament but not others, and are not present in any Hebrew copy of the Scriptures. The Catholic Chruch accepted them, I'm not sure when but I think it was before the Reformation, while the Protestants rejected them, usually because they could not find any historical basis for them. Several of these books have blatant historical inaccuracies that suggest the books were actually written at least a generation after the events described, and others include statements that are not supported by Protestant beliefs, such as the claim that women are the root of all evil, in 1 Macabees I think.

As for slavery, slaves from other contries weren't treated that differently when the law was actually followed. If the other nation survived, or the people survived, the slaves had to be released the same year the Jewish slaves were. If not, they were kept for life. Either way, they were still treated with some measure of respect and dignity, much like slaves in ancient Rome, and not at all like the black slaves in the southern US, which is what most people in America at least think of when they hear 'slave'.

@Rotku:
People know the right interpretations and contexts because they study the societies, the history. They look at other texts written at the same time, by the same author or to the same community. They look at the archaelogical evidence these people left behind. Essentially, we know these things the same way we know the Egyptians used slaves, were once two kingdoms, and apparently invented the idea of the scepter. I'm no expert on these things, but if you would like to do some readong yourself, I'd encourage you to do so. Just do a quick Google search on "Commentaries on ____", fill in your own biblical text or author. You may have to pay for a lot of them, but if you just get names, your local library may have a number of them.

Some of these issues are much simpler, though, such as Jesus's teaching about 'the least of these'. If you just read the rest of the passage, you'll see quite clearly that the 'these' He's talking about are not some random group of people or something, but specifically about the 'these' that had previously been mentioned.

 

Aikarino: I’ve read that passage. There’s a translation error in there somewhere. Where the word speak is listed, the word Rule ought to be. Women don’t hold priesthood authority, but they are far from silent. They are wives and mothers, they teach Sunday School and the children. These are not trivial callings.

Because I believe that greater happiness is to be attained by following God’s plan, which requires me to marry a woman. That’s more of a reason than you’ve given me for not trying things I have suggested…

Had you proper authority to do so, then I would have to, but my death (if that were to be the result) would be on your hands for abusing the authority given you of God.

I’d probably die trying to see to the escape of my family and friends at the hands of a mob. There were skirmishes as the men fought to see that their wives and children got away from the mobs. If it came to this again, I’d be expected to fight to protect those that could not defend themselves.

Or the least number of these—meaning the individual. You mess with so much as one of God’s Children, you mess with the Son of God who has been sent to redeem them.

There’s got to be something in Proverbs about that. Add that to the to read list…

The man presides over the home, but must do so righteously. This does not mean that in the home the woman sits down and shuts up. They are equal partners, with different gifts that complement each other to raise their families.

Well put, as usual.

I had never heard about that…

 

NOG:

I'm happy to fight this one on your ground - what translation of the Bible are you using?

(very fuzzy headed atm - will respond tomorrow or something)

 

First of all, changing from "Marriage between a man and a women" to "Marriage between two people" is not the same as "Marriage between any number of people". Secondly, why would you care if two men or two women are married? Why would you care if two men and one woman are married for that matter? I heard somewhere that an argument against same-sex marriage undermines his marriage. Why? Are you married because it's social signifiance, or because you're in love with your girlfriend / boyfriend?

Oh, so your saying it's God's plan to procreate, not be with a different sex partner? (As I have said previously, the argument that homosexuals can't have children is irrelevent in this day and age)

Oh, you mean like refusing to abdict to the religious establishment in the question of homosexuality? Then you should accept it? (BTW, same-sex marriages are legal in Canada. So why should homosexual be silent if they're not the majority, but the religious establishment has a right not to be when they're not forming a majority?)

Again, you're ignoring that two men can love each other (that is in no way disputable). So what is the difference between heterosexual couple and homosexual ones? Why are heterosexhuals not succombing to temptation too?

Yes. You're not the one marrying a guy or a gal. They are.

Unless you can bring me proof that I said I hated religion (the closest thing being I said "One of the problems I have with..." and is in no wau hate), I want you to take that back and apoligize.

See, this is where you're wrong. The Gay community doesn't want to convert all opposition (thus stifling it). It only wants to be able to livre as any memeber of society, with the rights and privileges thereof, like marriage and adoption.

What's your point? Your only saying that heterosexual are lustful...

The main difference being that when you marry, you'll have sex, whereas homosexuals will never be able to have sex... That's a pretty big difference..

Oh yeah, that's right. Masturbation makes you go blind. Or deaf. Or whatever it is...

Omniscience means master of all, including time. If God is master over time, then yes, everything is predetermined.

and

C'mon, get your story straight already...

I don't remember recalling anything in the 10 commandments about homosexuality...

