I believe we should agree to disagree, but we should also be able to continue this discussion in a civilized manner. Either way, you have made remarks that I must be allowed to address.
Before I do, I have two observations that need to be expressed:
1. Not all Biblical discussions are created equal.
I can imagine I've created the impression in some that I will debate the Biblical validity of every theological question this fervently. That's not the case. There are minor debates and their are serious arguments.
One such minor debate is the question of transubstantiation, whether Christ meant that the bread and wine of the Last Supper were literally His body and blood, as the Roman Catholic Church contends. There is a great deal of support for the belief, namely the preponderance of inexplicable Biblical miracles. Transubstantiation does seem hard to comprehend, but, even in its proper context, the Bible doesn't discount such phenomena:
"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." - Isiah 55:9.
In other words, the Lord works in mysterious ways.
Many Protestants believe that Christ may not have been necessarily literal, since He was shown to be fond of metaphors:
"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men." - Matthew 5:13.
Basically, the arguments are well reasoned and are Biblically well-founded; that is, they the inferred meanings of the verses they cite hold up to local context and holistically - global Biblical context.
Beyond that, it doesn't much matter, ultimatley, whether transubstantiation occurs. We are simply to eat and drink in remembrance of Him.
There are other arguments, though.
Some civil rights leaders contend that Christ was black, using Revelation 1:15 as a source:
"And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters."
His feet were like brass, ergo, He's black.
This argument isn't a singularly important one, but it is exceptional in how fully it ignores the rest of the Bible. The local context, the other verses of Revelation 1, reveal that this is a vision of Christ showing a glimpse of His divine glory, so His earthly race cannot be inferred. Further, the Gospels establish through geneologies and the scornful title placed on the cross (KING OF THE JEWS) establish that Christ was ethnically Hebrew and religiously Jewish.
I will fight arguments like this one, silly as it is, because it is such an obvious abuse and manipulation of the Word of God; it appears to be the work of someone trying desperately to use the Bible to prove his point rather than take the Bible for what it is.
And I will also fight arguments that suggest the Bible condones homosexuality. Most of these arguments strike me as just as unfounded as the argument above, and the probable result of biased interpretation in order to produce a desired result. Beyond that, the question of homosexuality's morality is a serious one, far more serious than transubstantiation.
2. The immorality of homosexuality should not alter one's behavior towards homosexuals.
I don't if I've emphasized this point enough, so I will elaborate: homosexuality, even if it is a sin, does not encroach on the rights of others, and should remain legal and receive legal recognition equivalent to marriage.
I also have friends - friends, not just acquaintances - who are either homosexual or bisexual. I also have friends who debauch themselves, getting drunk every weekend, and friends who occasionally gamble. I myself have problems controlling my anger and trusting God. Nobody's perfect. But when I'm hungry, I feed myself; cold, I put on a jacket. Imperfect as I am, I still care for myself. Further my friends' sinful behavior doesn't affect me, so I treat my gambling and drinking friends as good friends. And I treat my gay friends the same way - impartially.
That is what is meant by "loving the sinner if you hate the sin", what is meant by loving thy neighbor. But, still, when the question is asked, I follow my conscience and defend my belief that homosexuality is against the perfect plan of God and is therefore a sin.
Now, on to your points, briefly.
Ruth and Naomi were not sexual. David and Jonathan could very well have been. In typical Biblical poetics, they are not going to say, "David and Jonathan had sex." They're more likely to say:
"Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt." - 1 Samuel 17:59
I mean, read the Song of Songs (a.k.a., "Song of Solomon"). Widely agreed to be filled with sexual innuendo, but never once to mention the most banal language describing it.
It appears that this verse is placed differently in whatever translation you're using - I found the verse in 1 Sam 18:4.
That said, look at 1 Samuel 17:57-58 and 18:1-3. The context is that David is presented before King Saul - and the scene never explicitly moves to the privacy of Jonathan's chambers, etc. So Jonathan probably did this as a public display before his father the king, meaning that it was probably a militaristic ritual of handing over one's weapons as a sign of friendship - not some homosexual striptease.
And the comparison of this one, possibly misconstrued verse to the whole of Song of Soloman is comparing apples and oranges. That book mentions kissing as early as 1:2 and a shared bed in 1:16; the context and meaning is clearly more sexual.
