Struggling to come to terms with something I have read in the bible.

[tumbleweed41]

Ho! yes there is an answer, but it is already within each one of us, for God puts all of his laws in our heart.
I have chosen to cultivate God's law, that is why they are clear to me, but if God's laws are not cultivated they gets choked by weeds, and the righteousness of God's law become no longer distinguishable.

So....
It all comes down to what you see as Gods laws in your heart. Very convenient.
You are basically saying to understand what God wants, you have to "cultivate" or make conditions right for these laws to be understood. If one does not make conditions right, the laws are unclear.
You, as a Christian, believe that your "cultivation" is making these laws clear to you.
A Hindu, Muslim, Jew, and yes..Deist, may have different "cultivation" and therefor different results in their understanding of "Gods Law".
You claim that "God puts all of his laws in our heart", so it must be in the hearts of all humans. Yet only Christians have the proper "cultivation"? And not all Christians would agree with your "understanding" of Gods laws. Can you reconcile that without the claim of "then they are not true Christians"?
Basically what it comes down to is this, when scriptural doctrine is questioned on the grounds of interpretation, relevance, authenticity or circumstances, you simply claim the "Laws" are "clear to me". This is just taking what you believe to be true and putting Gods stamp of approval on it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Jesus fulfills the law. The requirements of the law have been met in Him and now in us also becuase Jesus is in us.

There you go...picking and choosing again....because the way you put it is out of context.....

He says...

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]18 "I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved.[/FONT]"

Earth is still here.....

Since he didn't abolish the law, destroy the law or bring the law to an end, as he himself said he didn't, then I can conclude that (fulfill) means he had completed the mission his god gave him and he was making it "clear" to them (helping them "realize")...the error in their ways for listening to those who have them stray from the laws. I mean...that is one of the definitions to "Fulfill" (bring to realization).

 

[Alceste]

There you go...picking and choosing again....because the way you put it is out of context.....

Who says Christians aren't allowed to pick and choose? It's just a book, for Christ's sake.

 

[free spirit]

So....

It all comes down to what you see as Gods laws in your heart. Very convenient.

No convenient, but just; for we read in Romans 2: 14, "for when gentiles who do not have the law do instinctively the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves."

You are basically saying to understand what God wants, you have to "cultivate" or make conditions right for these laws to be understood. If one does not make conditions right, the laws are unclear.

yes if anyone habitually practice what is a sin, then that sin will eventually looses the sin states, nevertheless in the eyes of God it is still a sin.

You, as a Christian, believe that your "cultivation" is making these laws clear to you.
A Hindu, Muslim, Jew, and yes..Deist, may have different "cultivation" and therefor different results in their understanding of "Gods Law".

Sin is known universally to be sin. All the rest such as culture is unimportant, may offend men but not God.

You claim that "God puts all of his laws in our heart", so it must be in the hearts of all humans. Yet only Christians have the proper "cultivation"? And not all Christians would agree with your "understanding" of Gods laws. Can you reconcile that without the claim of "then they are not true Christians"?

God calls all humans to holiness, and all religions have devised a plan to reach that holiness, some plans are more successful then others.
But Christians have an advantage over the others because the Lord is willing and able to lead them to repentance; but you know what hardly anyone take that seriously, so the advantage is eliminated.

Basically what it comes down to is this, when scriptural doctrine is questioned on the grounds of interpretation, relevance, authenticity or circumstances, you simply claim the "Laws" are "clear to me". This is just taking what you believe to be true and putting Gods stamp of approval on it.

Well they are clear to me because I do not have an habitual sin in my life, in other words the sins that came knocking on my door I did not invited in to stay, yes I have sinned, but I strive not to sin.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Who says Christians aren't allowed to pick and choose? It's just a book, for Christ's sake.

To me it's just a book...but to them it's not. If they had it their way they'd try to rule over us with the guidelines in the book and/or their interpretations of what the book says. This brings the whole argument full circle. If we're not being governed by the laws in the bible then what's the big deal of Gay marriage and equal rights as heterosexuals? If "it's just a book" then their opinion on what marriage shouldn't be isn't important.......right?....

 

[sojourner]

I haven't weighed in here yet -- and I haven't read the entire thread, but I have read the first and last pages. I'd like to weigh in now.

First of all, homosexuality is so important to Jesus that he mentions it not one single time. In the entirety of the Christian Bible, there are only 3 or 4 passages alluding to homosexuality, usually in reference to males.

