Of course I can try the fundamentalist approach as well.
Women are not that important in the bible. Neither is their sexual joy. Therefor there's nothing in the bible about lesbian love.
If you take the bible that literal Guess Who, you should make a difference between 'insignificant' lesbian love that is OK and male homosexual love that is an abomination.
I hope you will answer my theological questions. I really do.
Until now you've only made me feel more and more unwelcome in the circle of love of god.
I like it when someone is telling me what being religious means to her or him. If a jehova witness stops telling me his doctrines and starts telling me what it means for him/her, and why its doing so much good I listen carefully. I won't be converted, but I do listen. If a born again christian does the same, I will listen. If a muslim tells me about her/his religious life and how that brings joy in his/her life I listen. I still won't be converted, but I will listen, with respect.
But if a religious person is telling me how other people are wrong, just because they are who they are. If a religious person can tell me that god does not love some people and he/she knows which people god does not like I can not really listen anymore.
I can not see that as real testimony anymore. That's just negative dogma, not faith.
And it hurts. For ages black people were considered doomed because they were the sons of Cham. Jews were prosecuted because of the death of christ. Gays are prosecuted in the name of gods wisdom. Negative dogma brings pain and hatred. I cannot see that doing any good to any religion at all.
Guess Who, I do think you have a heart. I even think you are a nice person. It is not your heart I have a problem with. It is not your faith. But I do have problems with your beliefs. They hurt me.
If this is too personal, feel free not to answer, but which Christian beliefs hurt you? I'm wondering if it's the way some religious people act or if it is truly the beliefs of Christianity. Many religious zealots forget that the Bible also says "judge not, that ye be not judged." I think, like in so many other cases, the sins of a few spoil it for everyone.
OK, I don't know how REAL my christianity is. I'm a member of a church. I do have my problems with that church, probably due to my aspiness. (I happen to doubt EVERYTHING) But I'm happy that everyone is invited to really be a member. Woman, man, gay or straight, with a lot or a little pigmentation. Officially everyone is welcome to be a minister too. And officially everyone can bring her/his own story along. As a woman I happen to read the bible different from what lots of men do. A black person can have a complete different exegeses. It is, officially no problem. Of course not every congregation wants a woman on the pulpit. Not every congregation wants a gay elder. But in theory its OK. I like that, I need that. And I don't think we're not REAL christians in my church.
But maybe this whole REAL and NOT-REAL in christianity is an USA discussion.
We might get it here too, I see churches change. The fear of fundamentalism is there, and because of that, lots of groups (of all kinds of religion and philosophies) are closing ranks, and are getting more and more fundamentalist themselves. But it is not yet like that what you are describing above.
Guess Who,
If time is making a difference. And that is what you are saying when you take the OT less literal than the NT. Then the same should be true of the NT now. Its written years ago.
But even if we take the NT literal. There is a problem; There is no difference in free or slave, man or women. OK
But women should also be silent...
Women should have something on their head...
Especially the last rule annoys me to the bone.
Women should cover their hair, because they should not give reason to lustful thoughts of men and angels. (So is the explanation of many interpretists)
Its the men and angels who have the problem, and the women should solve it.
In the house of God it should be safe enough to go bareheaded. Its considered to be 'home'.
But women should protect themselves from the eyes of arroused men.
I'm so fed up with that.
And no, I'm not a member of a church were women wear hats. But then again, I'm not a member of a church that takes the bible literal.
And a theological discussion is something completely different from a biblicist discussion.
So maybe the problem of theology and gay is the problem of theology and lust.
If the only way lust is taken serious in church is the idea that it's better to marry than to burn. Then lust is not taken serious as a beautiful possibility of humans to.
Lust can be beautiful. A church that does not have the guts to take desire serious can't take other sex than procreational sex serious.
Of course lust can be horrid to. But we know that already, and it seems sexual harrassment is heppening more in sexually rigid surroundings, regardless of denomination.
It might seem double, I hate it when women have to dress properly, because of the danger of male lust. And also I want lust/desire into the theological discussion. But I do think it does make a lot of sense.
