Gay Cruises Draw Protest

SusanMomOf2 said:
I was specifically replying to the people who said that they're Christian but think it's ok. That's all. I just didn't see how we could think differently on the matter when it's either in the Bible or not.

Friend, I taught (a course on Biblical Images) until late last night and I'm off to take my daughter to the college she'll probably be attending next year, so I don't have the time to take with your question right now, but I promise I'll get to it before the end of the day.

I am, btw, a lesbian in a 20-year commited relationship and an ordained minister for the last 17 years, so they do mix, and I'll try to say how, but I can say upfront it's probably a losing battle for us to agree because I sense from your question that you have a fundamentalist biblical hermeneutic and that's the last thing in the world Jesus - or I - have.

Still, let's give it a go - later.

Peace
 
You can find all kinds of stuff in the Bible. For example.....

Leviticus 19

27 "'You shall not cut the hair on the sides of your heads, neither shall you clip off the edge of your beard.

It's all in how you interpret it and how you treat others while your here on this earth. So till later, I must go shave for work. God Bless and I hope you enjoy your much deserved vacation at Disney!

Mike
 
The Old Testament Law was replaced by Jesus' new covenant, so the specifics in Leviticus are usually not applicable. But I did find 2 verses in the New Testament... Romans 1:26-27

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

What am I missing here? I don't think I've got it as wrong as some think I do. If we're seeing 2 different things in this passage, then I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. We won't know for sure until we die, right? We just all have our own faiths and beliefs. This is mine. I see why it's difficult for Christians to be united on the interpretations of the Scripture.

And yes, I have a fundamental view. I believe that the Bible from cover to cover is the inerrant word of God, inspired by God, written by men. But ultimately, and I do mean ultimately, it's about Jesus and believing in Him. I live in sin just like you, and you, and you. If we believe, then we are forgiven of whatever it is God judges as wrong.
 
SusanMomOf2 said:
The Old Testament Law was replaced by Jesus' new covenant, so the specifics in Leviticus are usually not applicable. .

I believe that the Bible from cover to cover is the inerrant word of God, inspired by God, written by men. .


What am I missing? Is Leviticus between the two covers? My point is, you cant pick and choose which passages you want to govern your life.

And yes we can agree to disagree. But I find it odd that you came over to a Gay and Lesbian chat board to start this conversation.

Well off to make some magic.........for EVERYONE!
 

ConcKahuna said:
They're afraid it's contagious, and a breakout of the gay virus on a small island could decimate the breeding stock.


You just made me spit out my coffee! :rotfl2:
 
The Caribbean islands are socially conservative and Christian for the most part, and that means that the majority of the population believes that homosexuality is a sin. Some are more vocal about it than others. Many frown upon it, but silently. Others feel strongly enough to protest. Some of the islands won't allow casino gambling either, because of the certain "element" that may be attracted to it. Some of the islands work very hard on their anti-money laundering regulations to keep out dirty money, for example. They pride themselves on "good, Christian values" (according to their definition) and don't want any corrupting influences. Many Caribbean people are slightly "old fashioned" - they aren't progressive in the way that city folk in developed countries are. They have old fasioned ideals and religious beliefs - think of a small, homogenous town in rural USA and you'll get the idea.

That's their culture, and you cannot change it overnight. There are groups within the Caribbean countries that are more progressive and accepting of newer ideas - but those people do not have the ability to change laws, or decide who is welcome from an official pov, because they are not "in charge". You have to remember too that the male homosexual act is actually illegal in many Caribbean countries - Barbados for sure.

If this makes you uncomfortable, then maybe the Caribbean isn't the best vacation place for you. Seriously. Because you cannot change the way they feel just like that. Caribbean culture has a long way to go before it will embrace homosexuality.

How do I know all of this? I live in the Caribbean. I guess I am part of a group that is more tolerant of people who aren't like myself, but I am certainly not part of the majority. I hope I haven't offended anyone - I just wanted to give a clearer picture of what things are really like there, and why homosexuality is a big deal to them. I cannot say that they are "wrong" - a little close-minded, perhaps, and definitely intolerant of other beliefs (that could corrupt their children), but their beliefs are their beliefs, and they are entitled to them.
 
OK, yes, the fact that Christians can at least agree on Jesus is a good thing. In fact, along those lines, let me say that there seems to a new movement brewing among many evangelicals. That is, a significant number of folk who share what we would usually term a literalist approach to scripture and a fundamentalist theology are beginning to come together and say publically that not all of them are as socially conservative as their more politcally active representatives might usually portray. More and more evangelicals are taking a "green" approach to environmental issues and beginning to ask very hard questions about lesbian/gay partnerships. I, for one, having been raised in just this branch of the Christian faith, view all of this with great interest and even a bit of hope that the Spirit might be, once again, doing something very new and potentially very powerful. :goodvibes

That said, some folk on this thread have raised the old hermeneutical issue of how we read scripture. As I hinted above, I have seldom found e-mail, message boards, or even chat rooms an effective forum for this sort of discussion. It is just too complex. Now, if I could get you in one of my classes, that's a whole different story. I haven't had a student yet who, when presented with the real goods on Jesus, God, and reading scripture, hasn't come around, though many have done just that dragging their minds and hearts every step of the way, because it's so different from what they've been taught.

