Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Finding Faith

135678

Comments

  • #62
    MattKid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 829 ✭✭✭MattKid


    On a brighter note!

    I think it's awesome you are making steps to renew your relationship with God. And you can be sure that for every step you take towards him, he's sprinting full pelt towards you.

    As for the things in our lives which may prevent us having a full and complete relationship with him, from my own experience, I know he does everything he can to help us with those, he'll bring the right people into our lives at just the right time, (for me recently it was a taxi driver at 4 am after a night out!), something random programme on tv or just in conversation something will touch your heart, or just that still small voice he's so fond of using. As long as we're open to him, he will do everything to help us on our journey with him, he certainly doesn't want to make it difficult for us.

    I pray that you do carry on finding and building on your faith in the Lord.


  • #63
    Popinjay
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 507 ✭✭✭Popinjay


    Also - I knew I had an Oxford Encyclopaedic Dictionary floating around the office somewhere... I'm going to leave out the pronunciation guides as I have no idea how to type them myself :o.

    Fornicate: (of people not married or not married to each other) have sexual intercourse voluntarily.

    So far you might be saying 'aha Popinjay, now we have you by the proverbials! Where are you going with this you silly little man?'

    To which I would reply but to that we must add the following...

    Sexual intercourse: The insertion of a man's erect penis into a woman's vagina usu[ally] followed by ejaculation.

    And we can now say that that's not what sex is sex is any act that... and so on and so forth. However, I'm going to go with the dictionary on this one and say that once again it would appear that God, like Queen Victoria, had no problem with the lady lovin' - and sure why would he?.

    *cue thunderous applause*


  • #64
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Popinjay wrote: »
    Also - I knew I had an Oxford Encyclopaedic Dictionary floating around the office somewhere... I'm going to leave out the pronunciation guides as I have no idea how to type them myself :o.

    Fornicate: (of people not married or not married to each other) have sexual intercourse voluntarily.

    So far you might be saying 'aha Popinjay, now we have you by the proverbials! Where are you going with this you silly little man?'

    To which I would reply but to that we must add the following...

    Sexual intercourse: The insertion of a man's erect penis into a woman's vagina usu[ally] followed by ejaculation.

    And we can now say that that's not what sex is sex is any act that... and so on and so forth. However, I'm going to go with the dictionary on this one and say that once again it would appear that God, like Queen Victoria, had no problem with the lady lovin' - and sure why would he?.

    *cue thunderous applause*

    Given what Jesus said about observing the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law, such Clintonesque definitions of 'sexual intercourse' probably miss the point a bit. The aim in being a Christian is not to ask, "What is the maximum I can get away with by exploiting loop holes and invoking fine print?" but rather "How can my thoughts and actions please God and bring glory to Jesus?"


  • #65
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Popinjay wrote: »
    Do you follow all of the instructions in Deuteronomy or just the ones you decide are relevant?

    We know that a large portion of the Jewish law was fulfilled with the coming of Jesus and so no longer applies to Christians today (eg circumcision - as explained in Galatians). In determining how Old Testament laws and restrictions apply to us today we need to consider 5 questions:

    1. Does the New Testament reinforce the Old Testament command (eg the NT repeats OT warnings against idolatry and adultery)?
    2. Does the New Testament specifically identify the Old Testament command as no longer binding today (eg circumcision & allowing anyone to judge you in regard to keeping the Sabbath)?
    3. Is the Old Testament command moral or ceremonial? It is noticeable that the NT reinforces moral issues from the OT (lying, murder etc) but not ceremonial issues (various rituals to do with cleansing mildew from walls etc).
    4. Is the Old Testament command culturally limited to a particular time and place (eg the commandment to build a wall around your roof to stop people falling off - hardly applicable in a culture where only a thief will be sitting up on your roof in the first place)?
    5. Can the Old Testament commandment be translated to a comparable situation today (eg the OT commandment that you should help your neighbour if his donkey falls in a pit can reasonably be interpreted as enjoining you to help your neighbour if his car won't start)?

    These won't produce uniformity of opinion - but they do provide a common sense biblical framework for applying the Old Testament to life today.