GuessWho,
That is indeed the point. People do have the possibility, if the time, and the persons and the circumstances are right to enjoy each other, not only in the mind, but also in making love. No matter if they want to procreate or not. It's good when it's loving and respectful. It can be great fun, when done in the right way. And gender issues have nothing to do with the right way. It does not matter if its gay sex or straight sex. Its about joy and enjoying, of both partners. Without physical or psychological enforcement.
Times have changed.
Times have changed indeed, imo even more than probably in yours. 
Try reading between the lines, Hyke, on the women in church issue. A long time ago, it made waves for a woman to talk in church. Now it makes waves if she is silent.
Paul's point is not to make waves that get in the way of saving souls. If that means skip the Pound of Beef on a Bun around a vegetarian Christian, then do it, even if you sacrifice a little, cuz you love the other Christian.
You might want to revisit the attitude that sex is only for procreation. Times have changed. In fact, a good many of us Protestants are of the opinion, at a wedding, yes, by all means, you two go, and do what ever.
Sorry GuessWho,
I don't get the metaphor of waves. I see you're quite fond of it, using tsunami's in your last post. But I fail to see what you mean.
I do see you tell me to read between the lines. And yes, that is what I like to do. I think God is fine with women that claim their right to speak. I think God does not mind women digging up female images of God in the old testament. The first bit, women claiming their right is between the lines. Digging up female images of God is reading the lines very careful.
And I think God rejoices in true love. And I think She rejoices just as much if its straight love or gay love.
Once you start reading between the lines there is no way back. You've given up on the literal truth of the bible. And that is OK. Every translation is giving up on the literal truth. Translation does change meaning. And sometimes its going beyond your imagination.
There is a people, somewhere on papua guinee, that has no concept of fatherhood as we have. Fathers are just there for the sperm. The male significant parent in the life of a child is an uncle.
Translating the bible and letting the image of God the father unchanged is more beside the original story than making God like the uncle. This is a real puzzle for translators.
If you take it literal, God is compared to someone only there for the sperm. If you change God into an uncle, you've got problems with his connection to Jesus.
If you really want to read literal its time to learn Hebrew and Greek. But even then you have to decide what versions you take for true and what not. And you have to be comfortable with the fact that biblical belief and living in the world of today are two different things.
Oh, and taking the commandment of not making an image serious, I do think speaking of God as She is just as valid as speaking of God as He.
Being made in the image of God, both women and men makes more sense then too.
Paul's point is not to make waves that get in the way of saving souls. If that means skip the Pound of Beef on a Bun around a vegetarian Christian, then do it, even if you sacrifice a little, cuz you love the other Christian.
I understand this quite weird,
The meateater should refrain from eating meat, because of his fellow vegetarian christian.
Likewise the woman should refrain from speaking, because of her fellow male christians.
It does not make any sense at all to me
You may eat as much beef as you want, but if you come and visit and want a meal prepared by me it will be vegetarian. That's how I cook. On a buffet however you do not have to stop eating meat because I'm around. I'm not asking that of any meateater. I won't eat meat if I visit a meateater though, I do get sick if I do that. I won't force my visitors to eat their tofu either.
Offering up speaking is a much bigger sacrifice than just not eating meat once in a while. It's giving up a human right and a christian right if we to take the "no men no women" serious.
It's a comparision I don't agree with, and I do take it that Paul was a man, and that it were men telling the women to shut up. Were was the equality? Equality that only would be real in heaven? They were quick to give up on it on earth for promotional reasons. It just did not 'sell' in mission when women spoke up. So they had to keep quiet and wait till the end of the world.
This is adapting faith to the society Paul was in. And he did it not at his own expence. He used women to bear the concequences.
Response to a few questions above
1. I don't need to learn Greek actually, I am close friends with a woman who had a Greek mother. My sister-friend is fluent in Greek, has traveled, even wondered if Y2K was going to be a problem, have her first daughter born (October 1999) in Greece (which has less technology than we do, she said). I had one other Greek-fluent friend in college with us but she became a nun after graduating.