Again, there's no way to really do this topic justice, but here are some first principles.

1. Jesus was not a fundamentalist or a literalist. If you track Jesus' interpretation of scripture at any point in the New Testament (see particularly the Sermon on the Mount, but also at any point when the religious authorities are trying to trap him with literalistic interpretations of Hebrew scripture), you will see that Jesus had an amazing - even scandolous - freedom with respect to how he interpreted and applied the sacred sayings that the Hebrew people had collected and preserved for thousands of years. Jesus never negated the texts, but he found ways to breathe new life into them, he found life in them. Wow.

2. The "Bible" is not one book. It is a collection of sacred texts that have been preserved by a wide variety of faith communities over thousands of years and the voices in those very different texts do, indeed, disagree with one another on matters of faith, early and often. In fact, the REAL glory of the Christian faith is not that we have a text that was "dictated" through us, but rather that the Church took the amazing DIVERSITY of these texts, collected them all together, and called them ALL sacred. Wow.

3. We all interpret sacred scripture through our own lenses. A funadamenlist hermeneutic is just that - an intellectual construct external to the text that acts as lens through which its adherents interpret all scripture. That is, fundamentalist theologians accept and teach certain prinicples and then use those principles, when they can find them in scripture, to self-authenticate their interpretation. They could, if they were inclined, find an equal or greater number of texts which disproved or at least challenged their reading frame.

4. The hermeneutic I find most consistently life giving is a Christocentric one. Luther, Paul, and many other theoolgians have used it to great effect and I've found the same. That is, I ask of all scripture: does it preach, communicate, and express Christ, crucified and risen? That is, does it free us from our fears, and set us free for new and abundant life. I ask this same question of even Hebrew scripture, as quesitonable as that might sound, because you can see by the way the question is framed that Christ doesn't really need to show up in the text. However, what the text needs to do is what Christ did: set us free.

5. Human freedom and Human responsibility (in light of that freedom) are the heart of a Christocentric faith. Everything else is a warping of the one, true faith. Unfortunately, there are more, these days, who are raised in the warped faith then in the true faith.

There is so much more that might be said, but now I have to run to the chiropracter. :)
 
Susan, I understand where you're coming from and asked that very same question at one point myself. I have been a follower of Jesus for only 4 years, but prior to that had a lot of exposure to the Bible and Christianity in general. Most people take the Bible at face value, that is, they read something and apply 21st century logic to it and leave it at that. They might even have a bumper sticker on their car that says something like, "The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it." :sunny:

Viki and I have corresponded a bit on this subject and I know from experience that she has a razor sharp mind and quite frankly can "theologize" me into the dust. But I'm going to give my take on things here anyway -- and maybe I can help you understand just how Christian lesbians and gay men can justify their position (other than the blood of Jesus, of course).

You may or may not have heard of the word "hermeneutics." It means, "the science of interpretation," and practically that means that any portion of text (in this case, scripture) is to be interpreted considering certain guidelines such as context, what purpose the author wanted to achieve, who it was written for, etc. You applied a bit of hermeneutics when you said that the Old Testament was the old covenent and was replaced by the new covenant in Jesus. So we know that the Levitical law doesn't apply to Christians because Jesus fulfilled the law. How do we know that? Because we interpreted scripture with scripture -- we read the laws in Leviticus in context with the New Testament and therefore know that we are no longer under the law. The scriptures you quoted from Romans was written in a specific culture to a specific people. Romans 1:26 is probably referring to hetorosexual anal intercourse, or intercourse while menstrating, or any intercourse that would not lead to conception. Anyway, when we go back to the original language to look at New Testament scriptures which are typically listed to condemn homosexuality (because the King James hardly gets the point across clearly) we learn that there WAS no word for homosexual or homosexuality in Greek or Hebrew. The words that Bible interpreters interpreted as "homosexual" are: (1) "malakoi" which means "soft," or "male prostitute." We can't determine it's meaning through context because that particular word is only used in a list format; and (2) "arsenokoitai" which means something like "sexual predator or aggressor," or literally, "man with many beds."

I'm running out of time to finish this. As Viki said, this is a complex subject, and I'm sure that my meager efforts won't do much good here anyway. But to quickly conclude, Paul was addressing a new church, where Jews and Gentiles were mixing together, and their cultures were clashing. That's why we see some references to women keeping silent, etc. This wasn't a commandment, first of all, but rather an attempt to keep peace in a clash of cultures. Jewish women were being offended by their Greek sisters' behavior in church, and it was causing problems. Paul was instructing them to consider their brothers and sisters in their behavior in church. Likewise, the instructions about "homosexuality" (which wasn't actually the topic, as I indicated earlier) were addressing idol worship -- typically there were male prostitutes involved in the act of worshiping false gods -- it was a very sexual thing. I won't get into the nitty gritty -- but maybe I've caused you to at least see that there *might* be a question about how you've been interpreting scripture. Maybe you'll even go get a Greek dictionary and do some digging on your own. :)

Have a good one--
 
DVCajun said:
Susan, I understand where you're coming from and asked that very same question at one point myself. I have been a follower of Jesus for only 4 years, but prior to that had a lot of exposure to the Bible and Christianity in general. Most people take the Bible at face value, that is, they read something and apply 21st century logic to it and leave it at that. They might even have a bumper sticker on their car that says something like, "The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it." :sunny:

Viki and I have corresponded a bit on this subject and I know from experience that she has a razor sharp mind and quite frankly can "theologize" me into the dust. But I'm going to give my take on things here anyway -- and maybe I can help you understand just how Christian lesbians and gay men can justify their position (other than the blood of Jesus, of course).

