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

[luvuyesua]

many inerpret, that in Sodom and Gomorra, when the 3 came from heaven, to see if their were 10 worthy atleast, what do you think the mens intentions were?, when they wanted the 3 men, and Lot offered his 2 virgins, if Lot offered virgins, than it had to do with sex, it wasnt women trying to force them to engage in it , it was men. So it is interpreted by some, that homosexuality, is as good as orgies. they were destroyed, fire. And it is known, that one of those three, was Jesus.

how would you interpret it?

you have a good post going.

 

[Wotan]

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.

That may well be true. But one CAN learn. One can reason these things out and realize prior beliefs were wrong. It is done every day.

It is sometimes called "live and learn." Perhaps you have heard of it?

 

[fallingblood]

many inerpret, that in Sodom and Gomorra, when the 3 came from heaven, to see if their were 10 worthy atleast, what do you think the mens intentions were?, when they wanted the 3 men, and Lot offered his 2 virgins, if Lot offered virgins, than it had to do with sex, it wasnt women trying to force them to engage in it , it was men. So it is interpreted by some, that homosexuality, is as good as orgies. they were destroyed, fire. And it is known, that one of those three, was Jesus.

how would you interpret it?

you have a good post going.

Sodom and Gomorrah was about hospitality. Nothing to do with sex actually.

 

[Smoke]

Sodom and Gomorrah was about hospitality. Nothing to do with sex actually.

Actually, Genesis just says "their sin is very grievous;" it doesn't say a word about any specific kind of sin. People who talk about homosexuality or hospitality are making inferences from things that happened after the city was already condemned.

However, Ezekiel has an opinion: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."

Sounds like a hotbed of Republicanism to me.

(By the way, despite what homophobic Christians may believe, "abomination" is not a synonym for "gay sex.")

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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.

You said that you have proved this and I asked where that proof was so I could review it. No answer?????

 

[Rainbow Mage]

You said that you have proved this and i asked where that proof was so I could review it. No answer?????

I did make a post actually if you look back. Unless of course you ignored the parts you didn't like

 

[Rainbow Mage]

many inerpret, that in Sodom and Gomorra, when the 3 came from heaven, to see if their were 10 worthy atleast, what do you think the mens intentions were?, when they wanted the 3 men, and Lot offered his 2 virgins, if Lot offered virgins, than it had to do with sex, it wasnt women trying to force them to engage in it , it was men. So it is interpreted by some, that homosexuality, is as good as orgies. they were destroyed, fire. And it is known, that one of those three, was Jesus.

how would you interpret it?

you have a good post going.

Ezekiel says that the sin of Sodom was fullness of bread and neglect of the poor.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Actually, Genesis just says "their sin is very grievous;" it doesn't say a word about any specific kind of sin. People who talk about homosexuality or hospitality are making inferences from things that happened after the city was already condemned.

However, Ezekiel has an opinion: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."

Sounds like a hotbed of Republicanism to me.

(By the way, despite what homophobic Christians may believe, "abomination" is not a synonym for "gay sex.")

This is true but to just pin that on Rebublicans is disengenuous. I'm not sure the Republicans were around during the years of Sodom and Gommorah.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I did make a post actually if you look back. Unless of course you ignored the parts you didn't like

Judge away. Actually I'm too lazy to read back through all the drivel. Could you either point it out ot compile it for me. Otherwise I'll remain doubtful you have a valid point.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Sandy, even though I doubt you'll believe I have a valid point anyhow. Something just tells me...

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.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Sandy, even though I doubt you'll believe I have a valid point anyhow. Something just tells me...

You have a valid point about Levitical laws yet that is not the entirety of the OT. As to Romans, I'll just say that your interpretation is wrong and expect that you do not wish to accept why. Also, I'll be glad to take this up in another thrad rather than bunny trail this one.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

You have a valid point about Levitical laws yet that is not the entirety of the OT. As to Romans, I'll just say that your interpretation is wrong and expect that you do not wish to accept why. Also, I'll be glad to take this up in another thrad rather than bunny trail this one.

Well you can disagree with my interpretation if you like, but no one can disprove it. After all, it is for all extensive purposes, the interpretation of the Episcopal Chruch, meaning it has a lot of people backing it and church authority.

 

[fallingblood]

Well you can disagree with my interpretation if you like, but no one can disprove it. After all, it is for all extensive purposes, the interpretation of the Episcopal Chruch, meaning it has a lot of people backing it and church authority.

Actually they can disprove one or another interpretation. In this case, I do agree that Romans is not condemning homosexuality, but that doesn't mean it can be disproven.

 

[luvuyesua]

The city was on a rise on things, and I dont think only one action condemned it. Because of the subject, I focussed on the part where they wanted to be hospitable, and Lot offeredvirgins.
it was taken as a great offense , the type of hospitality offered (hearts intention, God obviously knew) and they were blinded.

may you find yourselves in a blessed position

 

[luvuyesua]

Lot offers, his daugters and their virginity, they werent whores, but the exchange matched the hospitable intention, the men were offering, Sex.

 

[Smoke]

This is true but to just pin that on Rebublicans is disengenuous. I'm not sure the Republicans were around during the years of Sodom and Gommorah.

Of course not. But they seem to have the same values as the people of the cities of the plain, don't they?

 

[linwood]

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.

Not true.
Male homosexual acts are plainly condemned unto death in the Bible.

Lev 20:13
'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

There's even books written on the subject. Same for Bible literalism. Why do fundamentalists need to take the Bible entirely literally?

But they don`t take the Bible "entirely" literally.
As you`ve said they take only those parts that fit their pre-concieved biases literally.

They pick and choose what they agree with and toss aside what they don`t.

When was the last time you saw a person condemned for wearing polyester?

They are hypocrites of the highest order.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Not true.
Male homosexual acts are plainly condemned unto death in the Bible.

Lev 20:13
'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Yeah, but you can't use the OT because Christians believe the OT is fufilled, and it also says pork and shellfish are abominations. They can't have it both ways. If homosexuality is an abomination, so is wearing polyester.

 

[fallingblood]

Yeah, but you can't use the OT because Christians believe the OT is fufilled, and it also says pork and shellfish are abominations. They can't have it both ways. If homosexuality is an abomination, so is wearing polyester.

They can and do have it both ways. However, even many fundamentalists accept homosexuals. They may think they are living in sin, but they also believe that we all live in sin, and we just have to do our best to avoid the sin.

Many Christians may think that being gay is a sin, but that does not mean they believe it is an abomination. You are stretching the actual belief and ideology.

 

[linwood]

They can and do have it both ways. However, even many fundamentalists accept homosexuals. They may think they are living in sin, but they also believe that we all live in sin, and we just have to do our best to avoid the sin.

Many Christians may think that being gay is a sin, but that does not mean they believe it is an abomination. You are stretching the actual belief and ideology.

If they don`t believe it`s an abomination that`s just more evidence of Christian hairsplitting.

God says it`s an abomination then dammnit abomination it is!!