  • #66
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    CorsetRibbons wrote: »
    I was baptised catholic and raised catholic in a manner of speaking. Mass every week, religious teachings in school, becoming a faith friend etc etc etc. As soon as I became a teenager I started to live for myself, not going to church if I didn't want to etc and over time I've lost faith in the catholic church and it's teachings. Over the past few months I've started to read the bible again and although I'm still only on the Old Testament, I find nothing but hatred within it's pages. I've become very interested again but as a lesbian, I've heard nothing from catholicism except how sinful and wrong it is to be gay. My friend in America who is a devout catholic says it's not a sin to be gay but it's a sin to practice it. I thought this statement was hypocrisy in itself. I'm desperate to get back in touch with my faith but I'm definately not willing to cease being a lesbian or practicing lesbianism. I'm gay and thats the way it is. I've been in a solid relationship for 4 years. I'm a good person, kind and caring and I work hard. I put other people before myself all the time and try to make people around me happy. I feel like it's so unjust to be hated by the catholic church and can't stomach to listening to the statements coming from the Vatican. I know the reasons behind this attitude is that beign gay means you aren't open to new life. I do intend on having children but just not by traditional methods. I do believe that there is a God but now, I'm not sure if I believe in him in the biblical sense of the word. How can I find my faith again? Is it ok to be a practising homosexual and still claim to be catholic? Any advice would be very much appreciated.

    Perhaps you believe in the wrong God, because all the Abrahamic religions view you as a sinner. You could still lead a spiritual life without engaging in any of these religions. Buddhism, perhaps? You shouldn't feel any loyalty to Christianity simply for geographic reasons. If you were born in Thailand a lesbian, none of this would matter. Think about it.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    PDN wrote: »
    These won't produce uniformity of opinion - but they do provide a common sense biblical framework for applying the Old Testament to life today.

    Are you admitting that you are putting your own spin on the Word of God? I would be interested to know are there any parts of the bible that you consider non-literal? If yes, then how would you reconcile other people drawing the line at different places?


  • #68
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Popinjay wrote: »
    Passage from Romans responded to here here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55375489&postcount=31

    Translation of Homosexuals discussed here:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55383192&postcount=42

    Again, please note that Kelly provided the link that explains this translation.

    EDIT: This link http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/homo4.htm
    My apologies for the seeming redundancy. I saw the thread, began by reading the first page, got distracted, came back and thought I had read the whole thread. The joys of ageing!
    Where does it say the women lay with other women. I see no specification of which 'unnatural relations' (a paraphrase I admit) the women committed. Could have been bestiality. The only definite mention of members of any sex having relations with the same sex is once again men. So she's still off the hook.
    Only by a grossly pedantic reading. It is evident that the Likewise also the men ties in the nature of the unnatural act.
    EDIT: Also, it never says here that God sees women lying with women as a bad thing that offends him. It merely says that he made them do it (if that is in fact what he made them do. So God forced them to do bad things which would offend him? That makes perfect sense!
    God gave them over to a degrading practice - as a judgement on their idolatry:
    Romans 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
    26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

    He did not force them to sin - He allowed them to follow the downward spiral of their darkened hearts. So it is with everyone of us - if we despise God, He may remove His restraining hand from us and there is no telling what we would do.
    The Greek word in question, arsenokoitai, which the RSV translates differently each time (respectively "homosexuals" and "sodomites"), is in fact a neologism that literally means "males who sleep together"

    Quoted from a link Kelly provided.
    What's your problem with that? You think males who sleep together is all about sleeping? That Paul lists as a sin sharing a bed for purposes of sleep? Even today, sleeping together is instantly understood as having sex with.
    God did not even say that the 'relations' were natural or unnatural because neither God nor Jesus were recounting the events described (for the purposes of the discussion I will accept the premise that God inspired the writing of every book of the Bible but I don't believe we can say God dictated it word for word - am I wrong?). Seems like a bit of editorialising to me.
    God moved the inspired apostle to teach exactly what He wanted taught - without error. Paul would have used his natural abilities in choosing the words, but even in this God kept him from any error. That is the teaching of the New Testament and of the Church. So the catagorising of homosexual conduct as sin by the NT is beyond honest dispute, as the writer of Kelly1's link pointed out.


  • #69
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    iUseVi wrote: »
    Are you admitting that you are putting your own spin on the Word of God? I would be interested to know are there any parts of the bible that you consider non-literal? If yes, then how would you reconcile other people drawing the line at different places?

