The Bible, homosexuality, and semantics

[Brickjectivity]

I'm sorry to have derailed the conversation slightly, Sojourner. We have had a misunderstanding.

You're setting up a false argument. You asked:

how could a Bible that is divinely inspired have errors.

My answer: We were divinely inspired and we have errors. In other words, it is possible for something divinely-inspired to contain errors.

I understand but I was speaking rhetorically to someone else. You got my meaning, but you thought I was implying the opposite. Sorry, but I agree with you. The misunderstanding is my own fault.

You want the creation myth to read and follow like a science text or a mathematical equation.i won't do that, because it's myth. you have to read it and study it from that standpoint. you don't get to make it into something it isn't, and then study it that way and conclude "it doesn't make any sense."

No, I agree with you. Perhaps my argument wasn't very smooth, but I agree its not a logical tome. Its nevertheless very rich in meaning, and I think you agree.

Even in a public forum, your argument should still make sense. Even in a public forum, you should have some idea of what you're talking about before you purport to critique something.

Since I seemed to be saying such ridiculous things I can see why you'd be unhappy.

'K... Where's the part that says "Death bad?"

Point taken except that originally Adam & Eve have access to eternal life before they are forced out of the garden but not afterward. Literally the story sees death as a development that occurred as a result of Adam's choice, and it leaves eternal life as a desirable fruit just out of reach. The writer leaves eternal life available if they manage to get back into the garden whose exit is on the East, just like the opening of Jewish Tent of Meeting which was always to be pointed East.

Notice that those are the only two trees that are named. They are theologically tied together. The serpent says that eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil will make the man "like God." Herein is a prohibition by God -- setting a boundary that humanity may not cross. Humanity may not blur the line between humanity and divinity. They tried to cross that line. The trees are linked. The text implies that they weren't to eat of the tree of life either, since God says in chap. 3, "and now he might reach out his hand and eat of the fruit of the tree of life also." As if Adam hadn't done that before.

That is a good point, but its no reason to jump on my case. Admittedly both trees were local to each other and Adam may not have already tasted the tree of life, but how is that possible? A 'god' is a judge at the lowest common denominator, so it makes perfect sense that the tree of knowledge of G&E would make them into judges or 'gods' without having to make them immortal. The fact that there are two trees is significant in that they can eat from one without eating from the other, just as I can reach out and pick beans without stealing strawberries. Possibly the two trees represent things that can be gotten from the Law, so they could be linked. I remember someone once commented 'The letter kills but the spirit gives life' and that may be referring to a kind of double nature in the Law that is analogous to the two trees. Then it would be the priest's task to go into the Holy of Holies or Eden to get fruits, and they might have to choose between. I don't know if this tells us, but only pomegranates are displayed in the tapestries of the Tent of Meeting. It could suggest only one fruit.

 

[sojourner]

I'm sorry to have derailed the conversation slightly, Sojourner. We have had a misunderstanding.
I understand but I was speaking rhetorically to someone else. You got my meaning, but you thought I was implying the opposite. Sorry, but I agree with you. The misunderstanding is my own fault.

No, I agree with you. Perhaps my argument wasn't very smooth, but I agree its not a logical tome. Its nevertheless very rich in meaning, and I think you agree.

Since I seemed to be saying such ridiculous things I can see why you'd be unhappy.


Point taken except that originally Adam & Eve have access to eternal life before they are forced out of the garden but not afterward. Literally the story sees death as a development that occurred as a result of Adam's choice, and it leaves eternal life as a desirable fruit just out of reach. The writer leaves eternal life available if they manage to get back into the garden whose exit is on the East, just like the opening of Jewish Tent of Meeting which was always to be pointed East.

That is a good point, but its no reason to jump on my case. Admittedly both trees were local to each other and Adam may not have already tasted the tree of life, but how is that possible? A 'god' is a judge at the lowest common denominator, so it makes perfect sense that the tree of knowledge of G&E would make them into judges or 'gods' without having to make them immortal. The fact that there are two trees is significant in that they can eat from one without eating from the other, just as I can reach out and pick beans without stealing strawberries. Possibly the two trees represent things that can be gotten from the Law, so they could be linked. I remember someone once commented 'The letter kills but the spirit gives life' and that may be referring to a kind of double nature in the Law that is analogous to the two trees. Then it would be the priest's task to go into the Holy of Holies or Eden to get fruits, and they might have to choose between. I don't know if this tells us, but only pomegranates are displayed in the tapestries of the Tent of Meeting. It could suggest only one fruit.