I fail to understand why Xians are so rabid about this (and I'm a member of the clergy). I believe it has to do with a knee-jerk reaction to promiscuity of any kind, by invoking old "purity laws." But, given the culture out of which these passages were written, I think we can dismiss them, just as we dismiss the ones commanding us not to wear 60/40 cotton-poly shirts, and the ones about eating clams and pork.

It's unconscionable that the church leaders would hand the OP such a load of tripe and not be able to back it up. Taking these very few passages out of context and using them as the basis for a witch hunt is irresponsible, at best. God created us as we are, and that creation was deemed "good" by God.

 

[tumbleweed41]

No convenient, but just; for we read in Romans 2: 14, "for when gentiles who do not have the law do instinctively the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves."

So what is the "Law", is it the over 600 laws given to the Jews to follow? Romans 2 clearly is referencing the fact that Gentiles are justified by following the Jewish laws.

yes if anyone habitually practice what is a sin, then that sin will eventually looses the sin states, nevertheless in the eyes of God it is still a sin.

So what God puts in the hearts of men, man can remove through repetition. Interesting.

Sin is known universally to be sin. All the rest such as culture is unimportant, may offend men but not God

Known universally by whom?

God calls all humans to holiness, and all religions have devised a plan to reach that holiness, some plans are more successful then others.
But Christians have an advantage over the others because the Lord is willing and able to lead them to repentance; but you know what hardly anyone take that seriously, so the advantage is eliminated.

All religions have devised a plan to reach that holiness? Some are more successful than others? Is this Biblical or just your own thoughts? Do you as a Christian honestly believe that others can reach "holiness" with out the laws spoken of in Romans?

Romans 2:12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law

Apparently without knowledge of the law, one will perish, along with those who know the law, yet do not follow it. If one does not know the "law", how can one follow it? Again, the author is speaking about gentiles following the Jewish laws in order to be "circumcised" within.

Well they are clear to me because I do not have an habitual sin in my life, in other words the sins that came knocking on my door I did not invited in to stay, yes I have sinned, but I strive not to sin.

You have no habitual sin? None? You keep all the Laws of God without repetitive sin?
Debate?
Pride?
Boasting?
And what of the over 600 laws of the OT, that by your faith as a Gentile you must follow to remain "circumcised" within?
Without the law, there is no knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20), what laws do you break everyday? Ignorance is no excuse "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law"
To condemn what you perceive to be a sin (homosexuality), because it is "clear" to you, while remaining ignorant of your own sin, is biblicaly , itself a sin.

Romans 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

 

[Alceste]

To me it's just a book...but to them it's not. If they had it their way they'd try to rule over us with the guidelines in the book and/or their interpretations of what the book says.

Not all of them. In particular, not the ones who have actually read it. Or are even able to read it. As I've said numerous times, it's a very difficult book to read, particularly for someone who doesn't read much, if at all. Sarah Palin, for example, can't even name a newspaper. Therefore I highly suspect she has no idea what's actually in the Bible.

The sort of Christians you're talking about are Bible occultists. They use the Bible as a sort of divining tool, sticking a finger in at random and reading a line here and there to see what their God wants from them. They're using it the way I use tarot cards - as a symbolic tool for uncovering deeper meaning from beneath the convoluted layers of the conscious mind. This method inevitably results in a message or meaning that is entirely the product of the practitioner's own preconceptions, prejudices, experiences and ideals.

These Christians believe it's inerrant, true and magical because they can't read it. If they could actually read it from end to end, the mystique would vanish and its holiness be reduced.

Or they use it as the a supporting argument for any personal desire, flipping through to find something relevant to the topic at hand, which is easy to do because you can find anything in there. Want to kill your own children? God says do it! Want to love your neighbour? God says do it! Most often, their preachers do the dirty work for them in this respect, which saves them even having to crack the thing open unless they've been told exactly which sentence they're supposed to look at.

Then there are plenty of Christians like Sojourner, who have obviously read it, and so no longer think that every single sentence in it is the literal truth or a divine commandment from God.

This brings the whole argument full circle. If we're not being governed by the laws in the bible then what's the big deal of Gay marriage and equal rights as heterosexuals? If "it's just a book" then their opinion on what marriage shouldn't be important.......right?....

I don't believe there's a "they". In Canada, a substantial majority of people support equal civil rights for LGBT people, and the majority are also Christian.

