Matthew Vines on "anti-gay" passages in the Bible

[formergothardite]

I guess Luke 14:13-14 are verses Australian finds too "impractical" to take as literal too. I'm guessing, he has stored up treasures for himself here on earth, he has more clothes and food than he needs while there are others who go without, and that when he gives a party he doesn't invite the poor, the lame, the maimed and the blind, he just invites his friends. Because it would totally ruin his day to follow these verses, so he shall stick to tell gay people that they can't have sex.

[australian]

Additionally, I want to address this totally false statement from page 1:

I've found an utterly gorgeous, $800 designer dress in blended silk and linen. Will you buy it for me?

Well I didnt say that such mixtures didnt exist at all. But to be honest I dont know much about fabrics, and I may have been overly trusting of what Id read about fabric blends? Anyway, some Christians think that such blends are sinful and some Christians dont. It's not something that is mentioned at all in the New Testament.

[Guest Anonymous]

Well I didnt say that such mixtures didnt exist at all. But to be honest I dont know much about fabrics, and I may have been overly trusting of what Id read about fabric blends? Anyway, some Christians think that such blends are sinful and some Christians dont. It's not something that is mentioned at all in the New Testament.

So... are you buying me the dress? I'd look super-cute in it!

[australian]

Wiki also says the age range was usually 12-17. So you are saying an adult having a relationship with a 12-17 year old isn't always exploitiative? And that these relationships aren't any different than two CONSENTING ADULTS who want to get married and start a family?

No, im not saying that.

[australian]

What, exactly, is misleading about it? It seems like a technically accurate description to me.

Yes it's probably 'technically' accurate. But we seem to be in the midst of a debate here. And I know how during debates, people seek to find holes in the statements of others. So unless it's well defined, before you know it, someone will claim that Im saying that that Greco-Roman pederastic relationships included relationships with children so young they had not even learnt to talk.

[Guest Anonymous]

Yes it's probably 'technically' accurate. But we seem to be in the midst of a debate here. And I know how during debates, people seek to find holes in the statements of others. So unless it's well defined, before you know it, someone will claim that Im saying that that Greco-Roman pederastic relationships included relationships with children so young they had not even learnt to talk.

Aah, 'technically accurate' is the best kind of 'accurate'! Any news on the dress?

[formergothardite]

Here is the problem with your stance Australian, you have claimed that there are verses in the Bible that cannot be taken literally because it would be impractical for you to do so, so obviously they aren't meant to be taken as literal. But when gay people say that the verses in the Bible that speak against gay people getting married and having sex cannot be taken literal because it would be impractical for them to never get married and have sex, so obviously those verses are not meant to be taken literal and don't apply to consenting, loving adults, you say that they can't do that. I mean, the Bible also says that it is better to marry than to burn with lust, so why wouldn't that apply to gay people? So people are using the exact same method of picking and choosing what to take literal in the Bible as you do, but you claim that they are wrong, not real Christians, and not living a Christian lifestyle.

[formergothardite]

No, im not saying that.

What are you saying then?

[australian]

Here is the problem with your stance Australian, you have claimed that there are verses in the Bible that cannot be taken literally because it would be impractical for you to do so, so obviously they aren't meant to be taken as literal. But when gay people say that the verses in the Bible that speak against gay people getting married and having sex cannot be taken literal because it would be impractical for them to never get married and have sex, so obviously those verses are not meant to be taken literal and don't apply to consenting, loving adults, you say that they can't do that. I mean, the Bible also says that it is better to marry than to burn with lust, so why wouldn't that apply to gay people? So people are using the exact same method of picking and choosing what to take literal in the Bible as you do, but you claim that they are wrong, not real Christians, and not living a Christian lifestyle.

