Gee, Jane, usually I at least have a chance to say welcome to this thread or something before I get my logic attacked. So, welcome to the Feelings thread, Jane.
Now, about your post. The fact that prisons are full of people who were not properly loved and nurtured as babies and small children--and were more probably beaten and rejected and did not feel very loved--does not mean that EVERY child who was reared in cold and hostile surroundings ends up in prison. Some children are very resilient, and end up doing quite well, and just have some inner scars. Very sensitive children often become remote and dreamy, drifting in and out of reality.
If you are really interested in this subject, maybe you could take a criminology course or two. It is somewhat rare that undamaged children commit violent crimes later, unless they have had severe head injuries in childhood. Of course, very permissive parents who give their children no structure are not the answer either, but I don't personally believe you have to hit children to make sure they grow up to be lovely, responsible, well-balanced adults.
Anyway, my point was that using lots of love and affection and acceptance, and disciplinary methods like natural consequences, might be a very good way to rear a child. But I am sure you did not come over here to discuss parenting styles. I am not sure how the Elephant Man became involved!
Hmmm . . . I am not sure that you understood my point about Sodom and Gomorrah. I was saying that these towns may well have existed, but that does not necessarily mean that God's hand caused the conflagration. As someone pointed out, it is plausible that there is a natural, scientific explanation as well.
And then secondly, some Christians may believe in the Sodom and Gomorrah story, but argue that because of our possible misunderstandings of what the Bible really meant, God was not angry at homosexuals at all, really. It is really open to interpretation, is it not?
Leviticus and Homosexuality:
Keeping God's Law In Perspective
By: Rev. Timothy Shirley
Virginia-Highland Baptist Church
Atlanta, GA
The Bible clearly and succinctly states in Leviticus 18:22 that "You shall not lie with a
male as with a woman; it is an abomination," and in Leviticus 20:13, "If a man lies with a
male as with a woman both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to
death; their blood is upon them." What's the old saying? The Bible says it -- I believe it,
that settles it! Leviticus also teaches us that women are unclean during their menstrual
cycle, that defecating within the camp was unacceptable lest God step in it while walking
in the evening, and a woman giving birth to a male child is considered unclean for a week
-- for a female child two weeks. Is this the inerrant Word of God? Not even the most
fundamentalist/literalist would claim all of the Levitican Law is the inerrant word of God.
For the rest of us, it's not even worth debating.
This is not to say, however, that Leviticus and the other books concerning the Law should
be excised from the canon nor that it is not relevant or that it has not place in
contemporary Christendom. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is never an
appropriate response in the world of biblical interpretation. There is much in Leviticus, as
well as the other books containing commentary .. the Law, that is not only practical, but
was necessary for the health of the tribe. Therein lies the issue for Leviticus, et.al. -- it
must be understood and interpreted within the framework of its own particular cultural
milieu.
The book of Leviticus is a product of its culture. Not only that, it is a commentary of the
Law as represented in the Ten Commandments. The writers were not scientists nor
historians writing from expertise, but were persons of faith -- priests, writing from the
unique experiences that they encountered. They were problem solvers in a era where
simplistic, yet decisive, actions were necessitated by illnesses and controversies that arose
withing the camp of the tribe of Israel. They were cultic people who were forced to make
quick and sudden decisions as need arose. For twentieth century Christians to use these
formulas as criteria for ethical and moral decision making would be naive at best, heresy
at worst. The priests used the tools of knowledge at their disposal, just as we are required
to use the tools of knowledge available to us. Today, we can benefit from thousands of
years of learning!
Bottom line -- the arguments suggesting and concerning homosexuality in Leviticus as
well as in all of scripture, must be treated equally. The Bible is not a cafeteria, there can
be no picking and choosing! The rules of interpretation must be consistent across the
board. Therefore, the Leviticus text must be critiqued as a whole, and not willy-nilly in
order to defend or condemn a particular point of view. A verse taken out of its context is
never an appropriate rule of measure for doing biblical exegesis and interpretation with
integrity. This is especially so with the Book of Leviticus. A little common sense never
hurt either!
|