Greek was hot stuff among the Christians in college. I don't have any Hebrew speaking friends to my knowledge but maybe my last gf's mother can speak it, she's a Christian of Jewish ancestry)
2. You have it backwards Hyke. Try the guys sticking up for the women when they speak. Paul makes mention of excellent Christian ladies, but yes, the women of the New Testament need more than just a proofread to know.
3. The cross. The cross is for Jesus to put Satan on. It is a sign of victory. It was intended as a humilating means of capital punishment but, like a few other things (such as Jesus exalting the marginalized because the exalted were too busy to come to Jesus' feast in Heaven), Jesus stood that one on its head.
1. The biblical greek is just a tiny bit different..., and you still have to chose which text/copy you take as the real word of god. You say it has been dictated. Well, the literal dictation got lost during copying. So who will decide which syllable is the right and what is from the devil...
2. It took you long to think that one up. But I don't agree. It's a pattern that keeps coming up. Not only in churches though, in all of society. There are churches with female pastors, that won't have female pastors in mission, because it might scare men in the regions where the mission is. You say its an offer they should be willing to make. I say its allways an institution that is finding the 'volunteers' to make the offer. And women just happen to do the offering quite a lot.
Just as gays are often asked to keep a low profile, because of what others might think. Like on adopting for example. Don't let it be known that homo's can adopt. It might spoil 'the market' for hetero's.
It's not about offering willingly, its about power.
Sorry, I was not aware, it is OK in my native language.
The word I used is used both positive and negative. It's used is calling people names, It's used as pride. I think it sort of has a counterbalance in 'hetero'. I can't recal we have a word like 'straight'. So it would be 'gay' <> 'normal'.
The word can be used very offensive, and ful of pride. It does depend on who says it, and in what context. I suppose it will become political incorrect after a few more years.
I do like the word gay the best. But I hardly hear it in my part of the country, its english, and though we have lots of anglisisms in our dutch language, this one is not common yet. (but most ppl do know what 'gaypride' is, but 'roze zaterdag' (pink saturday) is known better.
"Gay", on the other side, is an euphemism... So what is less offensive? I still don't understand why they (people of unusual sexual orientation) needed to construct an euphemism for their sexual preferences.
Gay is not a euphemism imo. It's optimism maybe. It's positive vs the negative ideas like abomination, affliction etc. Highlighting the joy is not a bad idea when ppl around you only see pain, or sin, or deviation.
The translation of Gay is used in the title of a magazine about being gay and religious. It's called 'Vroom en Vrolijk' i.e. 'Pious and Gay'. 'Vrolijk' never got the status of 'Gay' in my language. But it does aliterate beautiful in this title.
Hyke, I think when you read about rape you're citing the Old Testament. We don't live in the Old Testament any more.
I think the criminals on the cross next to Jesus made the point clear: break the civil law at your own peril. Later on the apostle Paul said that even the cruelest of the Caesars (Nero, Caligua) had the mission to punish violations of civil law.
Old Testament was another time and place when one country on earth was run as a theocracy. The New Testament applies to the lives of individual Christians in secular, civil society.
And to anticipate your problems with the New Testament, the idea is every Christian should be a slave in Christ for everyone. A lot of chauvanists forget that they need to be humble slaves too, just like the white Southerners of long ago forgot the same thing.
According to one of your posts God wrote the Bible ( which is untrue as has already been stated, people wrote it ).
The Bible is the Bible, whether it is Old or New Testament.
Are we to assume that God keeps changing his / her mind?
I am an atheist and reading this thread confirms it. I don't care or judge people's sexual or partner preferences in a theoretical way. How can two people loving each other ever be wrong? And when I die, if God does indeed exist I think he would like my opinion and look after me. Sexuality is so over-rated as an issue. If no-one is getting hurt or abused people should be left to do as they like.
I don't judge people sexual preferences in any way, what right have I?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10