For your first three points: frubals for clearing that up. i think we agree on these points. And I'd like to address the last two.

They have access, but it doesn't say that they took advantage of it -- in fact, God's apparent angst that they would take advantage of it is an indicator that it really wasn't to be partaken of. that my be the writer's theological way of saying that humanity was "in God's kitchen," but never immortal. Again, death is a consequence and, perhaps not desired, but certainly not "bad." Nothing natural is "bad" in these accounts.

Your last point: an interesting take that I don't quite either agree or disagree with, except for one fine point: The stories predate Judaism, so I doubt that the Law has much to with it -- unless the later Jews are superimposing a later understanding onto the stories (kind of like Christians often do by saying that the serpent is Satan).

 

[yoda89]

For your first three points: frubals for clearing that up. i think we agree on these points. And I'd like to address the last two.

They have access, but it doesn't say that they took advantage of it -- in fact, God's apparent angst that they would take advantage of it is an indicator that it really wasn't to be partaken of. that my be the writer's theological way of saying that humanity was "in God's kitchen," but never immortal. Again, death is a consequence and, perhaps not desired, but certainly not "bad." Nothing natural is "bad" in these accounts.

Your last point: an interesting take that I don't quite either agree or disagree with, except for one fine point: The stories predate Judaism, so I doubt that the Law has much to with it -- unless the later Jews are superimposing a later understanding onto the stories (kind of like Christians often do by saying that the serpent is Satan).

You seem to have studied scripture to a more rational level compared to many Christians. Being an ex-Christain I always saw contradictions to God's belief in being all loving and all knowing. If you would share you concepts on these it might make me view things in a different light. Do you believe he is all loving and all knowing and if so how do you explain contradictions?

 

[captainbryce]

Does the word Satan or Lucifer appear in the text?

We know the other characters because they are named: God, Adam, Eve. Saying Satan is the snake is like insisting that the fruit that Eve gave to Adam was a bannana rather than a fig.

The bible says that Satan fell from heaven, and that he was known as a serpent. The bible says that Lucifer fell from heaven, and that he was in the Garden of Eden. Just on the basic reading of the text, it seems clear that all three are in fact one in the same.

 

[captainbryce]

No.
1) Nowhere in Genesis is the serpent referred to as "Satan."

I don't see how this is relevant. Nowhere in Genesis does it say that there was a war in heaven and that some of the angels rebelled and were cast out either. But clearly that is what happened according to scripture because it is recounted in other texts. Genesis 1-3 is not about Satan, it's about Adam and Eve! The point is, there are other texts in the bible that point to Satan, Lucifer and the serpent as being the same entity.

2) the concept of Satan is Hellenistic. the Genesis writings are Sumerian in origin.

I could see how this interpretation might be relevant to an atheist, but for me it's not.

As I said before, you're conflating the creation myths with other writings. It's not a good practice, because it muddies the exegetical waters.

That's your opinion. I respectfully disagree. Again, I can understand how an atheist might think that being a Christian who believes in the word of scripture is "not a good practice". But YOUR opinion does not concern me.

 

[captainbryce]

yes, but that's not what we mean by the use of the word "condemnation," is it!

What "we" mean? :sarcastic

That's what "I" mean when I use it....because that's what it means. I cannot speak for yoda89, but I assume that's what HE meant by it as well.

By using "condemnation," we mean that God acts to punish us in some way. But that's not what happens here. This is simply the consequence of our actions.

I still think we are largely arguing semantics here. Your statement: "God didn't condemn humanity in Genesis!" is false by any definition of the word "condemn" you want to use. The fact is, he DID condemn them because he first expressed strong disapproval with what they did, declared them morally culpable, and then proceeded to punish them. That is clearly CONDEMNATION by any way you choose to define the term. Again I can't speak for yoda89 (nor would I try because I think the his entire outlook on scripture is just plain wrong), however in this case, I don't see how you can honestly say that humanity wasn't condemned in Genesis, chapter 3, verses 17-19. If that is not a condemnation, then what do you call it?

 

[idav]

Well, the Old Testament certainly doesn't condone it.

Leviticus 18:22 (NLT)
22 “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.

Leviticus 20:13 (NLT)
13 “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.
​

Nor does the New Testament

Romans 1:26-27 (NLT)
26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NLT)
9 Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.

1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NLT)
9 For the law was not intended for people who do what is right. It is for people who are lawless and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful, who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who kill their father or mother or commit other murders. 10 The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders,[a] liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching.

