Why do Fundamentalists refuse to interpret the Bible any other way then what fits their bias?

[Rainbow Mage]

The Bible is very clear that in God's eyes we are all sinners. Personally, most gay people I've met and known are just like everyone else.

So you think that makes homosexuality sinful?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Reasonable in what sense?

Reasonable as in- does that view make sense, that homosexuality harming no one is compariable to rape?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Reasonable as in- does that view make sense, that homosexuality harming no one is compariable to rape?

If we are going to discuss sin in a Biblical sence there is no reason to try and compare one to another. what seems to be lacking here, on your side, is a more complete view of how the Bible views sin and what the consequences of sin are. Personally, I view sin that is more detrimental to me as worse than sin that is not, but my personal feeling on the issue are of no importance to God.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So you think that makes homosexuality sinful?

I don't want to get into it on this thread, because it has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, but I believe that the Bible is clear that any union other than between a man and a woman is not in God's will.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

If we are going to discuss sin in a Biblical sence there is no reason to try and compare one to another. what seems to be lacking here, on your side, is a more complete view of how the Bible views sin and what the consequences of sin are. Personally, I view sin that is more detrimental to me as worse than sin that is not, but my personal feeling on the issue are of no importance to God.

I did use the Bible though to show that homosexuality is not a sin. So I think we're on equal footing. You just don't want to budge from your interpretation.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I don't want to get into it on this thread, because it has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, but I believe that the Bible is clear that any union other than between a man and a woman is not in God's will.

Clear how?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Clear how?

What part of, "I don't want to get into it in this thread," did you not get?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I did use the Bible though to show that homosexuality is not a sin.

Where, I'll review it.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

What part of, "I don't want to get into it in this thread," did you not get?

Ok then, fair enough.

 

[fallingblood]

Falling blood I have yet to meet any fundamentalists that didn't adamantly hate gay people. Maybe if you know some you can point them out?

Doesn't mean they aren't out there. I've met many in my life time. Those who don't hate homosexuals, but do find it to be a sin.

Right now, you're being just as prejudice as the Christians you are criticizing.

 

[luvuyesua]

Senedjem, I have a question, about your comparison in the bible of heterosexual and homosexual. it leads me to believe that you have found in the word of God according to your comparison, that when a man is with a woman its abhorring to God, and when a man is with man it is abhorring to God, I havent seen that, it kind of doesnt make sence, I have only read, that between those two, man with man is abhorring to God, where does it say man with woman is abhorring to God
are you talking about how heterosexuals committing sexual sins, like like adultery, fornication etc.

blessings to you

 

[fallingblood]

Reasonable as in- does that view make sense, that homosexuality harming no one is compariable to rape?

This is the problem. You are not listening to what is being said, and you're trying to justify your prejudice in the same way that fundamentalists do.

The Bible lists all sins as equal. Meaning that stealing is equal to murder as both are sins. However, if you read the Bible, you will see that different sins are punished in different manners.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Senedjem, I have a question, about your comparison in the bible of heterosexual and homosexual. it leads me to believe that you have found in the word of God according to your comparison, that when a man is with a woman its abhorring to God, and when a man is with man it is abhorring to God, I havent seen that, it kind of doesnt make sence, I have only read, that between those two, man with man is abhorring to God, where does it say man with woman is abhorring to God
are you talking about how heterosexuals committing sexual sins, like like adultery, fornication etc.

blessings to you

Okay, let me put forth my understanding again, for the 1000th time. When it comes to the Levitical laws, Christians cannot use that to condemn gay people, because according to Christianity the Levitical laws are fufilled, otherwise pork and shellfish are also abominations. So people must turn to the NT. The NT does seem to contain some condemnation of homosexuality "at first glance", but under better examination, not necessarily. Romans 1 is talking about idolotry, and linking homosexuality to idolotry, so if a person is a Christian and still gay, how can Romans 1 being strictly about homosexuality make sense? Also it says the women changed the natural use into that against nature. And also that the men did so, but again, you've got to use "CONTEXT". It says to change the natural inclination is a sin, it says nothing about if a person is born gay or lesbian. Then they wouldn't be changing the natural inclination, because that IS their inclination. It's obvious that this verse is not about homosexuality in general, but is an adminition against the Romans for some of their homosexual prostitution practices in their temples. Hence the connection with idolotry. Same for 1 Corinthians 6 another famous basher verse, that actually is Paul admonishing the Greco-Roman practice of pedestry, not homosexuality in general. Most modern translations render 1 Corinthians 6 as either boy prostitutes or homosexual offenders. That is not all homosexuals, it's those who sleep with minors. Therefore, one cannot prove without a doubt that the NT condemns gay people. People are reaching who think it does, and want it to say that so they can justify their treatment of gays.