    No, I don't think I am putting my own spin on the Word of God. The very nature of language in any context means that we use common sense to interpret what the speaker or writer is saying. For example, if someone says to me, "My grandad kicked the bucket last night" then I use my common sense to interpret this that his grandad died, not that he went into the back yard and kicked a plastic bucket around.

    Of course there are parts of the Bible that are non-literal. When Jesus says, "I am the door" He is not claiming to be a literal door complete with a letterbox instead of a navel. When he says "My sheep hear my voice" then we use common sense to interpret this as meaning human beings, not literal sheep.

    The problem, of course, with common sense is that it is not always very common. Therefore we get different interpretations of the Word of God - just as we get different interpretations of any text or speech.

    The key thing is that we should strive to genuinely understand what the original speakers or authors were attempting to say. The first step to doing that is exegesis - where we try to ascertain how the original hearers or readers would have understood the message.

    I have no problem where people follow this approach and genuinely come to a different conclusion to myself as to what is intended to be taken literally and what is not. That is where toleration is needed. However, I have little toleration for those who make no attempt to ascertain what the original authors meant, or how the original readers understood the Bible, but deliberately attempt to interpret the Bible in the way that will best suit their prejudices or justify their actions.


  • #70
    Popinjay
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 507 ✭✭✭Popinjay


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    What's your problem with that? You think males who sleep together is all about sleeping? That Paul lists as a sin sharing a bed for purposes of sleep? Even today, sleeping together is instantly understood as having sex with.

    It's not the sleeping of that translation I take issue with I have no problem with a non-graphic translation of the word. It's that whole males bit I found intruiging.
    PDN wrote: »
    Given what Jesus said about observing the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law, such Clintonesque definitions of 'sexual intercourse' probably miss the point a bit. The aim in being a Christian is not to ask, "What is the maximum I can get away with by exploiting loop holes and invoking fine print?" but rather "How can my thoughts and actions please God and bring glory to Jesus?"

    But surely if God made sure to expressly forbid many things throughout the Old and New Testaments, usually very clearly, he could have found the time to throw in a couple of words saying he disapproved of lesbianism. Did he - again sorry for always bringing this up but I've always found the tale amusing - like Queen Victoria think it never happened and so didn't need to be legislated against? I wouldn't imagine so.

    Why is this form of interpretation of the bible only ever allowed when it proves that God didn't condone a practice or in some other way agrees with the prejudices of the interpreter? *Suspicious* Maybe God genuinely didn't have an issue with it?


  • #71
    TravelJunkie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 438 ✭✭TravelJunkie


    CorsetRibbons wrote: »
    I was baptised catholic and raised catholic in a manner of speaking. Mass every week, religious teachings in school, becoming a faith friend etc etc etc. As soon as I became a teenager I started to live for myself, not going to church if I didn't want to etc and over time I've lost faith in the catholic church and it's teachings. Over the past few months I've started to read the bible again and although I'm still only on the Old Testament, I find nothing but hatred within it's pages. I've become very interested again but as a lesbian, I've heard nothing from catholicism except how sinful and wrong it is to be gay. My friend in America who is a devout catholic says it's not a sin to be gay but it's a sin to practice it. I thought this statement was hypocrisy in itself. I'm desperate to get back in touch with my faith but I'm definately not willing to cease being a lesbian or practicing lesbianism. I'm gay and thats the way it is. I've been in a solid relationship for 4 years. I'm a good person, kind and caring and I work hard. I put other people before myself all the time and try to make people around me happy. I feel like it's so unjust to be hated by the catholic church and can't stomach to listening to the statements coming from the Vatican. I know the reasons behind this attitude is that beign gay means you aren't open to new life. I do intend on having children but just not by traditional methods. I do believe that there is a God but now, I'm not sure if I believe in him in the biblical sense of the word. How can I find my faith again? Is it ok to be a practising homosexual and still claim to be catholic? Any advice would be very much appreciated.

    Dear CorsetRibbons,

    It seems your original message has inspired quite a debate. If you happen to read this I can only say that the most important thing in your message is that you want to become closer to God. That is the basic truth and what happens next is between you and God, just know that he is there just beside you and waiting to answer your questions directly. Faith is trusting him to do so. He is listening to your heart. No one but you and him know your heart.

    x


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    TravelJunkie wrote: »
    Dear CorsetRibbons,

    It seems your original message has inspired quite a debate. If you happen to read this I can only say that the most important thing in your message is that you want to become closer to God. That is the basic truth and what happens next is between you and God, just know that he is there just beside you and waiting to answer your questions directly. Faith is trusting him to do so. He is listening to your heart. No one but you and him know your heart.

    x

    Brilliant post. I agree entirely with its sentiment.


