| Blogs > GavinLS2 > The Heretic |
|
Christians and Homosexuality --Again Hi folks, As I usually do, before I read the other blogs of the day, I check the ones I've already posted to see if there are any new comments. Oddly, an old blog from last week had 6 new comments! (Mostly from Christians who kept asserting something I'd never denied.) It was clear they didn't get it. So I thought of an example that might make my point. What if, when the Pharisees brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus, that woman's adulterous act was lesbianism? Would Jesus have said anything different than he did as recorded Biblicly? ("Let him who is without sin cast the first stone") I for one can't believe He'd have said anything different, no matter what her sin was. That's because I believe God loves everyone, and even tho we all sin. GBU all, Gavin |
|||
7/16/2013 11:40 am |
Hi Gav: I saw a movie about Jesus once and heard that quote about he who is without sin casting the first stone. In the movie there was an angry mob running after Mary Magdalene who in the movie was supposed to be a woman of loose morals, not a married adulteress. In the Bible all it says about her is that she is 'a woman of means', not that she was promiscuous and I don't think it says she was even married so how could she be an adulteress?
| ||
|
I got it! Homosexuality may be a sin-- but sinners can be Christians and go to church. Right?  GBU, Gavin
| ||
|
I have always contended that the Bible, beloved as it may be to all Christians, has been written from the perspective of the way the AUTHOR felt, not necessarily the way Jesus thought. Later on, the predominant Christian church began writing and re-writing history as they saw fit. If you have ever taken a look at the Gnostic point of view you will find many different views on many topics. Most versions are similar but there are always interpretation issues to deal with. To me, the New Testament has been re-written to match the beliefs of the Church and not necessarily the precise meanings intended originally. Many of the Biblical tales in the Old Testament are repeats of earlier writings that were authored many years before Christ was born. Gilgamesh and Noah's Ark are good examples. Even today, in our own experiences, we each see things differently. If five people witness an event and subsequently describe it in writing a few years later their versions will never be exactly the same. Which one is correct to an outsider? We have conditioned ourselves to live in this age of averages. Fossilfetcher I'm familiar with all of that. It's what has set me apart from mainstream Christianity for years. No brag, but I'm a bit of an expert on the very topics you mentioned here. You're basically correct on everything you said here. GBU, Gavin
| ||
|
We are all God's children. God loves everyone. So, we should love everyone. Tom C GBU, Gavin
| ||
|
I doubt if Jesus would have rejected the woman caught in adultery. Isnt he a loving forgiving God. He made lesbians and gay men that way, they never asked for it, no more than alcoholics or other people with problems asked for their problems. I didnt sit up one day and say "God, I want to be an alcoholic". Neither did a lesbian or gay man. I have 2 members of my extended family who are gay and they fit into society just like everyone else. On the matter of whether conditions are choices or if we are born that way, I didn't care to go into. I just don't think it is a Christian's place to condemn anyone. ("Judging" a sin for it's merits is one thing, but 'condemning' a sinner should be left with God.) GBU, Gavin
| ||
|
Hi Gav: I saw a movie about Jesus once and heard that quote about he who is without sin casting the first stone. In the movie there was an angry mob running after Mary Magdalene who in the movie was supposed to be a woman of loose morals, not a married adulteress. In the Bible all it says about her is that she is 'a woman of means', not that she was promiscuous and I don't think it says she was even married so how could she be an adulteress? Many movies don't portray things accurately and often omit or confuse details. And even in the general public there are a lot of misconceptions. For one thing, the woman caught in adultery is unnamed in the Bible, so we can't say it was Mary Magdalene. And on the topic of Mary Magdalene, many people believe she was a prostitute but there is no evidence of that in the Bible. It's a safe bet she was born in Magdela, and we know that Christ had cast 7 demons out of her. Offhand I don't recall Mary Magdalene's socio-economic status, and neither that of the woman caught in adultery. Perhaps it's a detail I didn't recall tho about one of them. And the definition of adultery, I've always assumed meant either party to it, whether that other party was married or not. Thanks for commenting and GBU, Gavin
| ||
|
Love the sinner, not the sin! GBU, Gavin
| ||
|
Thanks Rich, you're right. GBU, Gavin
| ||
7/16/2013 8:58 pm |
I have always contended that the Bible, beloved as it may be to all Christians, has been written from the perspective of the way the AUTHOR felt, not necessarily the way Jesus thought. Later on, the predominant Christian church began writing and re-writing history as they saw fit. If you have ever taken a look at the Gnostic point of view you will find many different views on many topics. Most versions are similar but there are always interpretation issues to deal with. To me, the New Testament has been re-written to match the beliefs of the Church and not necessarily the precise meanings intended originally. Many of the Biblical tales in the Old Testament are repeats of earlier writings that were authored many years before Christ was born. Gilgamesh and Noah's Ark are good examples. Even today, in our own experiences, we each see things differently. If five people witness an event and subsequently describe it in writing a few years later their versions will never be exactly the same. Which one is correct to an outsider? We have conditioned ourselves to live in this age of averages. Fossilfetcher Spiritwoman ^i^
| ||
7/16/2013 9:04 pm |