My point is that they are all picking and choosing. We (non-Christians) don't gain anything by lumping those who pick and choose the good stuff in with those who pick and choose the nonsense.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Not all of them. In particular, not the ones who have actually read it. Or are even able to read it. As I've said numerous times, it's a very difficult book to read, particularly for someone who doesn't read much, if at all. Sarah Palin, for example, can't even name a newspaper. Therefore I highly suspect she has no idea what's actually in the Bible.

The sort of Christians you're talking about are Bible occultists. They use the Bible as a sort of divining tool, sticking a finger in at random and reading a line here and there to see what their God wants from them. They're using it the way I use tarot cards - as a symbolic tool for uncovering deeper meaning from beneath the convoluted layers of the conscious mind. This method inevitably results in a message or meaning that is entirely the product of the practitioner's own preconceptions, prejudices, experiences and ideals.

These Christians believe it's inerrant, true and magical because they can't read it. If they could actually read it from end to end, the mystique would vanish and its holiness be reduced.

Or they use it as the a supporting argument for any personal desire, flipping through to find something relevant to the topic at hand, which is easy to do because you can find anything in there. Want to kill your own children? God says do it! Want to love your neighbour? God says do it! Most often, their preachers do the dirty work for them in this respect, which saves them even having to crack the thing open unless they've been told exactly which sentence they're supposed to look at.

Then there are plenty of Christians like Sojourner, who have obviously read it, and so no longer think that every single sentence in it is the literal truth or a divine commandment from God.

I'm not lumping all of them in the same category. For the sake of this discussion I'm referring to the ones who don't support gays and lesbians but rather condemn them and judge them with the book. I'm only speaking of the ones who'd use their book to hope to intact laws against and/or that prohibit gays and lesbians equal rights. A co-worker of mine who was once catholic, at least grew up in a catholic household, has no problem with gay rights..so I don't mean to imply (All)...

I don't believe there's a "they". In Canada, a substantial majority of people support equal civil rights for LGBT people, and the majority are also Christian.

Here in the US it's a little different.

My point is that they are all picking and choosing. We (non-Christians) don't gain anything by lumping those who pick and choose the good stuff in with those who pick and choose the nonsense.

Not lumping and didn't mean to give the impression I was. I will clarify in the future.

 

[Alceste]

I'm not lumping all of them in the same category. For the sake of this discussion I'm referring to the ones who don't support gays and lesbians but rather condemn them and judge them with the book. I'm only speaking of the ones who'd use their book to hope to intact laws against and/or that prohibit gays and lesbians equal rights. A co-worker of mine who was once catholic, at least grew up in a catholic household, has no problem with gay rights..so I don't mean to imply (All)...

Not lumping and didn't mean to give the impression I was. I will clarify in the future.

Oh right. My bad. Assuming is as bad as lumping.

I suppose it does look a bit different from a Canadian perspective, since one of the largest the Christian denominations up here has been a driving force for LGBT equality for decades. I'm not sure whether we'd have overturned discriminatory laws up here so soon if it hadn't been for their efforts - at the very least it changed secular perceptions of "the religious reasons" for maintaining inequality and gave mainstream Catholics (who are the largest Christian denomination, and whose leadership was emphatically against it), something to think about.

Personally, I wish they'd try to enforce the laws on lending, where all debts are forgotten after 7 years. That would do a lot more good. And they should enforce the menstruation laws. I could totally go for having a week off once a month with nobody bothering me. I could live with all the "unlclean!" nonsense for that.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Oh right. My bad. Assuming is as bad as lumping.

I suppose it does look a bit different from a Canadian perspective, since one of the largest the Christian denominations up here has been a driving force for LGBT equality for decades. I'm not sure whether we'd have overturned discriminatory laws up here so soon if it hadn't been for their efforts - at the very least it changed secular perceptions of "the religious reasons" for maintaining inequality and gave mainstream Catholics (who are the largest Christian denomination, and whose leadership was emphatically against it), something to think about.

Personally, I wish they'd try to enforce the laws on lending, where all debts are forgotten after 7 years. That would do a lot more good. And they should enforce the menstruation laws. I could totally go for having a week off once a month with nobody bothering me. I could live with all the "unlclean!" nonsense for that.

I'm with you on that...... Well, I think sometimes that the US could take a page from Canada and other countries in how they're run. I'd love me some Universal Health care. It's amazing how much my employer and I pay per month. I'm totally for Gay and Lesbian rights.....I ask the questions the way I do because I really don't see what big deal is.....

 

[Enlighten]

I haven't weighed in here yet -- and I haven't read the entire thread, but I have read the first and last pages. I'd like to weigh in now.