Yes. when a murderer comes to your door, asking a person hiding in your house to kill them, and when you ask him to leave, he will immeditaly say "Oh sure, sir, sorry to disturb you"...

The purpose of that argument is to show that in some events, it's okay not to obey the laws. Everything is in the context of the said moral crime. The legal penalties are a good example of this (murder in the first degree, second degree, thirs degres, etc, all having different consequences)

If you're taught that black people are inferior to white people, does it make it true?

I really don't like Descartes. He's an arrogant fool, and his philosphy follows suit. I tried to read a book of his (don't remember the tile though). The arguments were really poor and I was left offended.

I really like Sarte's existantialism, though. Is that what you were referring to?

Well, all I'm asking you is why is it better? My objection being that religion denies homosexuals hapiness.

What are you talking about? Last I heard, polygamy is illegal.. And again, it's different for homosexuals since they want to be acknoledge as they have thye same two way relationship as heterosexuals. Polygamy is a three and + relationship and is thus different in it's very conception.

Then you are insensitive? Of course I'm against murder and maiming of a minority of a group. Of any kind. Since homosexuals HAVE been abused, beaten and killed, you're saying that it doesn't affect you in the least? I would think you would feel a kinship with them.

Yes, question everything, that's the entire point of education. It gives you "rationnal thinking". Because a lot of people say a lot of bulls***t, and you must be able to form arguments to support what you say.

hahahahahahaha.... .. Too bad you live so far away. we would get along very very well... lol

oh no! Not the poodles!

The problem is you giving me opinion of the majority of 11 states. As far as I know, each states is not a country, so it's not a reason to say the majority of the US is against homosexuality (and I'd be curious to know which states it was...I'm betting many south ones)

But that's exactly our point. The context has changed. Thus, the meaning has too. A lot of stuff is now irrelevant.

How can you prove that there isn't another error in translation somewhere else that changes the whole meaning of certain things?

Wouldn't you be held accountable for listening to a false prophet?

Why would it be that they're equal, but a man HAS to preside? Why would a woman be poorly adapted to preside?

______
Edit : Jeez, that I hadn't realized the lenght of my post, that's waaay too long.. I'm so sorry...

 

Personally I don't see why polygamy is illegal - it seems very much in the same basket as homosexuality to me ... but then, this is somewhat outside the scope of this thread...

 

@Gnarf: True, 60's and So. Cal. as well as L.A. were strange by todays standards.
off topic again! Got to go.

 

@Triactus; yes Descartes' arguments are poor, and yes he was an arrogant man...most of his philosophy is easily brushed aside. All that interests me is the body/mind question, which he explored indepth...well, sort of indepth...sort of...

@Gnarf; I assume as a Mormon that you are on your way towards your own personal Godhood status...when you get there, make sure your created world doesn't have people who are born homosexual...it will save you having this same debate with your other fellow 'Gods'...

 

Aikanaro:
It doesn't matter what tranlation I'm using, because I'm claiming the meaning of the original script, not the translations. Just out of curiosity, however, I'm using NIV, sometimes NASB.

Triactus:
Are you saying claiming love is all that matters? I'll bet you almost every pedophile out there claims he 'loves' children, and unfortunately, a lot of the time, the kids believe they are in 'love' too, especially with pubescent/post-pubescent children. I'm not trying to compare homosexuality to pedophilia on all levels, just trying to show you that 'love' isn't all that matters.

Omniscience dosn't mean master over all, it means all-knowing, there's a big difference, though God is Master of All. That still doesn't mean that God decides everything, if that's how you're using predetermined, just that He knows what will be decided. Again, there's a difference.

No contradiction here. They both include obedience and understanding, only one includes a timeline (obedience first).

'Adultry' as it is used there refers to a wide range of sexual sins, including pre-marital sex and homosexuality.

The point isn't that these 11 represent all states (by the way, the numbers significanly up now, including California of all places), but rather that ALL of the places that had such a vote voted overwhelmingly on one side. This doesn't mean that all of the American states agree, but it does mean that there are good odds they do. This is an arguement to propose such an ammendment to all the people, not to make it happen without their input.

The context it was written in doesn't change. It was written once, to certain people in a certain time. That time and people will not change, ever. Our own context has changed, but that just means we need to know the original context to extract the original meaning. Think of it like a code. It was written to one group of people who knew the 'code' (context) and could thus decipher it. Now a new group of people are trying to read it without the 'code' and just get gibberish. You're arguing that the gibberish was the original meaning, or is what it means today. All you have to do is get the 'code' and re-read the message with the code and you will understand the real meaning.

It's called study. We have the books in their original languages, so we can learn the original languages and check the work of the people that translated them in the past. By the way, on the translation issue, this problem is rather specific to english. Not that other languages don't have their own translation problems, but not nearly as many as english does. The German Bible has never needed to be re-translated, not since Martin Luther first translated it, because their language is better suited to the translation.