Most interestingly, this was Saul's reaction to David and Jonathan's relationship:
"Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, 'You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?'" - 1 Samuel 20
An interesting comment made over just a "friendship."
Of course, my point was that God did not condemn same-sex affection in these cases. As usual, the fixation is always on "sex." There is more to being gay or straight than sex.
Again, if you actually read the context, 18:28 - 20:29, you would see that this is what happened, in a nutshell: Saul feared David's success as a leader and plotted to kill him. Jonathan told David, and David hid. In the verse preceding your verse, Jonathan protected him by lying to Saul about his whereabouts, and that is why Saul got so upset. Saul's own son chose his adversary over him, and that context provides a much more reasonable explanation for his insults.
Truly, not every homosexual relationship is strictly carnal, but nor is every close same-sex friendship based on homosexuality. Given the state of the world, I would say the assumption should be a deeply felt heterosexual friendship; the burden of proof is to establish that it was something else.
You are a real trip. Give me any evidence to indicate that this could be asserted. I've given plenty of evidence as to why a relationship between David and Jonathan could be asserted.
I'm not saying there is evidence supporting homosexuality among the Disciples, the Dynamic Duo, or the hobbits. I'm not asserting that the case for the examples I mentioned is strong - but that yours is weak, that your evidence is faulty. Given the context I provide tends your evidence away from homosexuality, I think I can stand by my assertion.
Why do you continue to quote from Matthew? How many times must I state that Matthew is written with Jewish Christian bias? How many times must I state that the Church of Jerusalem was destroyed by the Church of Antioch, which was St. Paul's church? How many times are you just going to simply ignore history?
There are several reasons I continually quote Matthew.
* First, I believe the Sermon on the Mount, found most completely in Matthew 5-7, is the single most important lecture on the Christian lifestyle. Spiritually, the center of existence is at Golgotha; in terms of doctrine, the center is the Sermon.
* Second, an online search for Gospel verses relating to one issue or another (see
http://bible.crosswalk.com/ ) generates results in chronological order; Matthew is the first book listed. As an example, the search for the verses about the sign on the cross produced results from all four gospels: Matthew 27:29, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19. Generally, I'd quote Matthew and move on, believing the verse to be sufficient.
* Third, the reason I believe that quoting Matthew is often sufficient is that I honestly believe that the Bible is divinely guided. The authors were divinely inspired to write what they did, and the Apostles and biblical scholars were divinely inspired to keep what they kept and discard what they did, to separate the wheat from the chaff. You say that history shows Paul's followers considered discarding most of the Bible; that may be true, but history also shows that these books persisted. Certainly, there is room for error, and we should strive to find the most accurate texts and translate them most accurately. But it rightfully takes overwhelming evidence to discount a book of the Bible as apocryphal.
* Fourth, you provide no such overwhelming evidence. You remind me of its "Jewish Christian bias", but all four gospels have their original audiences, and that's simply not enough to discard any of them. You tell me that its supporters, the legalistic Church of Jerusalem, was "destroyed" by the Church of Antioch; but I contend that the three-chapter Sermon on the Mount preached against the legalism that apparently led to their ruin, thus divorcing the book from the church's demise. You tell me that the Church of Antioch kept the book as a mere keepsake, but the fact they kept the book suggests its authenticity despite the church's disagreements with the book.
* Finally, I continue to quote Matthew because the debate is whether homosexuality is
Biblically sanctioned. Whatever worth the Bible has, it is what it is. For simplicity's sake, I suggest we limit ourselves to the Protestant Bible, as Catholics have books Protestants consider apocrypha, but not vice versa; the Protestant Bible is a subset of the Catholic. But taking that as a given, I do not think we can argue whether other books belong and still argue over Biblical principles. It's one thing to debate transcripts, translations, and context; another thing entirely to debate whether Matthew shouldn't count.
Seriously, you've argued that Paul's writing contains many "hooks" which obscures his "original intent." You've also clearly argued against the Gospel of Matthew, and later in this most recent long post, you say the following:
The followers of St. Paul considered discarding the entire Old Testament, Matthew, and John, along with all other non-Pauline epistles and books. They kept these books only for history and so that references to the Old Testament in the New Testament could be easily found. That is all the Old Testament is meant to be: a reference, not law. Of course, the Reformation comes and Protestantism plays this game of revisionism that we are still fighting. (My emphasis added.)
