Transgenderism ..... ask your questions!

[Pontifex Geronimo 13]

An example of not taking literally would be to say somebody's decendants being as many as the sands in the sea. I know that it really means a large number. If all the people that have ever lived were grains of sand, they might be a couple cubic feet total. So taking that literally would make no sense. My interpretation, again, is a large number, and I think that is a reasonable interpretation. If your interpretation is 1 person or negative 3, it is likely a less plausible interpretation. Likewise, if Jesus says, "Where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" one interpretation may be a bad place and another may be your kid's birthday party. Not both are equally valid. Nor is saying, wrong, there will not be weeping and gnashing of teeth even an interpretation.

So, if all scripture regarding homosexuality counts it as sin, and you interpret it to say not sin, I don't think you are in an equally valid position. Or your interpretation is to call scripture wrong.

 

[Jaebius]

An example of not taking literally would be to say somebody's decendants being as many as the sands in the sea. I know that it really means a large number. If all the people that have ever lived were grains of sand, they might be a couple cubic feet total. So taking that literally would make no sense. My interpretation, again, is a large number, and I think that is a reasonable interpretation. If your interpretation is 1 person or negative 3, it is likely a less plausible interpretation. Likewise, if Jesus says, "Where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" one interpretation may be a bad place and another may be your kid's birthday party. Not both are equally valid. Nor is saying, wrong, there will not be weeping and gnashing of teeth even an interpretation.

So, if all scripture regarding homosexuality counts it as sin, and you interpret it to say not sin, I don't think you are in an equally valid position. Or your interpretation is to call scripture wrong.

A question worth considering Pontifex - is it homosexuality as we know it today that is being counted as a sin? Could it possibly be something else? I agree that a plain reading of the English Scriptures (the most popular versions at least) suggest that same-sex relations are sinful. At least some of those Scriptures seem to be tied to a discussion of idolatry. It seems that some religious practices were leading some people to go after people of the same gender. They exchanged their desires - which suggests they began with desires for the opposite sex.

 

[Jaebius]

Pr. Jae, let me reply to both you and Pontifex Geronimo 13 (hereafter referred to as "our friend") in the same post. The question you raise is a question we all have to deal with, since even our friend concedes that



He then acknowledges the real issue:



That's where the rubber hits the road. The issue of interpretation. What can we do except be guided by the Holy Spirit as best as best as we can discern. In that vein, on the issue of homosexuality:

My own discernment after a lot of prayer and reflection on this issue (because it isn't an easy one and one can make the argument either way) is that God's real concern in a variety of subjects (marriage, divorce, adultery, idolatry, etc. etc.) is with honesty and faithfulness. God's concern is not with sex per se of any type but it is rather with the misuse of sex. If sex is used in such a way as to betray or harm another then I believe it is sinful because betrayal and harm are inconsistent with God's will. Thus, adulterous behaviour is sinful. Promiscuity is sinful. Pedophilia is sinful. Rape is sinful. Bestiality is sinful. In the absence of any betrayal or harm to another it is my opinion that God is not offended by sexual activity.

Thus, in Paul's context, homosexuality was problematic because it could not take place within a committed, covenantal relationship - ie, marriage. It was by definition either adulterous or promiscuous because either (1) it broke an existing committed, covenantal relationship, or (2) it was sex in the absence of a committed, covenantal relationship. My opinion is that if homosexual activity could be conducted within a committed and covenantal relationship, Paul would not be concerned with it, except to the extent that he would want the commitment and covenant upheld. In my view, that is actually a literal interpretation of all of Paul's writings about sexuality of any kind - and to anticipate an argument, if the issue were that I was simply trying to buy into the ways of the world, I would also be looking for an opportunity to justify adultery, which is tragically acceptable today, or promiscuity, which is commonplace today, or sex outside marriage, which is virtually everywhere today. I condone none of those. I argue that sex must take place within a committed and covenanted relationship, and I deplore the media's "normalization" of uncommitted sex; its portrayal of sexual activity as little more than playtime. It has to be taken more seriously than that. I support same sex marriage because it provides that commitment and covenant to what would be an otherwise problematic sexual relationship. In Paul's day, homosexuality could not pass that test.

That's my interpretation. I think that a huge part of interpreting the Bible is to be taken up with understanding the cultural norms and practices of the society to which the various books of the Bible were written, and to discern "WHY" those books were written as they were. That principle guides me on this issue. I may be right or I may be wrong. I reject our friend's assertion that



A wrong interpretation is just that - a wrong interpretation. It would be rebellion only if it were deliberately and defiantly wrong. I have come to my position after a great deal of study, reflection and prayer. My position is neither deliberately nor defiantly wrong. It is my attempt to discern the will of God.