That would be part of the 'proper authority' issue. If you had proper authority, you wouldn't be a false prophet. If you didn't have proper authority, then he wouldn't do it.

 

- Which sounds like a good idea to me. -

Reading over this entire thread it seems to me that those who are consistantly making the most sense are Old One and NOG.

Overall with the question of homosexuality and religion there generally isn't much of an argument. If you follow most (major) established religions it means that homosexuality is in all likely-hood a sin. But the question that keeps coming up is why is it a sin and why they (established religions) feel the right to make homosexuality a sin. As a whole I feel that if you are devoted to your religion you accept what the leaders consider right and wrong for the most part, not without question, but while realizing that they have more knowledge on the subject. As the recurring question seems to be 'why?' I think it comees down to faith in ones religion, and if your not part of a religion you should feel no need to debate on this thread.

Personally I believe homosexuality is a sin, I may hate the fact that someone is homosexual, but I'm not going to hate the people themselves. I think it comes down to a question of tolerence on both sides. As a religious person I feel I'm tolerant if not exactly understanding of homosexuals. On the other hand I feel that most homosexuals are tolerant of those who oppose them, they may not like their decisions, but they won't shove it down their throats. The problem is that the more extreme people on both sides of the spectrum get the most attention and that's where trouble lies.

 

Seems like I will have to say it one more time. The conversation is about TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. Pedophily is irrelevent.

Well, there is a contradiction. In one quote, he says that we're given intellect "to understand why we [obey]" , and in another, he says to "instead of explaining God, obey His commandments.". Understanding is explaining...

And BTW, the very idea to have a linear timeline is against the conception of raitonnal thought and free-will.

Can you find a specific passage that say sthis? I was always taught that aldutry is cheating on your spouse.

That's entirely the point. You can't assume that because the majority here is for something, that the majority in general is for something. Eah region is different in its opinions. The south is more republican than the north, who are more democratic.

Of course, I know you didn't mean that on th e grounds that these 11 states were against homosexualty, than counrty-wises laws would be passed. However, Gnarfflinger used that to say, and I quote : "In the US, approximately 51% of the people voted for a party that did not support this cause, some of the politicians in that party actually opposing that position. The people have spoken. Try again in 2008.". When rebuted on this, he explained by the 11 state vote thing.

As for context, what I'm saying is that the meaning of something is interlinked with the context. If the context changes, so does the meaning. For example, science has explained a lot of things that were obscured in the first century. Like Homosexuality. It's acknoledged that it's not a choice, thus not a "temptation". Meaning must change with context, or else, it's irrelevant.

 

Obey then understand? Sounds more like "sit down and let me brainwash you". I swear the Nike cooporation must have strong ties to Christianity... their slogans are essentially both the same "Just do it."

The moment somebody starts questioning their faith doesn't mean they're unsure in their faith, it means they want to know the reasoning behind something being a 'sin'. The issue with sins is that they can be something that is bad only from a religious perspective. When something is conisdered immoral or wrong according to New Zealand law it's because it harms somebody else who is innocent or not-deserving of said harm. Something isn't considered wrong because some book (kind'a) says so. Again, back to the whole shellfish and crustation eating is a sin thing that Jesus never refuted... why do so many homosexuality-hating Christians still eat shellfish and crustations? The grounds for both being wrong and a sin are the same.

 

That's true, homosexuality-hating Christians eat swine and shellfish and crustations. The same God that said 'homosexuality = sin' also said 'unclean food = unhealthy'...so what gives? Can you just go and make up what you want to keep and what you don't want to keep?

That's something I don't understand about Christinaity, it's 'hmm, I like this law, lets keep it...but, no, I dont like that other one...lets not keep it'. There does not seem to be any distinction between those laws that were supposedly nailed to the cross and those that are still to be kept.

From what I see it is that the sacrificial laws are to be discarded because Jesus supposedly fulfilled the sacrifice laws by becoming the sacrifice. All the others then are still binding, which included things that Christians don't do, such as go to church the same day Jews do, and have the same eating restrictions Jews do. After all, the only difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Christians see Jesus as being the sacrificial lamb of God, and Jews still thinking they need to sacrifice, although they don't...animal welfare will be on them like a ton of bricks.

So, therefore, if you are the type who thinks that the Bible is full of black and white distinctions, with a clear line drawn between good and evil and right and wrong, then you should be still doing all that other "Jewish stuff" if you still want to keep the idea that homosexuality is a sin.

If, however, you want to disregard all that "Jewish stuff", then I'm sorry, but you will have to drop your view that homosexuality is a sin, because it's clearly part of the law that contains the dietry, cleanliness and purity laws.

