b***@allvantage.com
2007-04-23 02:30:23 UTC
Re: Christians egregious error
I'm emailing this, as well as sending it through google, since you said
you were having problems with posting.
Thanks,
Tara
--------------------------------
I was basking in the warm glow that comes after attending my
GLBT-friendly church and the thought came to me that one of the most
egregious errors that some Christians make is to oppose homosexuality.
Instead of taking a critical look at the context and translation in
which homosexuality appears in the Bible (i.e. homosexual prostitution
and population increasing in nomadic, agrarian societies), they take the
passages literally to mean the loving, longterm relationships of today.
If one looks at the nearly infinite numbers of species of animals that
have been discovered, and wait to be discovered, the abundance and
variety in nature and that homosexual behavior is well documented
throughout the animal kingdom, it's logical that nature would produce
more than one sexual orientation or two genders (there are asexual
reproduction and sex-changing animals). Why would humans be singled out
as a species that never varies in gender or sexual orientation? It
doesn't make sense.
Some claim homosexuality is a "dysfunction" because it doesn't result in
the complimentary nature of the female/male pairing or procreation. Just
because the majority of humans are heterosexual doesn't make
homosexuality a dysfunction, no more than a greater number of babies
born with brown eyes and the procreation argument is non sequiter since
the percentage of homosexuals is too small to ever significantly impact
the continuation of humans. Also, in many homosexual relationships one
partner takes on the dominant role and vice versa.
The Bible is a great collection of writings, but considering the
original documents no longer exist, much was passed down through
oratory, there are missing and destroyed parts of the copies of the
originals, committees were formed to decide what was meant in obscure
and missing passages, it's ignorant not to look at context and the
culture that existed when trying to decide what certain passages meant.
By first deciding homosexuality is a "sin," the person then rationalizes
why it's a sin. In other words, uses reverse deduction. One could do the
same with heterosexuality, i.e. nearly half of all heterosexual
marriages fail, it results in over-population, hunger and starvation and
the transmission of diseases including AIDS.
It's time to shake off the archaic "homosexuality is a sin" thinking and
welcome the rainbow of diversity of humanity, including sexuality and
gender.
Hello,I'm emailing this, as well as sending it through google, since you said
you were having problems with posting.
Thanks,
Tara
--------------------------------
I was basking in the warm glow that comes after attending my
GLBT-friendly church and the thought came to me that one of the most
egregious errors that some Christians make is to oppose homosexuality.
Instead of taking a critical look at the context and translation in
which homosexuality appears in the Bible (i.e. homosexual prostitution
and population increasing in nomadic, agrarian societies), they take the
passages literally to mean the loving, longterm relationships of today.
If one looks at the nearly infinite numbers of species of animals that
have been discovered, and wait to be discovered, the abundance and
variety in nature and that homosexual behavior is well documented
throughout the animal kingdom, it's logical that nature would produce
more than one sexual orientation or two genders (there are asexual
reproduction and sex-changing animals). Why would humans be singled out
as a species that never varies in gender or sexual orientation? It
doesn't make sense.
Some claim homosexuality is a "dysfunction" because it doesn't result in
the complimentary nature of the female/male pairing or procreation. Just
because the majority of humans are heterosexual doesn't make
homosexuality a dysfunction, no more than a greater number of babies
born with brown eyes and the procreation argument is non sequiter since
the percentage of homosexuals is too small to ever significantly impact
the continuation of humans. Also, in many homosexual relationships one
partner takes on the dominant role and vice versa.
The Bible is a great collection of writings, but considering the
original documents no longer exist, much was passed down through
oratory, there are missing and destroyed parts of the copies of the
originals, committees were formed to decide what was meant in obscure
and missing passages, it's ignorant not to look at context and the
culture that existed when trying to decide what certain passages meant.
By first deciding homosexuality is a "sin," the person then rationalizes
why it's a sin. In other words, uses reverse deduction. One could do the
same with heterosexuality, i.e. nearly half of all heterosexual
marriages fail, it results in over-population, hunger and starvation and
the transmission of diseases including AIDS.
It's time to shake off the archaic "homosexuality is a sin" thinking and
welcome the rainbow of diversity of humanity, including sexuality and
gender.
You would be correct if the Bible we have today has been corrupted so
much as to render it unworthy of trust. But Scholars who have studied
it in detail, do not find that to be the case. Actually it is
remarkably preserved, esp considering how many copies have been made,
and how old the writings are etc.
For example, many Scriptures concerning homosexuality are preserved in
the NT. So how reliable is the NT? Notice the opinion of one Scholar
concerning it. Professor Kurt Aland wrote:
"It can be determined, on the basis of 40 years of experience and with
the results which have come to light in examining . . . manuscripts at
1,200 test places: The text of the New Testament has been excellently
transmitted, better than any other writing from ancient times; the
possibility that manuscripts might yet be found that would change its
text decisively is zero." [-Das Neue Testament-zuverl=E4ssig =FCberliefert
(The New Testament-Reliably Transmitted), Stuttgart, 1986, pp. 27,
28.]
Thus it is not just 'wishful thinking' that Christians believe the NT
is accurate in what it writes, but based on intensive research they
are convinced of that.
Thus if the NT really does reflect the thoughts of God, then here is
what GOD thinks of the homosexual lifestyle. Ro 1:26,27,
"26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their
women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men
likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with
passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and
receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their
error." (RSV)
So God is very clear on this subject, and genuine Christians put God's
thoughts over man's thoughts. (Ac 5:29)
Sincerely, James
**If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
do not follow ng threads
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
---
[A portion of the original posting suggests that the text is not well
established, thus justifying this response. However the arguments
involving homosexuality are really about interpretation, not the text.
The interpretation includes both what exactly what behaviors the
author intended to include, and in what way the texts apply to us
today.
--clh]