Video: Properly understanding homosexuality in the Bible

There tends to still be a lot of hate and passive aggressiveness in regards to the issue of homosexuality within Christianity.  Here is an opportunity to better understand exactly what the Bible says about homosexuality.

The Bible and homosexuality explained in 5 minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmp6lLct-fQ

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Sexuality and Gender and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Video: Properly understanding homosexuality in the Bible

  1. Soduhson says:

    Matt’s arguments are horrible.

      • Soduhson says:

        He admits he isn’t presenting any new ideas. The difference is that he presents himself as a conservative Christian.

        As far as his actual arguments are concerned, he concedes that the Bible (which he believes is divinely inspired) says nothing positive about homosexuality. And proceeds to make the same fallacious arguments such as Romans 1 “it could have been a pagan ritual Paul was referring to” despite him admittedly stating that “Paul uses sweeping generalizing terms in Romans 1”.

        While he states that he wants to give a new way to look at scripture, his argument isn’t based on scripture but an emotional appeal. According to Matt, God wants people to be happy, same sex attracted people cannot be happy unless they are in a same sex relationship. Ergo, same sex marriage is justified by Christian theology. It wouldn’t be so bad if he wasn’t selling himself as a conservative believer.

      • jasonjshaw says:

        I’m not sure that a lack of a complete outlook on an issue necessarily takes away from consideration of divine inspiration – unless the Bible is considered divinely complete.

      • Soduhson says:

        This is where his self-presentation as a conservative believer comes into question. Utilizing the term “divinely inspired” is not limited to conservative believers. However, the implication for conservative believers is that divine inspiration has a connotation which means a complete (or rather sufficient) outlook on the part of the writer.

        His argument is either that there is an emotional consideration that the writers neglected to include when the scriptures (ie: laws and epistles) were formulated that should be considered in modern times (despite his claim of divine inspiration). Or he’s arguing from absence of specific condemnation (ie: nothing specifically stated against two committed individuals) despite him acknowledging that the condemning verses are presented in a general fashion without regard to specific circumstances.

        tldr:

        1. He presents himself as a conservative

        2. Claims scripture is divinely inspired

        3. Notes that passages condemning homoerotic acts offer no wiggle room.

        4. Notes that scripture en masse offers no positive depiction of homosexual people or couples.

        5. Still presents a case for same sex marriage in the church based on emotion.

      • jasonjshaw says:

        You bring up a very interesting point …

        How do conservative believers take into account the number of people involved in the compilation of the Bible as it came to be without taking into account man’s tendency toward sin? To believe it is divine and complete kind of opposes this core idea.

      • Soduhson says:

        An answer beyond divine inspiration (which is practically all encompassing).

        Because the Bible doesn’t deny that sin exists, nor does it cover up or justify the “more” embarrassing sins of the characters held in high regard. Sort of like saying “if the best of us can commit sin, then we can too”.

      • jasonjshaw says:

        Doesn’t that put into question those who wrote and compiled the Bible? Who’s to say they didn’t commit any sin in their writing and compiling choices? Sure they’re divinely inspired, but they aren’t Jesus.

      • Soduhson says:

        What rule is there that says you have to be sinless to write scripture? If the inspirational characters within scripture can commit sin, then the writers aren’t exempt either. It would be more suspect if the books all had addendums stating how perfect they were and morally/spiritually qualified to write it.

        Jesus himself mentioned that engaging in spiritual works in his name doesn’t qualify you to go to heaven. But the actions can still be used for spiritual benefit.

        Matthew 7 (emphasis/capitals not my own)

        21″Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

        (extra attention to verse 22)

        22″Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’

        23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

        In other words, God can use sinful people.

      • jasonjshaw says:

        Who’s to say that that God’s Word wasn’t negatively affected in the process as it was handled by prone-to-sin humans?

        For example, one person involved in the Nicene Creed has been quoted as saying something along the lines of that it is ok to stretch the truth if it benefits the faith.

      • Soduhson says:

        Funny that you say that, (warning: preparing to digress).

        It seems that outsiders of a particular faith “know” some hidden teaching that justifies deception for the benefit of that religion. I’ve honestly heard that same statement used against Islam, for example. Secularism and modern ideologies isn’t exempt from this phenomenon.

        Back on point, you mentioned in a previous blog post that believers are instructed to “test all things”. The divide on this issue is that we neglect to consider our own wrongs and biases, when scrutinizing the writers’.

        There are facts in scripture presented as neutral statements, re-examined through a more holistic lens to be classified as sin. In other words, knowing that the Bible was written by multiple people, the books essentially respond to and complement each other.

      • jasonjshaw says:

        Ah, I dug up the source! An ‘extremely well learned Christian of his time’ named Eusebius.

        The quote being “That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Caesarea

        This is a key person in forming the Christianity that is utilized today suggesting deception is ok. The link goes further into it if you’re interested.

        I’m not completely sure what you’re getting at in your last two paragraphs. I agree that personal biases can get in the way, and that there are elements of dialogue within the Bible. I’m foremost questioning the reliability of the entire process. From story-gathering to Gospels to commentary to compilation. There is a lot of room for error, whether intentional or not.

      • Soduhson says:

        About your quote/source, I never denied that it existed. My point was is that it supplies confirmation bias to doubters rather than it really having an impact on believers. Eusebius really impacts the Catholic and Orthodox branches of Christianity, particularly (according to your Wikipedia link) in that he criticizes the text of the Septuagint which the Protestant Bible is derived from. Specifically addressing your quote, however, it seems like he’s speaking about lying to benefit people, not the Christian faith. The same can be interpreted from the Islamic “lie sanctions” as seen in the link below.

        http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/011-taqiyya.htm

        On my latter points, I meant that you utilize the dialogue between scriptures to seek out consistency between the books, and question what seems out of place. The difference between a Biblical critic and a Biblical apologist is that the critic declares that an inconsistency within scripture is problematic and/or means that the passage can/should be ignored, while the apologist seeks out a possible context wherein the out of place situation maybe applicable.

        Take Paul’s teachings on marrying non-believers: One time he says not to marry a nonbeliever, lest you become “unevenly yoked”. Another time he says marry a nonbeliever and you can lead them to Christ. The doubter/critic states that it’s “proof” that the Bible is irreconcilably inconsistent, or Paul made a mistake. The apologist argues that the first category applies to those weak in the faith and the latter applies to those who are stronger.

        Now the rub lies in that conservative believers have generally found an explanation for the alleged problematic scriptures, while the skeptics/critics on the other side (believers or otherwise) are averse to the un-falsifiability of the apologist explanations. Also like I said before, you can find experts in the field of Biblical scholarship to validate which ever side you choose. For every William Lane Craig, you have a Bart Ehrman, equal credentials opposite views. Ironically, after engaging in scholarship and rational thought it still comes down to faith (or lack thereof).

      • jasonjshaw says:

        Ah, you do make a good point about the quote. But regardless of whether or not tampering/mistakes took place at any point, the opportunity for things to have happened to affect the outcome still exists. The humanity involved should not be completely glossed over – couldn’t it be argued that such an action could play right into the hands of the devil?

      • Soduhson says:

        Humanity is not glossed over, we are completely acknowledged “warts and all”. And that’s the strength of it, in my opinion.

        I would argue that humility and self-awareness is the remedy to protect someone from playing into the devil’s hands. Lest start to think we’re more deserving and righteous than we really are. Remember that the Bible is written for us (divine/scholarly aspect) but not to us (human aspect). A lot of issues regarding scripture arises when we view ourselves as the recipients of David’s words or Paul’s words, etc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s