You may or may not have heard of the word "hermeneutics." It means, "the science of interpretation," and practically that means that any portion of text (in this case, scripture) is to be interpreted considering certain guidelines such as context, what purpose the author wanted to achieve, who it was written for, etc. You applied a bit of hermeneutics when you said that the Old Testament was the old covenent and was replaced by the new covenant in Jesus. So we know that the Levitical law doesn't apply to Christians because Jesus fulfilled the law. How do we know that? Because we interpreted scripture with scripture -- we read the laws in Leviticus in context with the New Testament and therefore know that we are no longer under the law. The scriptures you quoted from Romans was written in a specific culture to a specific people. Romans 1:26 is probably referring to hetorosexual anal intercourse, or intercourse while menstrating, or any intercourse that would not lead to conception. Anyway, when we go back to the original language to look at New Testament scriptures which are typically listed to condemn homosexuality (because the King James hardly gets the point across clearly) we learn that there WAS no word for homosexual or homosexuality in Greek or Hebrew. The words that Bible interpreters interpreted as "homosexual" are: (1) "malakoi" which means "soft," or "male prostitute." We can't determine it's meaning through context because that particular word is only used in a list format; and (2) "arsenokoitai" which means something like "sexual predator or aggressor," or literally, "man with many beds."

I'm running out of time to finish this. As Viki said, this is a complex subject, and I'm sure that my meager efforts won't do much good here anyway. But to quickly conclude, Paul was addressing a new church, where Jews and Gentiles were mixing together, and their cultures were clashing. That's why we see some references to women keeping silent, etc. This wasn't a commandment, first of all, but rather an attempt to keep peace in a clash of cultures. Jewish women were being offended by their Greek sisters' behavior in church, and it was causing problems. Paul was instructing them to consider their brothers and sisters in their behavior in church. Likewise, the instructions about "homosexuality" (which wasn't actually the topic, as I indicated earlier) were addressing idol worship -- typically there were male prostitutes involved in the act of worshiping false gods -- it was a very sexual thing. I won't get into the nitty gritty -- but maybe I've caused you to at least see that there *might* be a question about how you've been interpreting scripture. Maybe you'll even go get a Greek dictionary and do some digging on your own. :)

Have a good one--

Super!

I take a different route to get where you're going - and, yes, it's much more theological, but you just did a very nice job, giving anyone who cares to dig deeper more than enough "meat."

What I hope is clear from both of these approaches is that we are holding scripture in very high regard, contrary to the charge so often lobbed against those who disagree with literal interpretations of scripture.
 
I saw an interesting program on the History Channel that said that the new testament, and it's gospels, where largely chosen by Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon. They said that he was angry at the gnostics who used to debate his sermons after he gave them. He chose the four gospels to put an end to debate.
Among the gospels not chosen were the Gospel of Thomas, which spoke of Mary Magdalen as more than a follower and also of Jesus' brother, the Gnostic Gospel, and the Gospel of Mary.
As far as I can tell, the only "commandment" that Jesus gave even in the new testament that we have today is 'love one another as I have loved you' (and telling the apostles to go out & spread the word). I don't remember Jesus's love as being for heteros only - or for his followers only.
 
Viki & DVCajun,

Thank you for so clearly presenting the basics of Christianity. I always appreciate reading calm responses to what feel like attacking sentiments. I know that for some they feel that their arguments are valid and simply expected. However, for those of us who have always experienced Christianity as a place of radical acceptance, non-judgment, social justice and social action, the critical, argumentative stance is difficult to deal with. I find that I always get stuck in my desire to respond out of my emotional response. Thank you for speaking on my behalf (and likely that of many others).
 
I am a straight woman with many gay friends. My philosphy has always been "do unto others" and "let those who are without sin cast the first stone". I don't lead a perfect life, but I try very hard not to hurt others. I consider myself an agnostic because of what I feel is the hypocrisy of organized religiion. Supposedly, It's not ok to step outside what a regious group dictates as the "right thing to do", but a minister with a large following who is leading a protest one day, can have an affair the next day, and that's ok. I believe the Bible (and I have read it 3 times) is a road map to help us lead better lives. I believe many things have been modified during the many translations. I wanted to thank Viki & DVCajun for doing such a great job in making some things clear to me. I will use some of these arguments when speaking with people who use the Bible to support their bigotry. Thank you and have a nice day, Penny
 




New Posts







Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE














DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top