That is one of the most reasonable posts I have read on this forum. Yes, I see the quandary. Do I have a great answer? No. Being single and without sex for a lifetime sounds unappealing. I can understand why people dont often choose that road. Id like to find an answer. At face value most English translations of the Bible teaches that homosexual sex is sinful, and having researched it, I think the translations are fairly accurate. I can see that this is a problem for gay people who are Christians. But I do think it's only logical that if there are same-sex attracted people today, then there were same-sex attracted people in the time that the Bible was written. The concept would not have been perfectly understood, but surely those people existed. The Bible seems to say that there were people back then who were same-sex attracted (Romans 1) as does ancient literature and art. And although Matthew Vines says the New Testament doesnt teach against same-sex relationships, even he believes that the Jews under Leviticus believed that homosexual sex was prohibited. On one hand, if homosexuals were expected to not engage sexually back then, why should the rules change now? On the other hand, I would not want to be celibate for life myself. I hate not having an answer for that. But pretending that the Bible is okay with gay sex, seems too crazy, given how it seems to oppose it from multiple angles.

Anyway, thanks formergothardite. This post has helped me realise how difficult this is.

[formergothardite]

It is about as crazy as pretending the Bible is okay with people storing up treasures on earth. You seem to be okay with that.

ETA: Do you not see how silly it looks to accuse people who use the exact same method that you use to figure out what verses should be literal and what verses shouldn't be literal of doing it all wrong?

[Guest Anonymous]

Awww, formergothardite! You got headpats for being reasonable! Not like the rest of us hysterical, unreasonable womenfolks!

Seriously australian, everything you write absolutely drips with condescension. You are an unpleasant piece of work to say the least.

[formergothardite]

His method of choosing what to take literal in the Bible is essentially nothing but being self-centered. Seriously, if it doesn't inconvience him, well then it can be taken literally, screw all the people it does inconvience. But if it does inconvience him, well, then it is totally cool just to say that that verse isn't meant to be taken literally because God would never inconvience Australian. Can you get a more self-absorbed way to read then Bible than that?

[JesusFightClub]

Awww, formergothardite! You got headpats for being reasonable! Not like the rest of us hysterical, unreasonable womenfolks!

Seriously australian, everything you write absolutely drips with condescension. You are an unpleasant piece of work to say the least.

QFT

[formergothardite]

Well I just feel so special. An unreasonable fundie thinks I'm reasonable. :lol:

[Anxious Girl]

OT: And this is why I want a Bible that's unedited for somebody's agenda but rather for grammar and spelling mistakes, and translated as correctly and thoroughly as possible. australian, why is secular another issue when it comes to LGBT marriage?

Why should secular government have to cater to a particular religion to make people feel like they're special snowflakes who have power over others?

[Effie]

The consequence of not allowing same-sex-marriage is just awful... http://www.care2.com/causes/no-parent-rights-for-you-your-marriage-is-meaningless.html :(

[Anxious Girl]

Well I just feel so special. An unreasonable fundie thinks I'm reasonable. :lol:

You perfomed a miracle, formergothardite. Pope Intolerance should make you a saint. :lol:

[thoughtful]

Thanks for the info about the Greek, AreteJo.

I dont understand how the http://leesomniac.wordpress.com page didnt do the trick, or how you could conclude that leesomniac believes that nobody really knows the meaning of 'arsenokoitai'. At one point, leesomniac defines Arsenokoitai as “men who sleep with other men.†How do you interpret, from such a statement that nobody really knows the meaning? Furthermore, leesomniac details why they translate 'arsenokoitai' the way they do, how they think the word arose in the first place, and why that etymology is relevant. Im at a loss to understand how that does not provide an answer your query.

I asked for proof from scholars of Koine Greek. Leesomniac does not appear to be one. He seems to just be parroting what he has heard about 'arsenokoitai,' from people on the same side of the ideological fence as himself.

But, I still wonder why you bothered, and am ill-at-ease about your focus on this subject.

Even if Vines is wrong, he'd hardly be the only wrong person in the world. ... And I have to admit that it has me curious -- is this just something that has recently caught your attention? A lifelong quest? Why is the idea that homosexuality is a sin such a focus for you?

Of course he is not the only wrong person in the world. But he had me fooled for a while, and he does seem to be the man of the moment on this topic. I started looking into what he said, and Ive found it took a lot of time to look through it all, so I suppose it has become something of a focus. I guess if you are going to become familiar with something as deep as this topic, unless you make it something of a focus, then you never really get a good grasp of it.

But why does this topic interest you so? Did the Matthew Vines controversy just happened to catch your eye? Did you have no previous interest in whether homosexual people can be Christian until you heard about him?