  • #73
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Given what Jesus said about observing the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law, such Clintonesque definitions of 'sexual intercourse' probably miss the point a bit.

    Isn't that what practising homosexual Christians argue?


  • #74
    all the stars
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭all the stars


    CorsetRibbons wrote: »
    I was baptised catholic and raised catholic in a manner of speaking. Mass every week, religious teachings in school, becoming a faith friend etc etc etc. As soon as I became a teenager I started to live for myself, not going to church if I didn't want to etc and over time I've lost faith in the catholic church and it's teachings. Over the past few months I've started to read the bible again and although I'm still only on the Old Testament, I find nothing but hatred within it's pages. I've become very interested again but as a lesbian, I've heard nothing from catholicism except how sinful and wrong it is to be gay. My friend in America who is a devout catholic says it's not a sin to be gay but it's a sin to practice it. I thought this statement was hypocrisy in itself. I'm desperate to get back in touch with my faith but I'm definately not willing to cease being a lesbian or practicing lesbianism. I'm gay and thats the way it is. I've been in a solid relationship for 4 years. I'm a good person, kind and caring and I work hard. I put other people before myself all the time and try to make people around me happy. I feel like it's so unjust to be hated by the catholic church and can't stomach to listening to the statements coming from the Vatican. I know the reasons behind this attitude is that beign gay means you aren't open to new life. I do intend on having children but just not by traditional methods. I do believe that there is a God but now, I'm not sure if I believe in him in the biblical sense of the word. How can I find my faith again? Is it ok to be a practising homosexual and still claim to be catholic? Any advice would be very much appreciated.


    While i am not gay or religious, as far as i am concerned, no God would be against a loving relationship, happy home, and celebrating life - honestly & openly as yourself.
    I do think someone just interprited a few lines that way... Honestly, cant see god sending some loving people down there with charlie manson..
    I really wouldn't worry... God is meant to be a loving thing... but yeah, the old testament is all wrath and burnin bush...


  • #75
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    all the stars wrote: »
    While i am not gay or religious, as far as i am concerned, no God would be against a loving relationship, happy home, and celebrating life - honestly & openly as yourself.
    I do think someone just interprited a few lines that way... Honestly, cant see god sending some loving people down there with charlie manson..
    I really wouldn't worry... God is meant to be a loving thing... but yeah, the old testament is all wrath and burnin bush...

    Surely we shouldn't be in the dangerous situation of pick and match in relation to our religion? How can we choose passages?


  • #76
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Surely we shouldn't be in the dangerous situation of pick and match in relation to our religion? How can we choose passages?

    With PDN's "common sense", apparently.

    "Given what Jesus said about observing the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law, such Clintonesque definitions of 'sexual intercourse' probably miss the point a bit."

    While homosexual marriage certainly break the letter of the law (man and women marriages are the only ones described in the Bible), can anyone argue that they break the spirit of the law (people should love each other, and marriage is about a union under God of faith, commitment and love).


  • #77
    all the stars
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭all the stars


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Surely we shouldn't be in the dangerous situation of pick and match in relation to our religion? How can we choose passages?

    Well, i dunno, thats what free will is... innit? might i add, if the vatican can stop priests from marrying (which only happened like 100 years ago) coz its only a sin now... not the last thousand years before..

    Do people follow all the bible, like literally??


  • #78
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    all the stars wrote: »
    Well, i dunno, thats what free will is... innit? might i add, if the vatican can stop priests from marrying (which only happened like 100 years ago) coz its only a sin now... not the last thousand years before..

    The Vatican stopped priests from marrying in 1022. It was an unbiblical and wrong move, in my opinion as a non-Catholic, but was slightly longer than 100 years ago - almost 1000, in fact.


  • #79
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    The Vatican stopped priests from marrying in 1022.
    The Vatican still permits married priests in a number of places -- the Ukrainian Uniate Church, for example. And the Vatican acquired quite a few married priests when the CofE started ordaining women priests too. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples too.