Thank you Steven for your well thought out response. I'd say more, but our internet is crashed.

 

[revsdd]

An example of not taking literally would be to say somebody's decendants being as many as the sands in the sea. I know that it really means a large number. If all the people that have ever lived were grains of sand, they might be a couple cubic feet total. So taking that literally would make no sense. My interpretation, again, is a large number, and I think that is a reasonable interpretation. If your interpretation is 1 person or negative 3, it is likely a less plausible interpretation. Likewise, if Jesus says, "Where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" one interpretation may be a bad place and another may be your kid's birthday party. Not both are equally valid. Nor is saying, wrong, there will not be weeping and gnashing of teeth even an interpretation.

So, if all scripture regarding homosexuality counts it as sin, and you interpret it to say not sin, I don't think you are in an equally valid position. Or your interpretation is to call scripture wrong.

Thank you for sharing what you think. I think you're wrong, and I've explained why.

 

[RitaTG]

How I wish there were Like buttons
What a wonderful thoughtful discussion we are having!
Thank you to all of you!
Hugs
Rita

 

[Jaebius]

Pr. Jae, let me reply to both you and Pontifex Geronimo 13 (hereafter referred to as "our friend") in the same post.

Okay. Thank you Steven for your thoughts.

(Internet is back on )

That's where the rubber hits the road. The issue of interpretation. What can we do except be guided by the Holy Spirit as best as best as we can discern. In that vein, on the issue of homosexuality:

Yes, I agree - discerning what the Spirit of God has to teach us is very important. I believe that (amongst other ways) the Spirit works through the Scripture to bring us the truths of Christ.

My own discernment after a lot of prayer and reflection on this issue (because it isn't an easy one and one can make the argument either way) is that God's real concern in a variety of subjects (marriage, divorce, adultery, idolatry, etc. etc.) is with honesty and faithfulness. God's concern is not with sex per se of any type but it is rather with the misuse of sex. If sex is used in such a way as to betray or harm another then I believe it is sinful because betrayal and harm are inconsistent with God's will. Thus, adulterous behaviour is sinful. Promiscuity is sinful. Pedophilia is sinful. Rape is sinful. Bestiality is sinful. In the absence of any betrayal or harm to another it is my opinion that God is not offended by sexual activity.

Steven, you say that the case can be made either way. Thank you for noting that. I agree, and I believe that sincere people with noble and loving hearts differ in their interpretation of these texts. I personally know no one who has deliberately entered into studying them with malicious intent. The people I know who have wound up finding themselves on both sides of the issue (if indeed there even are two clear sides) have entered into studying with a genuine interest in learning the ways of God that they might serve him better.

I agree that when it comes to sex and marriage, God desires us to be faithful and appropriately honest (no need to tell everyone everything, speaking the truth in love). At least for the purposes of our discussion, I will agree that those are the main desires that God has in terms of sex and marriage. I believe there are other ones too though. Things like holiness, connection, orderliness, and - hello - love.

I mention orderliness, because I think it important to note that God created things to be in good order. He made humanity to be in good stewardship of the rest of his creation. He made people to enjoy fellowship with him. And, judging by the creation accounts, at least the second one, he ordered human relationships in a set pattern as well, with the most intimate human relationship we can enjoy being between one man and one woman for life.

Now Steven, are you suggesting above that if something is harmful to another it is sin, but if it harms not, it is not sin? I don't want to misunderstand your words. I think that if we look at the life of Jesus, who I believe we agree did not sin, we might say that there were times when he harmed others. He called some people a brood of vipers. He once refused to see his mother and brothers when they came to visit him. He overthrew tables in the temple. God can be seen as being harmful in the OT as well. How many times has @chansen asserted that God committed genocide.