This isn't happening in a vacuum -- there is a history of people focusing on this, to the exclusion of other aspects of the Bible. With all of the practices and rules that changed as Christianity began and grew (and, for that matter, as Judaism progressed), with all of the reams of text to look at, it is hard not to notice that some people are very focused on the "nope, gays can't be Christians" stuff.

That makes me curious (and, I grant, suspicious), as it does many. It really seems to be more about one's need to exclude gay people than it is about respecting the Bible and Jesus' teachings.

You have questioned my motives, so I guess I now have an unspoken permission to question yours?

Well, it would have been nice if you had addressed my pointing out that I am not a one-issue person, and had answered my question in a way that actually told me why the issue of Christian homosexuals appears to be your only focus, but sure, go ahead.

Like you, Im ill at ease. Im ill at ease with your claimed objectivity, ie your claim that this topic "matters not" to you. May I respectfully point out then that you are uncomfortable with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I'm not sure why you think I'm uncomfortable -- you may be having an "aha, the lady doth protest too much" reaction to my repeatedly mentioning that what makes a person a Christian, or a believer of any sort, doesn't matter to me.

But I only do that because thousands of people are on this forum and new people often forget who is who. I point out that what the Bible says does not affect my life so people won't waste their time with "You call yourself a Christian/believer" arguments.

"Uncomfortable" is an odd word choice, since it seems to be implying that I have some hidden guilt or deep-down feeling that what the Bible says applies to me, or that I fear Hell for not following it. If that's not what you meant, let me know -- no problem.

My point is that I personally don't need to care what the Bible says in order to form my opinions about gay people, or anything else.

Having said that, I freely admit that an attempt at a literal interpretation of the Bible do interest me, and generally bother me, for the following reasons:

- it causes pain to humans who have done no wrong -- bigotry against gay people, excusing slavery, hitting children, etc.

- it is impossible, since there are so many contradictions -- cognitive dissonance and the knots into which people tie themselves to try to make it make sense are interesting to me (although they sadden me).

- it causes self-righteous condemnation of "cherry picking," even though everyone who tries to live by the Bible must cherry-pick, by definition (see above, re: contradictions). I think self-righteousness is worth criticizing when I see it.

- although not a believer myself, I respect people who believe there is a higher power, have struggled with whatever contrasts exist between their holy books, their upbringing, and common sense, and have come through it on the side of decency, rather than trying to shoehorn either the books or their beliefs to make every word fit.

- since I went to Hebrew school as a child, the nitpicking of every teeny detail of every word in English, when so much of that is a translation of a translation, amuses me.

Also that your views are aligned with the political left. I dont intend to get into political

debates, but Id like to point out that someone with your views would tend to find themselves within a leftist ideological environment. There is nothing wrong with wanting women to be free and equal, but it is notable that those who make feminism and rationalism etc a priority, tend to find themselves surrounded with friends who feel likewise, and absorbing media outlets that support that ideology ... and without being able to help it, broader leftist ideologies too - one of which is broad acceptance of homosexuality. Even if you dont recognise it yourself, Id venture that deep inside you feel uncomfortable with the notion that the Bible might discriminate against gays, and you would prefer to find holes in that view. After all, otherwise, why would you bother to comment on this thread or do the research that you are doing? Not that research is a bad thing ... if it has objective goals in mind.

You so carefully tiptoe around the possibility of my being feminist, rational, and my accepting homosexuality, like those are bad things. :lol: I'm leftist by your definition? Great! :D

Although, maybe not -- I don't know what that image means to you, not sure what you are picturing. So here's a description: I'm a heterosexual woman pushing 60, taking care of my elderly mother. I'm a homebody who dresses modestly, works hard, has never been on welfare, respects others, has never broken the law, has never done drugs or booze.

Other than not keeping kosher, I probably even come close to never having broken any of the guidelines in Leviticus (not that I've read it all!) -- heck, I even wear 100% cotton clothes!

I'm a bore, in other words - not a wild-living wastrel looking for loopholes, in case that's what you were imagining.