First of all, homosexuality is so important to Jesus that he mentions it not one single time. In the entirety of the Christian Bible, there are only 3 or 4 passages alluding to homosexuality, usually in reference to males.

I fail to understand why Xians are so rabid about this (and I'm a member of the clergy). I believe it has to do with a knee-jerk reaction to promiscuity of any kind, by invoking old "purity laws." But, given the culture out of which these passages were written, I think we can dismiss them, just as we dismiss the ones commanding us not to wear 60/40 cotton-poly shirts, and the ones about eating clams and pork.

It's unconscionable that the church leaders would hand the OP such a load of tripe and not be able to back it up. Taking these very few passages out of context and using them as the basis for a witch hunt is irresponsible, at best. God created us as we are, and that creation was deemed "good" by God.

Just to point out that it wasn't the church leaders that spoke to me, I dont want to give people the wrong opinion of the church leaders. (I did state this in my posts but cant remember which page they are on)

And I do agree that God created us the way we are so loves us the way we are, I think I put this somewhere too.

 

[strange]

It all depends on whose doing the interpretation and for that matter, all modern day translations have real problems in interpreting manuscripts that no longer exist. There are no original manuscripts and what manuscripts there are, and there are plenty, there are deletions, additions, translations that are more interpretation than translation, etc.

The word, homosexual, never appeared in the Bible before 1946. What allowed the word homosexual to be used was an interpretation that went against hermeneutics. To interpret the Bible one must not only know the archaic language but also the intent of the author. This calls for interpreters to understand the culture.

Now if your concerned that the Apostle Paul was harsh on women consider that none of the Apostles wrote the Gospels or Epistles. The original NT manuscripts that no longer exist, were not written by the Apostles. They were written as much as a generation later.

Now for other's interpretation.



"Rom.1:26-27, Paul gives an account of homoeroticism in same-sex behaviour, of both men and women. The context is in regard to idolatry, in which worship of the true god is exchanged untrue worship. As a result, their sexual conduct changes from 'natural' to ‘unnatural'. In fact, Paul uses Jewish prejudices concerning the Gentiles rhetorically, to ensnare his readers into engaging judgmental views in order to turn those views against them. In short, he pulls a literary sting! Paul does not engage a discussion of same-sex practices with the intent of sustaining that judgement. His rhetoric was the means by which he highlights God's role as judge. Paul teaches that, by putting yourself in the role of judge, you usurp God's role and function and engage the root of all sin which is idolatry. (44)
In Romans 1, Paul is arguing that "the righteousness of God" is needed because of the unrighteousness of all human beings. All people have sinned, Jews and Gentiles alike. Paul gives reference to the Gentiles first. They have had a prior knowledge of God, he claims, through God's revelation through nature and his will in the created world. Paul says that Pagan worship and philosophy have not seen this revelation clearly and Paul criticises pagan idolatry and culture for abandoning the truth. More than this, he is reflecting theological attitudes and beliefs that derive not only from his Jewish background regarding the kadeshim, but also from differing attitudes in the pagan world, towards pederasty. Paul's concern is with wider issues of unrighteousness. Significantly, Paul does not discuss gay or lesbian persons, in Romans 1. The persons whom Paul condemns are not homosexual, for it is clear that they are 'heterosexual' persons who have turned from their "natural" ways. As Boswell writes:

"The whole point of Romans 1, in fact, is to stigmatize persons who have rejected their calling, gotten off the true path they were once on. It would completely undermine the thrust of the argument if the persons in question were not "naturally" inclined to the opposite sex in the same way they were "naturally" inclined to monotheism." (45) ​

To have the text refer to homosexual persons, one has to argue that homosexuality is a "deviation" from the normative "heterosexual" orientation or what is perceived as "natural". Thus homosexuality is "normalised" in reference to "heterosexuality" and is labelled "unnatural". Arguments that homosexuality is "against nature" are very problematic. Apart from being based on a misunderstanding of Paul's argument in Romans 1, they risk the naturalistic fallacy in trying to argue a moral precept from an empirical state (arguing from ‘is’ to ‘ought&#8217. They impose a normative standard that recognises only one "natural" sexual orientation and denies the experience of homosexual persons who regard their sexual orientation as "natural" to themselves. To counter this, a secondary argument is often adopted with the view that homosexuality is a "chosen" state, an act of choice and not of "nature". In this there is often a link to arguments based on Genesis 1:27-31 that assume a totally heterosexual Creation. Thus arguments that homosexuality is "against nature" apply a restrictive viewpoint, that of heterosexism, in which heterosexual experience not only dominates but is imposed as the delimiting case. Such interpretation stands contrary to the experience of homosexual persons and modern understandings of human sexuality. To apply Paul’s rhetoric passionately, directing implications at others, however misconceived those concerns may be, setting yourself up as judge and moral arbiter, falls into Paul’s rhetorical trap. To do so engages dishonourable passion, risking arrogant religiosity and reproach. God judges all persons, regardless of outward appearance, by the things of the heart (Prov. 16:1; Romans 2:16). Paul teaches us that those things are known through hope and faith and not by directing passionate censure at others."
The Bible and Homosexuality, /fou.uniting.com.au/texts.html.