It seems you are certainly suggesting that the Old Testament should also be discarded with Matthew, and the possibility looms that you would make a case for dropping John, Acts, the general epistles, and Revelation.
Out of sixty-six books in the Bible, that leaves only fifteen books: Mark, Luke, and an unspecified parts of the Pauline Epistles. To be fair, you could mean sixteen if you count Acts, since it appears to be a continuation of Luke. But either way, if you cut out some fifty books from the Bible, you're no longer debating the Bible's position on anything; pick out parts of the Bible long enough, and you can probably prove anything you wanted.
You miss my point yet again! Christ abolished the entire Mosaic Law, but He gave us a new commandment in its place: "Love one another." This isn't anarchy; if you murder your neighbor, you are not loving him. Plain and simple. When you execute a convicted murderer, you are not loving your enemies. Plain and simple.
Hopefully, this will be the last need clarification on why I think the Mosaic law is not wholly abolished.
I'll abstain from quoting Matthew 22:33-37 again, but the crux of the verses is this: The two greatest commandments are to love God completely and to love your neighbor as yourself. Loving thy neighbor is difficult, but relatively straightforward: murder is forbidden, for example, though I don't think the case against capital punishment is quite this "plain and simple."
The more serious issue is how to love God. It is surely more than merely loving your neighbor, as Christ gave them as two separate commandments, and I believe it comes down to obeying His will. And one finds what His will is through prayer, church (see Proverbs 27:17, "As iron sharpens iron"), and through scripture. I believe the Old Testament is valid scripture for finding the will of God; even if we no longer follow the letter of the old law, we can still derive its meaning. Thus, even if the letter of the law is "abolished", its spirit is fulfilled.
And, as I've said time and again, the entire Bible, Old Testament and New, points to one conclusion: the will of God is that man is to live one of two lives, a heterosexual, monogamous marriage or total chastity.
Moving on through your post, past a couple more arguments against Matthew and the Mosaic law...
It isn't consistent. It says to "love your neighbor." Jesus extends it to "love your enemies" as well. St. Paul, the founder of our Christianity, did not believe in Mosaic Law.
It is consistent in that the New Testament isn't overturning the Old Testament, at least here. Nowhere in the Old Testament is commanded to "hate your enemies," and I defy you prove otherwise.
I believe honestly, the so-called expansion of the original law is due to Jewish legalism. I believe the original intent of the old "love thy neighbor" is to love everyone. The priests minimalized the law's scope to physical neighbors, and Christ restored it to its original full scope.
It's like a parent telling a child, "You can't eat a cookie because it will spoil your appetite," and the child then eats a candy bar and claims innocence because it's not literally a cookie. The parent then has to tell the child to not eat anything before dinner, but as the child matures he realizes "don't eat a cookie before dinner" really prohibited eating anything before shortly before any meal.
Moving on past the assertion that more than half the Bible should be ignored, an assertion I've already addressed...
Nehemiah was written after Ruth. Apparently, He changed His mind again. God didn't make these rules! It is called legalism from proud Jewish rabbis. It would be like compiling the tradition of the Catholic Church over the last 2000 years into a book and saying that they are "God's laws," which is exactly what the Church asserted up to Vatican II.
The explanation there is simple. Deuteronomy established God's curse against Ruth's people. Ruth was waived from that curse because of her faithfulness to God. Nehemiah simply confirms the mass condemnation, Ruth notwithstanding. I see no difficulty here.
Goddamn it all! You have taken Romans out of context yet again. Early Romans appeals to Jewish Christians. The latter part of Romans appeals to his own sensibilities. And, pray tell, why only "dietary restrictions"? St. Paul was explicitly against circumcision as well.
Nice language. Good thing you think the Mosaic Law is dead, though I wonder how much love that language shows God.
This is another assertion that parts of Romans is to be ignored, but I do wish to address the dietary restrictions.
I quote myself, from an earlier post in this thread, since you apparently missed it the first time:
Certainly, the verse is probably applicable to other things (clothes, etc.) BUT NOT EVERYTHING.
STOP QUOTING MATTHEW. "Murder" and "sex with animals" is a violation of "love one another."
Actually, as long as the animal is not harmed physically or psychologically, I don't see how "love one another" applies. I'd love to hear any clarification you can make.
And, if I haven't already made it clear, I will continue to quote Matthew.