 

@Triactus:

Ah, but who says it has to be two consenting adults? Why not an adult and a kid? Why not two kids? Why not only a male and a female? I'm not saying your arguement is wrong, just that the 'love' issue leaves it up to an arbitrary decision of who to include and who to exclude.

Except that you left off the second part of the last statement that time.

The 'witness of the truthfulness therein' would be the understanding part.

Who brought up a linear timeline? And why is it against the very thought of rationallity or free will?

And you were taught right. The english word 'adultry' means just that. The hebrew word that is commonly translated 'adultry' however, applies to a much larger grouping of sexual sins. Just like the hebrew word commonly translated 'leperousy' actually refers to a large number of skin diseases.

Maybe I need to say it clearer, though I'm not sure I can. The context that you would ordinarily read it in is constantly changing, and thus the meaning you would derive from such a reading is so changing, the context that it was written in , however, is constant, and that is the context in which the intended meaning can be derived. You see, language isn't about communicating words, it's about communicating ideas. Words are only the medium through which this happens. The ideas the author tried put down in words are what he intended to communicate. To get these ideas back out of the words, you have to consider the context the author was writing in. Take, for example, letters from soldiers in the American civil war to their wives. They talk about the day-to-day activities, about goings-on in camp, and about generally insignificant things most of the time. They hardly ever talk about missing or longing for the wife, or any children they may have. The wive's letters are similar. To read it in a modern context would leave you thinking that these two didn't really care about each other, that they were in more of a business relationship than a romantic marriage. If you read it in the context of the time, however, you have to understand that such feelings simply weren't written about at the time, and that they were hardly even talked about. Them telling each other about their every-day lives is an attempt to stay close, even if they are at great distance for a long period of time. No soldier would write so to his brother, or his parents. The context it was written in reveals the true meaning of the words.

Now you can argue that the meaning doesn't apply today, you can argue that the meaning is just plain wrong (that the Bible is wrong), but please don't try to argue that the meaning has changed because how we read things has changed.

I'm sorry, could you please link to the study that conclusively proved homosexuality wasn't a choice? Last I saw they were blaiming it on everything from how many older siblings you had to how big your toes were. There was only a hint that genetics may play any factor at all, and far from conclusive evidence that it was the controling agent.

I'm afraid you've got that backwards. Meaning that does change with context is irrelevant. If a wise sage's thoughts change with every person that reads them, then they can be applied to mean anything, you just have to find the right context and there you have it. On the other hand, if his thoughts don't change, no matter who reads them, then the reader is forced to decide if they agree or disagree with the sage. THAT is where understanding begins.

@Abomination:
I'm glad you brought up the shellfish thing, because Triactus does have a point.

And by studying science, we can see why such laws were handed down in the first place, and why they may have been abandoned. You see, shellfish go bad very quickly, and it is often very hard to tell if they have gone just bad enough to cause serious problems or if they are still good. On top of that, cooking them won't make bad shellfish good because the toxins are already there. So eating shellfish in a society that doesn't have refrigeration, advanced medical technology, and the like is a bad idea. The Romans had (some) refrigeration technology and actually knew how to handle shellfish safely, so once they took over, the Jews weren't in such danger. Similarly, the Jews were forbidden from eating pork, let's look at what science has revieled about pork. These days we always cook pork, and you've probably been told many times to cook it thoroughly. Ever wonder why? It's because pork can and frequently does carry some nasty parasites which could seriously harm you. Here, cooking the meat kills the parasites and makes the meat safe to eat. Again, the Jews didn't understand parasites, so God just told them not to eat pork in the first place. Again, by the time the Romans invaded, they (the Greeks and Romans) had figured out how to safely prepare pork. This is why God told Peter it was ok to eat such things, because they now had enough knowledge to do it safely. Similar logic can be applied to rules such as a woman being 'unclean' durring her 'bleeding'. Let's see, they didn't have underwear, or strong disinfectants, and what we would call 'regular washing' was unheard of. If a woman lies on a blanket, there's good odds she'll bleed on it, which means there is now human blood on it. Do you know what grows in spilled human blood? Nasty stuff, that's what, so it had to be cleansed. The same rules applied to anything a man bled on after he cut himself. If you just cut your finger open and bled all over your bed sheets, you'd want to wash them, right? And not just to get the stain out, but because they were dirty, or 'unclean'.

And before you bring up a question like, 'Well, why didn't God just tell them how to eat pork safely?' (which is a legitimate question with a legitimate answer) consider how the Jews followed God's other laws. It was safer to just say 'don't do it' than to say 'its ok, but do it this way and this way only'. The Greeks and Romans brought with them first hand experience of just what could go wrong if you didn't treat it properly, but God wanted to spare His people that suffering.

 

So why does God favour some people over others?