 

[fallingblood]

Okay, let me put forth my understanding again, for the 1000th time. When it comes to the Levitical laws, Christians cannot use that to condemn gay people, because according to Christianity the Levitical laws are fufilled, otherwise pork and shellfish are also abominations. So people must turn to the NT. The NT does seem to contain some condemnation of homosexuality "at first glance", but under better examination, not necessarily. Romans 1 is talking about idolotry, and linking homosexuality to idolotry, so if a person is a Christian and still gay, how can Romans 1 being strictly about homosexuality make sense? Also it says the women changed the natural use into that against nature. And also that the men did so, but again, you've got to use "CONTEXT". It says to change the natural inclination is a sin, it says nothing about if a person is born gay or lesbian. Then they wouldn't be changing the natural inclination, because that IS their inclination. It's obvious that this verse is not about homosexuality in general, but is an adminition against the Romans for some of their homosexual prostitution practices in their temples. Hence the connection with idolotry. Same for 1 Corinthians 6 another famous basher verse, that actually is Paul admonishing the Greco-Roman practice of pedestry, not homosexuality in general. Most modern translations render 1 Corinthians 6 as either boy prostitutes or homosexual offenders. That is not all homosexuals, it's those who sleep with minors. Therefore, one cannot prove without a doubt that the NT condemns gay people. People are reaching who think it does, and want it to say that so they can justify their treatment of gays.

You even admit though that you can not prove, without a doubt, that the NT does not condemn gay people. So right now it is I believe this, they believe that. Really not a very good argument at all.

Also, you are over generalizing what Christians believe. Many fundamentalists do accept that they have to follow OT laws. Others believe they must follow those that are still relevant. The problem, they don't know the Bible completely. Either way, you really only have a weak argument at best.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Like to use homosexuality for an example. It's been shown time and again that the Bible does not necessarily condemn homosexuality, depending which context you read verses in. There's even books written on the subject. Same for Bible literalism. Why do fundamentalists need to take the Bible entirely literally?

I thought the Bible was quite clear that homosexuality is wrong and must be punished by death. The edict is given in a section of the Bible where God's laws are being laid out, so it seems perfectly in context. Have you seen something different in there?

 

[Beaudreaux]

I don't think fundamentalists are unique in that respect.

True. Everyone thinks their views are correct. Except perhaps relativists...

 

[Beaudreaux]

Smoke your point is well taken, but that should lead us to an even more disturbing question. WHY do fundamentalists want to interpret it this way? How does it benefit them? From what I've seen their interpretations have an agenda behind it to make our country into a theocracy and justify their hatred of certain minorities. This should concern people deeply.

My religion professor once said that Fundamentalists read the Bible like it was written yesterday in their hometown.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Because they use theirs to justify a hateful agenda.

But that does not mean they are wrong about the intent of the authors. Maybe they were hateful SOBs. In fact, I'm pretty sure they WERE hateful, iron age, SOBs.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Sorry, but being a narrow-minded Biblist, which is a fancy term for a fundamentalist, I believe in the Bible and not other peoples interpretations of it.

SO COOL!!!! Where can I get a copy of this Bible that does not need to be interpreted???

 

[EverChanging]

Yes, which is why I'm trying to figure out why fundamentalists personally choose to believe the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. I'm trying to figure out your motives. If your agenda isn't that you want to be able to put gay people down and demonize them then please tell me exactly what your agenda is.

Regardless of my ranting about fundamentalists surrounding me on every side in this part of the country -- some of them dangerous and violent to gays and others -- it seems illogical to me to say that fundamentalists choose to believe as they do. They have been conditioned by their culture. Had they been born in another part of the world, they would have different beliefs, as would you and I. Beliefs are not chosen.