You are ignoring everything I've written. The Catholic Bible rightfully states that that passage is INCORRECT. An analyzation of the original language shows that the Catholic Bible is most CORRECT. By saying "except when unlawful," it is a reference to blood mixing (incest).
Either way, it still proves my point. Regardless of what exceptions it makes, it does make an exception to divorce, and that fact discounts your assertion that Christ "totally condemns it everywhere else in the gospels." A minor point, I know.
Moving on past the Book of Jubilees comment...
IT DOES NOT JUST REFER TO DIETARY RESTRICTIONS.
I agree. In fact, I agreed in the paragraph you quoted: "Certainly, the verse is probably applicable to other things (clothes, etc.) BUT NOT EVERYTHING." Again, the verse is probably applicable to other things.
It seems like I'm not alone in ignoring what the other says.
Moving on past the strange assertion that promiscuity insults one's neighbor and another blurring of the edges of Romans...
A Protestant Bible is as good as toilet paper in terms of translation accuracy.
This strikes me as a singular example of outright prejudice. There are many Protestant translations of the Bible, from King James to "The Message"; many translate from original texts, and many translate from the most accurate manuscripts possible. To say that they are all "as good as toilet paper" is baseless and insulting.
These epistles were written for specific audiences, not for us.
The validity of that assertion depends heavily on the absence of divine intervention. If one believes these texts were inspired by an omnipotent and omniscient Creator, it is possible that they were then written for all people and all times, despite the author's original audience.
I'm done. You aren't listening. I might as well have spoken to Pharisees. Jesus surely had a handful debating them. And, like the Pharisees, you cling to legalism and fundamentalism.
It's a bit harsh, I believe, to compare me to the Pharisees, particularly when I have asserted that the Old Testament should be perhaps followed in spirit only and not by the letter; particularly when I merely think homosexuality is wrong because of the plan of marriage implied throughout the Bible, and not because of the wording of some obscure book in Leviticus.
I'm going to do the right thing and assume that this is your anger talking. But if you're serious about the comparison, I too can make comparisons, and I have one with your name on it.
Luckily, my convictions are close to official Catholic stances. Even they know the Bible cannot refer to homosexuality as we know it, and only condemns it on the basis of tradition from St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Not to mention the fact that they explicitly condemn fundamentalism, stating that it is putting too much faith into a book that was never meant to be taken literally. The creators of the New Testament canon, which was in the early Catholic Church, did not create it for the intentions of being taken literally, but for guidance. Fundamentalism arose out of a power struggle; a way to control people; a way to support every hatred and war of mankind. The epistles of St. Paul were used to support slavery, were used to keep women subordinate, were used to kill Jews, and are now used to hate homosexuals. We've all been had, and seeing all the hatred brought about by Christianity in the last 2000 years, I can guarantee we're not using the Bible as intended. That is evidence enough to prove that you and your traditional interpretations are, indeed, WRONG.
Okay, the Catholic Church condemns homosexuality because of two saints, and they (the church? the saints?) condemn fundamentalism. It doesn't mean they're right. You cannot simply go from the Catholics believe the books aren't meant to be taken literally to the assertion that they REALLY aren't to be taken that way, that the authors "did not create it for the intentions of being taken literally, but for guidance."
The obvious question there is, how far? Are we still to believe that Christ is the resurrected Son of God? Or that at least he was in fact crucified? Or that he actually existed? And if the Bible's one giant storybook, why have any hope for the hereafter?
Further, many Protestants see the authority of the Pope, even over the Bible itself, as a power play on the part of the Church. So it's not obvious that fundamentalism is to blame for the ills caused by Christianity.
Fact is, many of the problems caused by Christianity were the result of fundamentalism, but not only taking the Word of God at face value, but misunderstanding what it is saying. Many took Paul literally and approved slavery, true enough. But I take Paul at his word and condemn the institution.
If the whole world took the Bible as the message from God to us and framed the entire work under such key principles as loving God and loving your neighbors, and took that message to heart, we would have paradise on earth. Yes, the Crusaders made key mistakes, but that doesn't disqualify the process
in toto, nor is it "evidence enough to prove that you and your traditional interpretations are, indeed, WRONG."
Now that I have had the opportunity to defend my beliefs, I am satisfied. Unless you wish to reply, this discussion is over.