​

So, it appears that the good Bible-believing Christian should condemn homosexual sex, and perhaps even those who practice it.

All forms of sex outside of marriage is a sin. That is the loophole that Paul gave people but he likely excluded same sex marriage on that free pass. He at least knew enough to know abstinence isn't always the answer.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

All forms of sex outside of marriage is a sin. That is the loophole that Paul gave people but he likely excluded same sex marriage on that free pass. He at least knew enough to know abstinence isn't always the answer.

I don't know...it usually seems the methodology that was used to get said sex that is an issue. David banged That one guys wife and the issue became when he got the guy killed to hide the fact she was pregnant. Didn't seem to be an issue with him having sex with a woman he wasn't married too. Them there were concubines who people weren't married to. Abraham banged his and he got permission for his wife, it wasn't an issue until she was pregnant. Judah banged a prostitute. And lets not forget songs of Solomon.

So even if it was a sin people seemed very picky about what they would follow even back then.

 

[captainbryce]

All forms of sex outside of marriage is a sin. That is the loophole that Paul gave people but he likely excluded same sex marriage on that free pass. He at least knew enough to know abstinence isn't always the answer.

The bible doesn't really say that either. This is what most Christians believe, but it doesn't have strong scriptural support as far as I can tell.

 

[sojourner]

You seem to have studied scripture to a more rational level compared to many Christians. Being an ex-Christain I always saw contradictions to God's belief in being all loving and all knowing. If you would share you concepts on these it might make me view things in a different light. Do you believe he is all loving and all knowing and if so how do you explain contradictions?

Yes, I believe God is not only all-loving, but is love, and I believe God is omniscient.

To what specific contradictions do you refer? That way, I can answer more succinctly.

 

[sojourner]

The bible says that Satan fell from heaven, and that he was known as a serpent. The bible says that Lucifer fell from heaven, and that he was in the Garden of Eden. Just on the basic reading of the text, it seems clear that all three are in fact one in the same.

Yes, but you're treating the biblical texts as if they're all the same writing by the same author, from the same time period and the same culture. That's simply not the case. The texts that talk about Satan are much, much, much later than the creation myth, and from a different culture. You can't just superimpose one text onto another and call it good. That's not how exegesis works.

Satan does not appear in the creation myth, and to superimpose the theology that fosters Satan onto the theology that informs the creation myth is to muddy the theological water.

 

[sojourner]

I don't see how this is relevant. Nowhere in Genesis does it say that there was a war in heaven and that some of the angels rebelled and were cast out either. But clearly that is what happened according to scripture because it is recounted in other texts. Genesis 1-3 is not about Satan, it's about Adam and Eve! The point is, there are other texts in the bible that point to Satan, Lucifer and the serpent as being the same entity.

See my post above. It's relevant, because it seeks to unmuddy a theology that is based upon a glomming together of different texts.

I could see how this interpretation might be relevant to an atheist, but for me it's not.

How is it not relevant to you??? It's vitally important to parse out the theology present in the creation myths as distinctly as possible from that of modern Xy. It's the only way we can better understand what the theological message of the text in question (the creation myths) really says.

That's your opinion. I respectfully disagree. Again, I can understand how an atheist might think that being a Christian who believes in the word of scripture is "not a good practice". But YOUR opinion does not concern me.

First of all, it's not "[my] opinion." It's a tenet of biblical scholarship.

Second, my argument has nothing to do with you "being a Christian who believes in the word of scripture." It does have everything to do with your not treating separate texts as separate texts. That's an extremely irresponsible hermeneutic.

 

[sojourner]

What "we" mean?

That's what "I" mean when I use it....because that's what it means. I cannot speak for yoda89, but I assume that's what HE meant by it as well.

So... when you use the term "condemn" here, it's being used as a descriptor of God's opinion -- that of judgment. And when you speak of God "condemning sinners to hell," it's being used as a verb -- the act of sending someone to hell. Correct?

I still think we are largely arguing semantics here. Your statement: "God didn't condemn humanity in Genesis!" is false by any definition of the word "condemn" you want to use. The fact is, he DID condemn them because he first expressed strong disapproval with what they did, declared them morally culpable, and then proceeded to punish them. That is clearly CONDEMNATION by any way you choose to define the term.