Thus, in Paul's context, homosexuality was problematic because it could not take place within a committed, covenantal relationship - ie, marriage. It was by definition either adulterous or promiscuous because either (1) it broke an existing committed, covenantal relationship, or (2) it was sex in the absence of a committed, covenantal relationship. My opinion is that if homosexual activity could be conducted within a committed and covenantal relationship, Paul would not be concerned with it, except to the extent that he would want the commitment and covenant upheld. In my view, that is actually a literal interpretation of all of Paul's writings about sexuality of any kind - and to anticipate an argument, if the issue were that I was simply trying to buy into the ways of the world, I would also be looking for an opportunity to justify adultery, which is tragically acceptable today, or promiscuity, which is commonplace today, or sex outside marriage, which is virtually everywhere today. I condone none of those. I argue that sex must take place within a committed and covenanted relationship, and I deplore the media's "normalization" of uncommitted sex; its portrayal of sexual activity as little more than playtime. It has to be taken more seriously than that. I support same sex marriage because it provides that commitment and covenant to what would be an otherwise problematic sexual relationship. In Paul's day, homosexuality could not pass that test.

One question I had when first reading your words here Steven was - if this is true, if Paul was out to stop all adultery and promiscuity, then why didn't he argue on behalf of same-sex marriages.

Having given it a tad more thought, maybe Paul just never thought of that. It may not have been a pressing issue of his time. Also, however, I'm aware, from having studied Paul's approach toward slavery for a paper I wrote, that he seems to have genuinely believed in the imminent return of Christ, and thus focused on spreading the gospel rather than on restructuring household codes.

Tat's my interpretation. I think that a huge part of interpreting the Bible is to be taken up with understanding the cultural norms and practices of the society to which the various books of the Bible were written, and to discern "WHY" those books were written as they were. That principle guides me on this issue. I may be right or I may be wrong...

I agree Steven, it's important to note the human authors' cultural contexts, as they influenced what and how they wrote. At the same time I believe that their words extend beyond their contexts in that they contain God's truths poured into the human authors' minds by the Spirit of God.

...My position is neither deliberately nor defiantly wrong. It is my attempt to discern the will of God.

Yes, I do believe that, and I thank you again for your thoughts.

 

[BetteTheRed]

... if Paul was out to stop all adultery and promiscuity, then why didn't he argue on behalf of same-sex marriages.

Having given it a tad more thought, maybe Paul just never thought of that. It may not have been a pressing issue of his time.

It wasn't even a conceivable issue, Jae. "Marriage" was an economic arrangement between the male heads of families, and women were property.

 

[Jaebius]

It wasn't even a conceivable issue, Jae. "Marriage" was an economic arrangement between the male heads of families, and women were property.

Here I am only thinking aloud...... If that's true what you say Bette...... then the men might have thought it quite wrong to act like a woman (by being with another guy) as that would make them property......

 

[Delightful Life]

Here I am only thinking aloud...... If that's true what you say Bette...... then the men might have thought it quite wrong to act like a woman (by being with another guy) as that would make them property......

which would then render the modern interpretation of 'homosexuality is a sin' to be false
because in our modern culture, women aren't property
thus, the importance of any Christian understanding the context (culture, history, linguistics, etc) of the words of the bibble...
btw, i enjoyed your post to revsdd -- sometimes, i think you are more than one person ;3 (if yer wondering aboot your internet -- our sun has been acting up again and we're in the middle of a radiation storm, with more on its way -- expect more communication hiccups this week)

 

[Luce NDs]

Property, is that a possession or just a possessive tense?

Consider the evil of a man loving his fellow man, or a whoa-man hating heh .. for doing this! This is anti-Roman Philosophy when "taking all you can" is the game ... success oriented? Could such evil extend into woman loving whoa-man ... a man stopping evil? Few conceptions would come of it ... but perhaps some gravid points about the norm of mixing with the opposite sects .. with moderation regarding excess creation ... we don't see that yet ... must be grit in the eye from having the head in the wrong sans ... thy's kin of the sole ... some say soma ... or "som" initiation as "A" point to note ...

Should the broad base be equal to the point of having a penetration man in mental mode ... thus shedding of DNA as sacred code? One would required a Shack ... for adult shacking up ... a mature settlement? Thus the gritz settle ... in a grizzly scene ... bare truth?

 

[Luce NDs]

Just another's crew up ... tumultuous host?

Tumun essence and a shot at ID ... heif faerous stasis ... or brute stand ... against the bull to see what response nature passes on ... always a reaction of some nature ... if only a mite of the whole mighty thing-heh!

Expect many quirks and quarks ... the latter being determined as 6, or s'x ... a Ton obit, or sexton, or well tooned from that dippy domain!

Where AUm'rs come from ... some say Homers ... critters of naïveté until thyme passes with spice ... variety? Some 've mankind prefer nothing to change and thus learn nut'n from the experience ... slowly good sense dissociates from "M" ... the route mean paradigm as regular?

