The Bible’s surprisingly mixed messages on sexuality

[Spiritwalker]

But back on track....

How is this person right/wrong.. the author??

Is it because just as nate said...the author didn't/doesn't interpret the Bible in the historical context and the original language used?

There are a hundred examples of why this article is willfully incorrect, so I’ll just pick the most obvious. The whole ‘David was gay’ argument kind of gives away the agenda of the author; pro-gay intellectuals like to go through history pointing at various figures saying ‘this guy was gay, that guy was gay’, based mostly on the evidence that they are dead and can not contradict any wild claims made about them. The fact that David ‘loved’ Jonathan does not prove sexual contact any more than does the fact that you love your parents. There are different kinds of love, and the Bible specifies sex when that is what is meant, which in this case is obviously not. The Bible details exactly how David became king, and sex was not a factor.

[Vizion]

Spiritwalker - there seems to be some kind of agenda behind this. Are you really seeking answers, or are you just trolling?

[Spiritwalker]

Originally Posted by Vizion

Spiritwalker - there seems to be some kind of agenda behind this. Are you really seeking answers, or are you just trolling?

don't know how you could consider this thread trolling... Are you saying I am trolling because of the title of the thread? that was only the title of the article... just don't know how you got there.

I do think that the vastly different ways that people interpert the Bible are worth talking about.

[Tyburn]

Well I've heard a lot of things in my time...but I have NEVER come across anything like:

"Ancient Christians and Jews explained this two-step creation by imagining that the first human person possessed the genitalia of both sexes. Then, when the androgynous, dually-sexed person was placed in the garden, s/he was divided in two.

According to this account, the man “clings to the woman” in an attempt to regain half his flesh, which God took from him once he was placed in Eden. As third century Rabbi Samuel bar Nahman explained, when God created the first man, God created him with two faces. “Then he split the androgyne and made two bodies, one on each side, and turned them about.”"

The main reason that appears to be wrong is because we know that Adam was alone. He was lonely...if he was like a plant, ie, capable of fertilizing and producing more of himself, by himself, then he wouldnt want or need a partner...which brings me onto the subject...why would the above be used to okay homosexuality when its talking about a supposedly A-Sexual Being...neither straight nor gay. A-Sexual reproduction isnt supported...even if this original had both genders...it never reproduced...infact it was created a partner so it could...thats illogical if it can reproduce all on its own.

I love Taverners Rise and Fall...because everything before the Fall is taken up with the fact that Man is alone, and needs....relationship...one cant have relationship with oneself...Only GOD is able to have a relationship like that.

Here is an excerpt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD6CvEbT7Lk

[Spiritwalker]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

"Ancient Christians and Jews explained this two-step creation by imagining that the first human person possessed the genitalia of both sexes. Then, when the androgynous, dually-sexed person was placed in the garden, s/he was divided in two.

Yes.. when I read that.. The first thing to come to mind was Nate's word... "Hogwash"

[adamt]

Originally Posted by Spiritwalker

ok, so if I interpret passage "x".. one way.. and you interpret the same passage a different way.. who is to say which is more correct? Even Biblical scholars and leaders of various churches can't agree.

If I say.. "Thou shall not kill"... means.. no killing.. not even state sactioned killing... and you say.. "Thou shall not kill".. doesn't include times of war.. is that you or I fidning a way to "squirm"?

lets take it a step further..... thou shalt not kill..... what?

animals, people, plants? bugs, viruses, bacteria..... are antibiotics murder?

does it have to be alive to be killed? if you shut off an engine rapidly via direct grounding of the ignition system, is that killing?

how about thous shalt not steal, are baseball base runners sinning? are people who propogate pics they didn't take theives?





you all know i am trying to be ridiculous, and i know that most of the people with these "interpretations" have a hidden agenda they are promoting

I don't even know where to begin with this.........the author of this article has twisted scripture beyond recognition!

One must interpret the Bible from a literal meaning unless the context indicates otherwise. And always interpret scripture with scripture.

This author picked certain passages and twisted them to fit her beliefs and dare I say, agenda. She is trying to paint something gray that is clearly black and white!

When ever I read articles such as this one or watch documentaries (history channel) the first thing that always comes to mind is 1 Corinthians 2:14 - The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. We should not be surprised by the twisting of scripture the way this article does and who CNN goes to for their expert advise. A person who is not reborn cannot and will not understand the word of God.

Originally Posted by Maglorius

When ever I read articles such as this one or watch documentaries (history channel) the first thing that always comes to mind is 1 Corinthians 2:14 - The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. We should not be surprised by the twisting of scripture the way this article does and who CNN goes to for their expert advise. A person who is not reborn cannot and will not understand the word of God.

QUOTE FOR TRUTH!!!