The word I've highlighted is the crux of the problem here. You believe that this is punishment. I'm positing that it's not punishment. That's what I mean by "condemnation." Condemnation includes a punishment. But God doesn't punish Adam & Eve. The expulsion from the garden is merely a consequence of their action. If I burn myself by touching a hot stove, it's not a punishment -- it's a consequence.

For what would God have punished them?

 

[captainbryce]

Yes, but you're treating the biblical texts as if they're all the same writing by the same author, from the same time period and the same culture. That's simply not the case.

I'm doing no such thing. I'm well aware that they were written by different authors at different points in time.

The texts that talk about Satan are much, much, much later than the creation myth, and from a different culture. You can't just superimpose one text onto another and call it good. That's not how exegesis works.

But it IS how the bible works because the bible even though it was written by different people in different times, is supposedly meant to convey God's word. It is supposedly written by men who were all inspired by God. It was supposedly compiled by men guided by the Holy Spirit. Now, if you actually believe these things, then you also believe that it A) doesn't contradict itself, and B) that the message written by these authors is harmonious. It doesn't matter that they were part of a different culture, what matters is what they wrote, and whether or not what they wrote is harmonious with what other God inspired me wrote.

Satan does not appear in the creation myth, and to superimpose the theology that fosters Satan onto the theology that informs the creation myth is to muddy the theological water.

Satan doesn't HAVE TO appear the creation myth by name. The fact that other biblical texts (old testament and new testament) refer to him in the Garden is evidence that he was in the garden. The only way to discount that possibility is to admit that Ezekiel and Revelation are both LIES. And if we do that, we might as well count Job, Isaiah, and Psalms as lies too, because they all contain information about the creation that is not contained in Genesis 1-3. So exactly how much of the bible do we want to throw away in order to preserve the idea that Satan was not the serpent? How much of the bible is true, and how much of it is lies? Where do you draw the line?

 

[captainbryce]

How is it not relevant to you???

See my post above.

It's vitally important to parse out the theology present in the creation myths as distinctly as possible from that of modern Xy.

I don't consider the creation account as a myth as you do. I consider it a fact! Therefore, I have no such dilemma.

It's the only way we can better understand what the theological message of the text in question (the creation myths) really says.

I disagree. I think the Holy Spirit is the only way we can better understand what the theological message is.

First of all, it's not "[my] opinion." It's a tenet of biblical scholarship.

Are YOU a "biblical scholar"?

Chapter 25: What about Satan and the Origin of Evil? - Answers in Genesis

Second, my argument has nothing to do with you "being a Christian who believes in the word of scripture." It does have everything to do with your not treating separate texts as separate texts. That's an extremely irresponsible hermeneutic.

I do treat them as separate texts. As I pointed out, Genesis 1-3 is not about Satan, but about Adam and Eve. But as long as their are other creation texts out there apart from Genesis, we cannot just ignore them because they are not included in Genesis. That doesn't make any sense.

 

[sojourner]

I'm well aware that they were written by different authors at different points in time.

Then why would you say, "Yes, Satan isn't mentioned in the text, but another text says that it was him?" That's "treating different texts as if they were one."

But it IS how the bible works because the bible even though it was written by different people in different times, is supposedly meant to convey God's word.

No. it's not "how the bible works." Even those who finally wrote down the stories of Genesis, edited all those stories, and put them together into a cohesive book understood that there were several very different traditions being represented. That's why both creation myths are included. It's also why several other stories are repeated throughout in slightly different detail, creating some contradiction. It was important that all the traditions be preserved, rather than trying to mush them into something cohesive, yet less honest.

It is supposedly written by men who were all inspired by God.

'Mkay...

It was supposedly compiled by men guided by the Holy Spirit.

'Mkay...

Now, if you actually believe these things, then you also believe that it A) doesn't contradict itself, and B) that the message written by these authors is harmonious.

Nope. Your conclusion doesn't follow. Just because the writers were inspired doesn't mean that they're inspired either in the same way or to write a particular message. Poets are inspired, too, but they don't all write the same poem. Just because people were guided by the Holy Spirit doesn't necessarily mean that they're all guided to the same location. Remember that we're told that the Holy Spirit moves where it will. god is multifaceted as human beings are multifaceted. Your argument would take the depth out of the universe and make it very two-dimensional.

It doesn't matter that they were part of a different culture, what matters is what they wrote, and whether or not what they wrote is harmonious with what other God inspired me wrote.

It does matter, because unique culture is part of the mulitfaceted nature of God imaged in humanity. That's what the editors of the stories were getting at.

Satan doesn't HAVE TO appear the creation myth by name.