Is regular logic common, or a lost Cos? Rare or ethereal chance ... given present trends toward knowing little as a goal (excessive emotions)!

 

[Luce NDs]

Could this be a sigh 'n I hear in the silence ...? Departing Goths ... or goth-IHC dark thing-heh!

All that remains is the ach Ur ... well toasted ... and red with facetiae ... having wit-less-lye getting what she wished un-knowingly ... emotions are like that ... and the emotional thin king beQ ween, or double used well in an absence of thought for a wee bit! An organic crash ... org chasm?

 

[Luce NDs]

Michaelson-Moorly indicated this to result in eL-UV ... or the UV Crisis another form of dark light beyond eL-IR ... all the crazy stuff to learn ... right from the Shadow ... a surrounding Dark Hole thing?

 

[Jaebius]

which would then render the modern interpretation of 'homosexuality is a sin' to be false
because in our modern culture, women aren't property
thus, the importance of any Christian understanding the context (culture, history, linguistics, etc) of the words of the bibble...
btw, i enjoyed your post to revsdd -- sometimes, i think you are more than one person ;3 (if yer wondering aboot your internet -- our sun has been acting up again and we're in the middle of a radiation storm, with more on its way -- expect more communication hiccups this week)

Thanks for your response Inanna.

Sadly, even in our postmodern culture, all too many men still see women as property to obtain. I realize not in quite the same way as the men of Paul's day did. Of course, not every society around the world is postmodern, or even modern, and those societies may tend to be more patriarchal than is our own.

If all men were to no longer see women as property, I suppose it would follow (using the stream of thought that we have been) that homosexual behavior would no longer be a sin in human eyes. At the same time, I do not hold that humans are the ultimate arbiters of morality. I believe that's a role that God has.

Thank you for your closing compliment.

 

[Pontifex Geronimo 13]

Thank you for sharing what you think. I think you're wrong, and I've explained why.

Hi Steven,

So I went back to see how you explained why. It turns out you make your case relying on eisegesis. Suppositions that are not there.

Anyway, I am glad you started with saying that homosexuality would be a sin if the bible is taken literally. Beyond that, I hope that you are right in your assessment of these passages because if you are wrong, I think you risk far greater eternal implications for yourself and those who have same sex tendencies who follow your guidance.


DO NOT BE DECEIVED: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters (people who invent their own god)...will inherit the kingdom of God.


Pretty clear that there is some deception going on here. Was Paul trying to deceive in making that strait-up declaration, and only the UCC has caught on so far?

 

[Jaebius]

Hi Steven,

So I went back to see how you explained why. It turns out you make your case relying on eisegesis. Suppositions that are not there.

Anyway, I am glad you started with saying that homosexuality would be a sin if the bible is taken literally. Beyond that, I hope that you are right in your assessment of these passages because if you are wrong, I think you risk far greater eternal implications for yourself and those who have same sex tendencies who follow your guidance.


DO NOT BE DECEIVED: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters (people who invent their own god)...will inherit the kingdom of God.


Pretty clear that there is some deception going on here. Was Paul trying to deceive in making that strait-up declaration, and only the UCC has caught on so far?

Pontifex - how do you read here that homosexuals = the sexually immoral? There are plenty of folk who are not gay who are sexually immoral.

 

[Waterfall]

Like@Jae

 

[Pontifex Geronimo 13]

I left out most of the passage. It is about not being deceived about how God thinks about a range of sins. But if you have made up your own God - you are deceived.

 

[revsdd]

Hi Steven,

So I went back to see how you explained why. It turns out you make your case relying on eisegesis. Suppositions that are not there.

Anyway, I am glad you started with saying that homosexuality would be a sin if the bible is taken literally. Beyond that, I hope that you are right in your assessment of these passages because if you are wrong, I think you risk far greater eternal implications for yourself and those who have same sex tendencies who follow your guidance.


DO NOT BE DECEIVED: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters (people who invent their own god)...will inherit the kingdom of God.


Pretty clear that there is some deception going on here. Was Paul trying to deceive in making that strait-up declaration, and only the UCC has caught on so far?

Paul's reference was regarding the sexually immoral. I believe I've already addressed sexual immorality. It's a serious issue. I don't believe those in committed and covenanted homosexual relationships are being sexually immoral.

 

[Pontifex Geronimo 13]

Or you could read the whole verse... Sheesh you guys, Read all of 1 Cor 6... Good stuff.