I was raised by a Mom who is a Conservative Jew and a Dad who was culturally Jewish but got most of his morality, as far as I could ever tell, from just being a decent, kind, logical man. When life experiences taught him that the upbringing that taught him to suspect non-Jews and people of color, and mock gays, was arbitrary and prejudiced, he changed.

I don't think there was anything Leftist about my upbringing. You could be right -- perhaps I've been immersed in Leftist philosophy all my life and have no perspective, but it certainly didn't feel that way.

I've been in plenty of right-leaning atmospheres and heard their arguments, and they've set off my "wait, that's just mean and/or selfish" meter for as long as I can remember.

BTW, I don't know if you noticed, but several posters, way back at the beginning of this thread, pointed out that Vines' argument might not hold water, especially with conservative Christians or people who try to take the Bible literally. I was disappointed to hear it, but didn't deny the possibility.

As I said several times to you, I am open to the idea that Vines' arguments are not solid. I just think it would be a shame if they aren't.

Why? Because people suffer isolation, pain, and hatred because of the idea that a gay person cannot be a Christian. I hate to see decent human beings go through that.

Vines' talk moved me because I had hope that a more bigoted population, that of Bible-literalist fundamentalist Christians, might be swayed by it. If he hasn't got a leg to stand on, that saddens me.

As I said before, I returned because you came back, I felt some responsibility, as the OP of the thread, to respond, and, when I had time, to read the links you'd posted.

And, as I said, I don't have much patience for the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" level of argument, myself, and make no claim at being good at it.

But, when others get into that level, and their conclusion, after pages of picking, is "things might not be black-and-white, let's err on the side of being kind to people," I'll take that over "I've decided it says we should condemn people who have done no harm."

If, from your point of view, that makes me biased, I have no problem with that.

[formergothardite]

What are you saying then?

Still want to know what you were meaning here since you apparently took a page from Irishy and wrote things you didn't mean:

Im saying that some of those relationships seemed to be more loving than exploitative.[/i]

I dont think we can conclude that those relationships were never "loving

[thoughtful]

His method of choosing what to take literal in the Bible is essentially nothing but being self-centered.

That seems to sum it up.

I want to ask a question that I don't think has been covered yet, Australian. You have said, several times, that you were initially taken in by Vines' arguments, and then felt angry and betrayed when you came to believe they were not true.

Assuming that's true, why did that matter to you?

Was it just scholarly interest? Are you always researching passages from the Bible and looking for various interpretations? Are you often angry if someone disagrees with what you found?

Or did you, at some point, want to accept that gay people can be Christian?

I guess I'm picturing someone with a real interest because he wanted to be able to take the Bible literally and accept Cousin Harry and his husband Bob into their church, and now feels he must still exclude people he loves. :(

Yes, I think you have identified an angle on slavery which could be considered a contradiction. It's not the only one in the Bible. And with any document as large as the Bible you are going to find things that can be viewed as contradictory.

Great -- you see that! And you admitted that you are not living the "if you have two shirts, you must give one away" verse to the letter.

Now that you have come to realize that many verses cannot be taken literally and lived as written, and that there are contradictions in the Bible, does that open your mind to the possibility that gays can be Christian?

[formergothardite]

Wonder if Australian has flounced now that he would have to explain why it is okay for him to decide to not follow Bible verses based on how much it inconviences him, but others can't do the same.

[thoughtful]

Wonder if Australian has flounced now that he would have to explain why it is okay for him to decide to not follow Bible verses based on how much it inconviences him, but others can't do the same.

Could be.

I think we tend to notice when drop-in fundies or other unpleasant, one-thread, one-issue people don't post for a while, more than we would with regular posters. It may look like a flounce but not be one.

Time will tell . . .

[Effie]

Australian ran away with the tail between his legs.

Anyway, I found an article for Australian. It states how and why [link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-carey/bigotry-hiding-behind-the-bible_b_1693680.html]Christians Who Are Against LGBT Misuse The Bible[/link]

David found Jonathan's love greater than that of women (2 Samuel 1:26), while Jesus healed a centurion's "boy" (Greek: pais) without any comment on that relationship (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10).

Let's be honest: if you're anti-gay, you're anti-gay. Just don't blame the Bible for your bigotry.