He does if he's a character in the story. That's how narrative works.

The fact that other biblical texts (old testament and new testament) refer to him in the Garden is evidence that he was in the garden.

No, it's only evidence that those writers superimposed their own theology into that of the Genesis writers.

The only way to discount that possibility is to admit that Ezekiel and Revelation are both LIES.

Nope. A better way is conclude that Ezekiel and Revelation are both different texts by different writers and, therefore represent different opinions.

So exactly how much of the bible do we want to throw away in order to preserve the idea that Satan was not the serpent?

We're not throwing away any of the bible. We're simply acknowledging the differences in theology, as presented by different writers in different texts.

How much of the bible is true, and how much of it is lies?

There is no "truth/lie." There is only difference of opinion.

Where do you draw the line?

The line is usually drawn by a hermeneutic of disparate opinions of disparate writers.

 

[captainbryce]

So... when you use the term "condemn" here, it's being used as a descriptor of God's opinion -- that of judgment. And when you speak of God "condemning sinners to hell," it's being used as a verb -- the act of sending someone to hell. Correct?

No because I don't use the expression "condemning sinners to hell" and I'm not aware of any such biblical passage that uses that expression either. So my first question to you would be, where does this expression come from? I don't believe that God condemns anyone to hell.

The word I've highlighted is the crux of the problem here. You believe that this is punishment. I'm positing that it's not punishment. That's what I mean by "condemnation." Condemnation includes a punishment. But God doesn't punish Adam & Eve. The expulsion from the garden is merely a consequence of their action. If I burn myself by touching a hot stove, it's not a punishment -- it's a consequence.

For what would God have punished them?

He punished them because they disobeyed. In the same manner that when a child touches something dangerous, you spank him (to teach him not to do that again). A spanking is a form of punishment for disobedience. Yes, being banished from paradise is a consequence, but it was also a punishment. And it's clear that it was a punishment because God did things beyond merely banishing them. I could see you making the argument that "death" was the natural consequence of sin, because that was implicitly stated from the beginning. But nothing was said of thorns and thistles growing or struggling to make a living. Clearly, that was the result of a curse. He increased labor pains for Eve. God cursed the ground that Adam walked on to make life more difficult after they were banished. These are punishments for disobedience and meant as a lesson to all mankind.

 

[captainbryce]

Then why would you say, "Yes, Satan isn't mentioned in the text, but another text says that it was him?" That's "treating different texts as if they were one."

I've already made that point. The answer is because there are multiple texts that deal with creation, not just Genesis. The fact that these different creation texts were written by different people at different times is irrelevant. And I don't know how to make that point any clearer.

No. it's not "how the bible works." Even those who finally wrote down the stories of Genesis, edited all those stories, and put them together into a cohesive book understood that there were several very different traditions being represented. That's why both creation myths are included. It's also why several other stories are repeated throughout in slightly different detail, creating some contradiction. It was important that all the traditions be preserved, rather than trying to mush them into something cohesive, yet less honest.

When you say "both" creation myths, to what are you referring?

Nope. Your conclusion doesn't follow. Just because the writers were inspired doesn't mean that they're inspired either in the same way or to write a particular message. Poets are inspired, too, but they don't all write the same poem. Just because people were guided by the Holy Spirit doesn't necessarily mean that they're all guided to the same location. Remember that we're told that the Holy Spirit moves where it will. god is multifaceted as human beings are multifaceted. Your argument would take the depth out of the universe and make it very two-dimensional.

Okay, I'm not going to argue with you. You have your opinion on this and I have mine. I respectfully disagree and I would submit to you that for someone who believes that the creation texts are merely "myth", I would question your believe in ANY biblical text at all.

 

[Orcamute]

The question is, why not just let people do what they want to do with their lives?

Homosexuality may not be something that you like or want to accept but if an individual wants to have sexual relations with the same sex. It is their decision to do so, it is not harming anybody and therefore you should but out of their lives.

The same can be said for many, many other things in the world. If you are an atheist/agnostic, don't start fights with the religious for no reason. Same with if you are a theist, have your own beliefs and live your life.

The problem comes when one of the parties knocks on the others door and tells them what is what. That is inappropriate behaviour and should not be praised.

We seem to forget that we are all human beings and we are capable of living in a loving, caring society. We just need to focus less on where we came from and more on where we are going.

 

[MarkTh]

I think this site will be a perfect companion as I get more familiar with learning prophecies. My friend is right! It’s not enough that we believe in short and simple things we hear.