sort by best latest
Thats what I was getting at - it seems better in context, rather than modern view of slavery. The anti-gay verses make sense in the context of their time of writing - that no longer exists now, but are often used out of context. I was jst wondering y
if you want to follow that line you need to research the attitudes of the time. Are you referring to OT or NT times? Our word for homosexual comes from the Greek word for man, as I believe Greco-Roman society was quite liberal.
J: As I said previously, Homosexuality was "CARRIED OVER" under New Covenant! Rm 1:21-32! Read it!
I expect I should stay out of this...the text quoted by Norrine does indeed seem harsh. I would suggest reading it in context with Rom 3:23: " for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". God also wishes to save all.
Norine - CONTEXT. Lev made sense for the time. Romans was written by Paul. Not God. And why only homosexuality?
Creative - attitudes are included in "context". It makes sense at the time of writing, but no longer.
My concern is hub might fail on assumptions? The Romans continued Greek adulation of the primarily male body in art. Why would Paul go with society on slavery and against it on sexuality? I'm not an expert on practice & don't want to be explici
Crete: Don't "Cherry Pick" read on! Rm 3:23-25:"..for the remission of sins that are PAST..." Yes, save all.
Jac: If mentioned under New Covenant=WORD! Jesus spake thru Paul (vessel) via Holy Spirit (Jer 31:33;Heb 8:10:1016). Rd Gal 3:28. Not only
Norine - Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. Pagans of the time of Paul had sexual nature to their rituals, so to turn people away from Pagan + towards Christianity - best to denouce the fun bits.
Create - not just 2 things - covering all.
Jacq: What u fail to realize is Paul was "in Christ's Stead!" Did u read Jer 31:33;Heb 8:10 & 10:16 (put laws in heart & mind)? Acts 9:15 "Chosen Vessel!" Paul speaking for JESUS via Holy Spirit! If Paul said it was JESUS! Jesus=Sodom & G
Jesus speaks of Sodoms sin in Ezekiel. It was not homosexuality (also the word doesn't exist in ancient Hebrew or Greek - if it exists in yr bible it's a mistranslation)
Jacq: Sodomy="anal sex" which is in my Bible! Whether hetero or homo="an abomination!" Why justify? It's in Bible!
I love the sinner but hate the sin!
Sodomy is anal sex which is enjoyed by heterosexual couples as well. Paul spoke of Arsenokoitai and Malakoi - neither of which are "homo" - they are 'soft' and "effeminate". Not specifically homosexuals in either sodomy or Romans/Cor. Context, Nor.
Jacq: Homosexuals enjoy "anal sex" (sodomy)! Therefore, homosexuality mentioned in Sodom & Gomorah!
Norine - so do many heterosexuals. Also many lesbians do not enjoy anla sex, yet they are homosexuals too...don't generalise. Some gay men also do not enjoy it, nor do they partake it in. Please try again with yr reasoning, cause it's not working.
Jacq: U said "sodomy!" Whatever still "unnatural!" I Cor 6:9! Why argue? IT IS WRITTEN! Do u have doubt of your belief? Stand firm in what u blv (free will)! I'm just saying AGAINST GOD by giving Scripture of what He's said!
- See all 15 commentsHide extra comments
Lawrence Hebb says
Thanks for your answer, and your comment on Norine's - It's the point I'm trying to make - people always take the verses out of context, so they fit the use they are giving them, but don't like it if it's done back. Thanks for understanding that!
Law: Yes "Go & SIN no more." U see Jacq, it's a SIN per Scripture! It's only "out of context" bcuz it conflicts w/ur belief and/or lifestyle! U appear to have doubt w/uneasiness deep inside? Pray & ask the Lord for guidance thru His Word!
Nor- I'm an atheist, nor am I uneasy with anything. The clobber verses have context, as do the ones u try 2 insist I c the context of - yet, u ignore the historical, cultural context of the 1's I mention even the 'New Cov" 1s have context u ignore.
- See all 3 commentsHide extra comments
Norine Williams says
Context, Norine. Not just scriptural context, but social, historical and cultural context. Sure, you could use "new covenant" for everything - but it doesn't replace the other contexts that existed at the time of writing that no longer apply.
Jacq: Point: As creator of robot, you're god. As Creator of us, He's God & can do as please as u if creator of robot! GOD will ALWAYS prove He's God! (Dan 4:35-Read for understanding!)
Again, if ANYTHING impeded Christ coming, MOVE!
Even if we create a robot we do not become its 'god' because we can envisage greater than ourselves (Anselm ontological argument) God is that which 'no greater can be envisaged'
Norine - in response to yr linking sodomy to Gen 19 - te term is 'yada' - 'to know' which every other 'yada' is trans to. Judges has a similar scene, yet you don't seem to have a problem with hetero rape, or Lot offering his daughters in Gen 19 4 sex
Personally I do have a problem with that. Just because the Bible mentions it doesn't mean it condones it! If you take the whole thing in context of the whole Bible you see it has a major problem with it!
Yet, if it's something that people seem 2 disagree with, it's ok 2 use verses out of context (social/cultural/historical + scriptural)? Becuz u talk 2 me abt the context, yet Gen, Lev, Romans etc are always used out of context. Hence, my original ?
You'll have to be more specific about what's being quoted 'out of context' as those books are pretty broad in what they talk about! Regrading the historical I say again, just the Bible records it doesn't mean it condones it!
Law: U have PWR to do anything to thg u create! So does GOD! Written what He wil/will not do!
Jacq: I don't do anything! GOD says! I Cor 6:9-10! U can't compare man's study to bible, i.e. social, historical, etc! MAN LIES! What's "out of context?"
All of the 'Clobber verses" - Lev 18:20, The "unnatural lusts" in Romans + Cor, Gen 19, etc are used out of cultural, historical + often scriptural context - plucked out of the chapter they're in, s0 they fit the cause.So ok 4 u bt not 4 us to do?
Those verses have a historical context and cultural ones too, but they are not taken out of context just because we don't like them! In fact the reason they're there is because the culture itself was faulty and as such some things still app
Law: Thks for speaking TRUTH! God sees!
Jacq: There r thgs in bible I don't like either but WRITTEN! Some thgs cramp the way "I WANT" to live but had to "HUMBLE" myself & blv in his WORD for "Benefits!" GOD'S no respector of person! Rm2:11
Lawrence - the clobber verses make complete sense in the context of that time, context that no longer exists modern day, yet r removed from historical etc context + attempted 2 b applied modern day + no prob. Slavery etc do the same + big issue..y?
Jacq: Why do u thk GOD is going to chg for U,i.e, "modern day?" We're talking G O D not "the times!" There's "NOTHING "new" under the sun!" (Ecc 1:9)
Yet, the slavery verse don't apply in the modern days, or the rapist must marry his victim verses don't apply - because the context no longer applies....funny that.
Jacq: Again, "If "CARRIED OVER" under the New Covenant, WORD! Marriage=As Christ is to the Church (Eph 5:22-23). "What "GOD" joins..." Slavery=Gal 3:28! New Day=New Covenant!
Old Testament Laws no longer valid (Gal 3:24-25) UNLESS "carried over"
Those clobber verses from the 'New Cov' are also used out of context - historical, cultural, social. So, New Cov + "carried over" doesn't work for them. What now? And a New Cov means that times HAVE changed before, whats to say they haven't now?
Jac: What u fail to realize, "clobber verses" r His Word when "carried over" whether u or I like them! I can't related to "social, historical context!" God doesn't care about NOTHING but HIS WORD!
NEW COV REMAINS UNTIL HIS RETURN!
- See all 17 commentsHide extra comments