  • #80
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    all the stars wrote: »
    Well, i dunno, thats what free will is... innit? might i add, if the vatican can stop priests from marrying (which only happened like 100 years ago) coz its only a sin now... not the last thousand years before..

    Do people follow all the bible, like literally??

    I don't see the Vatican as an authority in my faith. I'm of the Anglican Communion, but I see your point.

    There are areas of the Bible you cannot follow literally, such as Isaiah's parables, and Jesus' parables. So I don't think that can be taken literally.


  • #81
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Isn't that what practising homosexual Christians argue?

    That is indeed what 'practising homosexual Christians' argue. And herein lies the need for sound exegesis of Scripture.

    If we approach Scripture with a determination to make it justify what we want to do, then we can make the Bible say anything we like. The same applies to any text, be it the FIFA rule book, the Constitution, or an advertisement in a newspaper.

    What is required is to ask, with as open a mind as possible, "What did the original authors intend to say?" A second question, which helps us get much closer to the answer to the previous question, is "How would the first readers have understood this text?" A third question is "How does this translate into modern circumstances?"

    To try to answer the third question without first answering the other two is eisegesis (reading one's own meaning into the text) rather than exegesis (drawing out the intended meaning of the text).

    Some of the greatest evils in Church History - for example in regard to slavery, racism, torturing heretics etc - have occurred where people ignored the first 2 questions and jumped straight to the last one in an attempt to use Scripture to justify their actions.

    I have never heard of any serious scholar (Christian or otherwise) who has studied the Bible and reached an open-minded conclusion that homosexuality or lesbianism is compatible with the letter or the spirit of Scripture. The only people I have ever encountered who make such assertions are those who already want to reach that conclusion because they have already decided that homosexuality is OK, or those who don't even believe in God but just enjoy trying to stir up trouble and attack Christianity.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    I have never heard of any serious scholar (Christian or otherwise) who has studied the Bible and reached an open-minded conclusion that homosexuality or lesbianism is compatible with the letter or the spirit of Scripture.
    Well yes, but then I imagine neither have you heard of any serious scholar (Christian or otherwise) who has studied the Bible and reached an open-minded conclusion that slavery is considered wrong by the authors, or that women were to be considered equals to men, etc.

    Which is where we run into problems. I've had long arguments with Christians on this forum where they do anything but hold to sound exegesis, especially around the ever fun topic of slavery

    It is all very well to say that you hold to what the original authors meant, but I imagine (and your posts seem to suggest) you don't when it comes to issues that cannot be still justified in modern society today. Which is normally when the "It was a different time" excuse arises.

    Don't get me wrong, I in no way believe that the original authors of the Bible were tolerant of homosexuality. The Bible is very anti-homosexual (mainly in the Old Testament though) But it is also anti-women, and appears to have little problem with violent practices such as slavery.

    My problem is when people say homosexuality is against both the letter and spirit of Scripture, yet bend over backwards to fit scripture around modern moral standards when it comes to things like women, or slavery.

    Who here among Christians still would still think

    "11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. 12 But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: 15 but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety."

    is acceptable if taken as the original author (supposed to be Paul) meant it to be taken?

    Or (Paul again)

    "Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything."

    Or (Peter)

    Ye husbands, in like manner, dwell with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor unto the woman, as unto the weaker vessel, as being also joint-heirs of the grace of life; to the end that your prayers be not hindered.

    Why is excuse after excuse rolled out to explain away passages like these, yet nothing is done with relation to homosexuality?


  • #83
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight said:
    My problem is when people say homosexuality is against both the letter and spirit of Scripture, yet bend over backwards to fit scripture around modern moral standards when it comes to things like women, or slavery.
    Let me just nip in here to say I understand your difficulty.

    There is indeed an abuse of Scripture by many in their desire to accommodate modern cultural norms. But I differ with you in catagorising the biblical standard as anti-women and pro-slavery. For the former, it comes down to what we reckon is 'anti' for a woman; for the latter I can show how the Bible establishes the rule of love for neighbour, a rule that must lead to kindness in all cultural norms, but also to the replacement of norms that are contrary to the principle of love.

    But to answer your question regards women:
    Who here among Christians still would still think

    "11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. 12 But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: 15 but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety."

    is acceptable if taken as the original author (supposed to be Paul) meant it to be taken?

    Or (Paul again)

    "Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything."