We Pagans don't believe in sin as described by Christians so it would not make any difference. Our version of sin is separation from God however you see him / her. Everyone has the opportunity to find the Divine within so I guess as a Christian you could call it our version of redemption. It's available to all regardless. Our penance is the "life review" we do right after returning to the spirit world. There is no greater punishment than having to see, feel and own all of our errors. If an individual incarnated with the goal of resolving sexual issues and did so be accepting their homosexuality that would be an achievement. If they did not that would be a do over. If sexuality weren't in the list of things the soul chose to work on it would not matter. Spiritwoman ^i^
| ||
|
We Pagans don't believe in sin as described by Christians so it would not make any difference. Our version of sin is separation from God however you see him / her. Everyone has the opportunity to find the Divine within so I guess as a Christian you could call it our version of redemption. It's available to all regardless. Our penance is the "life review" we do right after returning to the spirit world. There is no greater punishment than having to see, feel and own all of our errors. If an individual incarnated with the goal of resolving sexual issues and did so be accepting their homosexuality that would be an achievement. If they did not that would be a do over. If sexuality weren't in the list of things the soul chose to work on it would not matter. Thanks for sharing the Pagan perspective! We come from different spiritual places, but you and I have no problem respecting each other in spite of those differences. GBU, Gavin
| ||
7/17/2013 7:18 am |
I run my life or my belief system by what was 'recorded biblicly' about the alleged beliefs of the Carpenter of Nazareth. In order to take biblical admonitions and advice seriously, on has to accept that the New Testament is God's Word, or at least that it was inspired and edited by The Big Guy. I happen to believe that the New Testament was thrown together in the early part of Christian era by a bunch of Christians, each with his own ax to grind, from a mass of different writings. None of the latter were actually put down on sheepskin, papyrus or whatever they used in those days until some years after the alleged Christ died. And those first accounts were by people who never met the man. This is not good provenance.
| ||
7/17/2013 11:39 am |
I run my life or my belief system by what was 'recorded biblicly' about the alleged beliefs of the Carpenter of Nazareth. In order to take biblical admonitions and advice seriously, on has to accept that the New Testament is God's Word, or at least that it was inspired and edited by The Big Guy. I happen to believe that the New Testament was thrown together in the early part of Christian era by a bunch of Christians, each with his own ax to grind, from a mass of different writings. None of the latter were actually put down on sheepskin, papyrus or whatever they used in those days until some years after the alleged Christ died. And those first accounts were by people who never met the man. This is not good provenance. I obviously meant to say "I don't run my life....".
| ||
|
I run my life or my belief system by what was 'recorded biblicly' about the alleged beliefs of the Carpenter of Nazareth. In order to take biblical admonitions and advice seriously, on has to accept that the New Testament is God's Word, or at least that it was inspired and edited by The Big Guy. I happen to believe that the New Testament was thrown together in the early part of Christian era by a bunch of Christians, each with his own ax to grind, from a mass of different writings. None of the latter were actually put down on sheepskin, papyrus or whatever they used in those days until some years after the alleged Christ died. And those first accounts were by people who never met the man. This is not good provenance. I think most Christians would take difference with you on all of this but I won't. However, I wouldn't take this statement in it's totality: "In order to take biblical admonitions and advice seriously, one has to accept that the New Testament is God's Word, or at least that it was inspired and edited by The Big Guy." One can take the all or part of the Bible seriously, even if they are an atheist. There is much history and wisdom within it whether you are Christian or not. Also, there are some Christians, including myself, who believe that all of the Bible was "God inspired" but neither dictated nor edited by Him. So for heretics like myself, it's perfectly acceptable to think many of the scribes who put pen to paper injected their own bias, distortions, or errors at occasionally. (They were just mortals like you and me, so they screwed up sometimes. Perhaps deliberately, or accidentally.) And the primary scribe of the NT, the Apostle Paul even admitted that he lacked perfect clarity and understanding. --My favorite vs in the Bible is from Paul speaking in 1 Corinthians 13:12: "We see as thru a glass darkly, but someday I will know even as I am known." (Were it not for that verse, I'd have become an atheist decades ago. The implication is that if Paul didn't have all the answers, I can be greatly relieved if I don't either.) So like any other ancient texts, we have to keep in mind that some history may be off sometimes, but that doesn't mean that it was off all the time. (Recent archeology over the past two decades has verified the existence of the "House of David," and also Pontius Pilot as being true historical elements.) Knowing what I know about early Christian history and the holy books in use of that time, I have to say your description of the NT being "thrown together" is not quite the way it came about, but the result was very similar. The choice of books varied from region to region until the official uniform Canon was declared 364 years after Christ. (In truth, there has never been one perfectly preserved Bible that was adopted by all of Christendom.) I just had an in depth convo yesterday in a FB group about this same topic. Not sure if I should bother blogging about that in SFF, but now I'm toying with the idea. Thanks for commenting and GBU, Gavin
| ||
|
My own personal take is this. It is personal  . I can barely keep up with myself, much less every other living human being on this earth. If I can face the world totally blameless, well, then I may share my personal take. Until then.....GBU, Gavin
| ||
7/19/2013 8:02 am |
Seems to me that it's merely a semantic matter whether scribes injected their own biases, distorted, or erred, or whether it was thrown together. In either case, it casts some doubt on the veracity of the sacred tome.
|
×
×