Now Romans 1 is the most difficult to explain away concerning homosexuality in the Bible. But as you see above that understanding the overall message Paul is trying to get across is not about homosexuals.

 

[free spirit]

to tumbleweed

So what is the "Law", is it the over 600 laws given to the Jews to follow? Romans 2 clearly is referencing the fact that Gentiles are justified by following the Jewish laws.
So what God puts in the hearts of men, man can remove through repetition. Interesting.
Known universally by whom?
All religions have devised a plan to reach that holiness? Some are more successful than others? Is this Biblical or just your own thoughts? Do you as a Christian honestly believe that others can reach "holiness" with out the laws spoken of in Romans?

Romans 2:12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law

Apparently without knowledge of the law, one will perish, along with those who know the law, yet do not follow it. If one does not know the "law", how can one follow it? Again, the author is speaking about gentiles following the Jewish laws in order to be "circumcised" within.
If I can explain this you will have all the answers, Lets say you go to another country there the laws are different, the language also is different, even the people race is different; so you do have a problem, for how can you obey their laws: surprise, surprise, you just have to follow your conscience in good faith to be out of troubles, simple; so in other words you are keeping the law without knowing the law, so it is in Christ. is that any clearer.


You have no habitual sin? None? You keep all the Laws of God without repetitive sin?
Debate?
Pride?
Boasting?
If I have I am not aware of it, no one is perfect we strive to be perfect and God sees that and has mercy on me.
And what of the over 600 laws of the OT, that by your faith as a Gentile you must follow to remain "circumcised" within?
Without the law, there is no knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20), what laws do you break everyday? Ignorance is no excuse "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law"

To condemn what you perceive to be a sin (homosexuality), because it is "clear" to you, while remaining ignorant of your own sin, is biblicaly , itself a sin.

Romans 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

I condemn sin because I know it to be sin, I never condemn the sinner for I am not the judge. By pointing out sin I am not making any friends so why do that, yes why do you think I do that? No I do not like to be regarded as the proverbial pain in the ........

 

[Beaudreaux]

You are confusing Love With lust, For we read in 1 Corinthians 13: 4 to 6, "Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong-suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. As you can see romantic love of any type is not agape love, in other words the love that counts is unselfish love, or sacrificial love. because if your partner stops pleasing you, you soon find another partner, or being attracted to a good looking or charismatic person is not love, actually true love attracts you to the
less fortunate in your society.

I know many gay people who love each other in the way you describe. Why do you believe that homosexuality all about lust?

 

[Beaudreaux]

[The Bible is] just a book, for Christ's sake.

Not to the Jews it's not.

 

[gzusfrk]

or the gentiles

 

[free spirit]

I know many gay people who love each other in the way you describe. Why do you believe that homosexuality all about lust?

because true love has nothing to do with sex, like I love my brother, I love my sons, even if one is attracted to a woman it is not love, it is lust, for how can you love a person if you do not know that person. we begin our relationships with lust and if you are Lucky love follow.

 

[sojourner]

I condemn sin because I know it to be sin, I never condemn the sinner for I am not the judge.

Weeellll! ::smirks self-righteously:: Idn't that special?!
What's "sin" about being made the way we're made???

 

[sojourner]

because true love has nothing to do with sex, like I love my brother, I love my sons, even if one is attracted to a woman it is not love, it is lust, for how can you love a person if you do not know that person. we begin our relationships with lust and if you are Lucky love follow.

What bubble have you been living in???
People fall in love with friends of the opposite sex all the time, with no sexual attraction involved.

Sometimes true love leads to a sexual expression of that love, and then sex has everything to do with love.

Jesus commanded us to reach out in love to the hungry and disenfranchised. When you send relief and aid to people halfway around the world you're reaching out in love. Yet you don't know them...

Right relationships are begun with love -- not lust -- for relationships begin with God, who is love -- not lust.