    Or (Peter)

    Ye husbands, in like manner, dwell with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor unto the woman, as unto the weaker vessel, as being also joint-heirs of the grace of life; to the end that your prayers be not hindered.
    I for one certainly do. Most of my evangelical friends, likewise. But, sadly, there are some who - as you say - explain away passages like these.
    Why is excuse after excuse rolled out to explain away passages like these, yet nothing is done with relation to homosexuality?
    Once that path is entered, it will lead to that. Women elders; homosexual elders. An honest hermeneutic will lead one to accept or reject both.


  • #84
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    There is indeed an abuse of Scripture by many in their desire to accommodate modern cultural norms. But I differ with you in catagorising the biblical standard as anti-women and pro-slavery.
    Of course you do, that is my whole point :rolleyes:
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    For the former, it comes down to what we reckon is 'anti' for a woman; for the latter I can show how the Bible establishes the rule of love for neighbour, a rule that must lead to kindness in all cultural norms, but also to the replacement of norms that are contrary to the principle of love.

    Yes but slavery isn't contrary to the principle of love, because God is love and God approved of slavery in the Old Testament. See the issue?

    There is no plausible way to say that the authors of the Bible viewed slavery as the awful thing we view it today as.

    If they didn't see anything wrong with it then they wouldn't have considered it as acting against Jesus' teaching. It is only by reverse applying today's attitudes of slavery backward in time to the time of the authors of the Bible does one come to your conclusion. Which is exactly what yourself and PDN are saying people should do.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I for one certainly do.
    You certainly do what? You believe women should be subject to their husbands?


  • #85
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight said:
    Yes but slavery isn't contrary to the principle of love, because God is love and God approved of slavery in the Old Testament. See the issue?
    God did not approve of slavery in the OT. He tolerated it and restrained it, just as He did with divorce:
    Matthew 19:6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
    7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
    8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
    There is no plausible way to say that the authors of the Bible viewed slavery as the awful thing we view it today as.
    If it was morally acceptable, why forbid it for God's people?
    Leviticus 25:39 ‘And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. 40 As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 And then he shall depart from you—he and his children with him—and shall return to his own family. He shall return to the possession of his fathers. 42 For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves.
    You certainly do what? You believe women should be subject to their husbands?
    Yes, to all of your quote:
    Who here among Christians still would still think

    "11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. 12 But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: 15 but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety."

    is acceptable if taken as the original author (supposed to be Paul) meant it to be taken?

    Or (Paul again)

    "Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything."

    Or (Peter)

    Ye husbands, in like manner, dwell with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor unto the woman, as unto the weaker vessel, as being also joint-heirs of the grace of life; to the end that your prayers be not hindered.
    Men and women have equality of status before God, but differing roles in His order. The man is the head, the woman in submission to him; in the church and in the family.

    Man is to rule for the woman's benefit, however, not abusively. Christ and His bride (the Church) show the example. It is unthinkable that He would abuse her, or that she would rebel against Him.


  • #86
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    Regarding Slavery:

    Biblical passages recognized, controlled, and regulated the practice. The Bible permitted owners to beat their slaves severely, even to the point of killing them. However, as long as the slave lingered longer than 24 hours before dying of the abuse, the owner was not regarded as having committed a crime, because -- after all -- the slave was his property.

    Paul had every opportunity to write in one of his Epistles that human slavery -- the owning of one person as a piece of property by another -- is profoundly evil. His letter to Philemon would have been an ideal opportunity to vilify slavery. But he wrote not one word of criticism.

    Jesus could have condemned the practice. He might have done so. But there is no record of him having said anything negative about the institution.
    Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

    A man who rapes or engages in consensual sex with a female slave who is engaged to be married to another man must sacrifice an animal in the temple in order to obtain God's forgiveness. The female slave would be whipped. There is apparently no punishment or ritual animal killing required if the female slave were not engaged; men could rape such slaves with impunity:
    Leviticus 19:20-22: "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him."

    If a man is sold into slavery due to poverty and his brother purchases him, then the man must be treated as a hired hand or as a guest of the brother. He would be not be free to leave, but was required to serve until the Jubilee Year, which occurs every 50 years. This would often require him to serve his brother for the rest of his life. Some translations (e.g. Living Bible) refer to"a fellow Israelite" rather than "brother." The fate of a woman being bought by her brother is unclear:
    Leviticus 25:39: "And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee: And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return."

    In a foreign war, an Israelite could take any woman as a slave-wife, even if it were against her will. He would put her through what could be regarded as a period of ritual abuse. If he later dislikes her, he can grant her freedom, but cannot sell her to another slave owner:

    Deuteronomy 21:10-14: "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her [i.e. rape her or engage in consensual sex], and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."


    Deuteronomy 20:14" "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"


  • #87
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Don't get me wrong, I in no way believe that the original authors of the Bible were tolerant of homosexuality. The Bible is very anti-homosexual (mainly in the Old Testament though) But it is also anti-women, and appears to have little problem with violent practices such as slavery.

    My problem is when people say homosexuality is against both the letter and spirit of Scripture, yet bend over backwards to fit scripture around modern moral standards when it comes to things like women, or slavery.

    I think there is a major flaw in your reasoning here. The issues of slavery and women's rights are not examples of Christianity adapting itself in order to fit in with 'modern standards'. In each case it was Christianity, and the application of Christian principles and values, which changed the cultural norms and created these modern standards.


  • #88
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    In each case it was Christianity, and the application of Christian principles and values, which changed the cultural norms and created these modern standards.

    That is completely untrue. :mad:

    For example women's suffrage in the 19th Century were fought against, often bitterly, by both Catholic and Protestant churchs in America and Europe. The common idea put forward at the time was that women should be sub-servant to their husbands (umm, wonder where that came from {EDIT} And Wolfsbane demonstrates these views are alive and well today{/EDIT}) and therefore it was unnecessary and ultimately undemocratic to give women the vote as it would effectively give the husband two.

    Women's suffrage was seen as unGodly and a threat to the foundations of modern, Christian, society.

    Catholic groups as well as Baptist and Methodist churches urged their members not to support women's suffrage, and in places such as South Carolina women's suffrage was officially off the books until as late as 1969 due to protests from the churches!


  • #89
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    In each case it was Christianity, and the application of Christian principles and values, which changed the cultural norms and created these modern standards.
    Wow. There's a major flaw in your historical thinking here.

    The rejection of slavery flowed from the idea that all humans had equal, individual rights, including slaves and women. This idea was enshrined in such documents the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, the US United States Bill of Rights and so on. Each of them declared rights that were largely absent, or largely unactioned where they were not absent, from christianity.

    It's worth reading these documents and seeing how few of the rights that we now accept as normal were present in any serious way in christianity, or promulgated with any enthusiasm, where they were.

    Yes, the early abolitionists included some christians, but the same religion had singularly failed to produce abolitionists in any serious numbers in its previous 1,500 years of controlling Europe.

    A reasonable historian, not to say an informed one, therefore looks elsewhere for cause.

    .


  • #90
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Wicknight wrote: »
    That is completely untrue. :mad:
    <snap> :)


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    God did not approve of slavery in the OT. He tolerated it and restrained it, just as He did with divorce:

    It is this type of nonsense double-think that I'm complaining about Wolfsbane.

    It is nonsense for two reasons -

    Firstly if God didn't approve of slavery why "tolerate and restraint it"? Why not outlaw it?This is God we are talking about after all. He out outlawed lots of other things, including adultery and homosexuality.

    Secondly, and this is where your argument really falls down, he told the Hebrews they could take slaves from their conquests in neighbouring lands.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    If it was morally acceptable, why forbid it for God's people?

    If it is morally unacceptable why only forbid the taking of Hebrew slaves :rolleyes::rolleyes:

    You just invalidate your first point above, that he had to tolerate it. He didn't tolerate Hebrew's taking other Hebrews as slaves. If he can out law that why not out law the taking of slaves from conquered lands if he hated slavery so much? In fact why tell the Hebrews that they can take slaves from conquered lands?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Men and women have equality of status before God, but differing roles in His order.
    The "equal status before God" is an excuse Christians have been using since the start of the women's right movement. Women aren't simply interested in equality before God, they would also like equality before men (those dreaming hussies).
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The man is the head, the woman in submission to him; in the church and in the family.
    Which is sexist inequality (see my post to PDN, and PDN see this post).
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Man is to rule for the woman's benefit, however, not abusively.
    Oh well that is all right then.

    And they aren't to beat their slaves either :rolleyes:


Advertisement