There are those that will take parts of the Bible "out of content" to how they want it to be read, not the way it's written/or to be read. But, then again, one of the Ten Commandments is "Thou Shalt Not Kill". I would love to find out what a military Chaplin would say about that. Why? Because, in Basic Training, one of the first things a new Army/Marine Recruit learns is to "kill or be killed" (for-to-say). That wasn't part of my Navy Basic Training, but it is part of becoming a Navy Seal (Special Forces). The Bible is specifically against GLTBQ marriage. It says that marriage is to be between a man and woman. Yet, many believe in GLTBQ marriage. This can be/is very controversial topic I know, but I'm very curious about. I have a Men's Devotional Bible and read it, but..............
The Hebrew translation is “You shall not murder”. Thou shalt not kill is one of the 13 small mistakes in interpretation in the KJV. The misinterpreted verse is in essence, too loose and can be moved this way and that according to whatever the reader wishes. The word Murder is explicit and gives no ground for any other type of interpretation. So far as the LGBTQ community goes, I have nothing to comment other than they’ll have to speak to God at some point about their choices in life just as I will have to also.
What are you curious about Cody? You preface your curiosity with the statement, There are those that will take parts of the Bible "out of content" to how they want it to be read, not the way it's written/or to be read. What exactly are you wanting to discuss? Do you want our understanding of what the entire Bible says about other sexual behaviors other than male and female and do you want to discuss what the old testament says or just the new testament? I can't enter into your discussion without knowing more details and what understanding you have of the Bible timeline and what in the old law was changed by the teaching and death of Christ. I am not knowledgeable about how the Men's Devotional Bible reads as compared to King James or the most accurate translation I am aware of, the translation by Dr. George Lamsa. What is your understanding about other than male with female relations that you don't take out of context and just the way it is written? Are you knowledgeable about what the apostles wrote to the various churches that might shed a light on the topic?
Actually, I read article in AARP magazine discussing how people will read the Bible and go by what they want it to say. Not what is written.
That’s been a common thing since the days of Jesus. In Matthew 18 and I believe chapter 23 we have Jesus rebuking the Pharisees for adding to the scriptures whatever they felt was appropriate to them. Matter of fact, they added Thousands of laws that were never intended in The Law. Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law but He didn’t say He was going to fulfill mankind’s additional laws which are along the same lines as what you are talking about. If one simply abided by the Ten very basic commandments (The Law of Moses) whilst understanding the ramifications of Jesus’s sacrifice on Calvary, one need not change one jot nor tittle to suit one’s own values or wishes. All that said, every man and woman will have to face the day regarding their choices in life. I am not the judge of such things for that realm belongs to only One Judge.
Let me throw this out for discussion. One of my cousins was born intersex. By DNA she is male, yet the only thing she had physically male was very very small testicles at the top of her vagina. Those were removed shortly after birth because they would cause serious hernias at the time of puberty and also without the testicles she could be raised as a girl since that was her physical outward presentation. She had no other female or male parts. She was raised as a girl with no one knowing the difference except family. She became and is still at age 64, a beautiful woman. Being raised a fundamental apostolic Christian, she faced the question would it be right for her to engage in sex with a male or female. She was even on her birth certificate a female, but her DNA at the time of conception was male. After much prayer and Bible reading, she decided to just stay single since she couldn't reproduce and couldn't find the answer to why God gave her male DNA but yet how she formed in the womb and was predominately female. No one could find what the Bible said about such a situation because it doesn't. So today when I hear, "I know what the Bible says and I don't take it out of context," I question to what depth their understanding goes. Are they just quoting preachers and Bible scholars, maybe going by what their church teaches, how they were raised, bible classes, and commentaries, or did they in fact study it all out on their own?
Who wrote the article? What made them an authority to determine if others were living by the word as written or taking it out of context? Let's look at the Apostle Paul's writing to the Corinthians 1 Corinthians 11:15 - But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 1 Corinthians 11:6 - For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. So if we go by the written word, then women should have long hair or be shamed. Further bible study will reveal that women with shorn heads were considered prostitutes and disrespectful at that time. Is this taking the written word or taking the written word out of context? If one understands Corinthians then we not taking these two verses out of context, Paul voiced his opinion on his understanding that he believed was divine inspiration. My mother never cut her hair and in her later years when she leaned more toward being Hebrew Christian than her lifelong fundamental Church of Christ that opposed Sunday School but didn't advocate one cup for communion as some fundamentalists did, covered her long hair usually in a granny bun, with a scarf in public. @Ken Anderson will know what I am talking about. My point in posting this is to point out that no one can say they know what the bible says and don't take it out of context. My mother also a degreed scientist, knew the bible better than anyone I have ever known and she was never so arrogant as to say I know what the bible says, unlike those that take it out of context to fit their own agenda. She lived by what she believed. She never told others what to believe or what the bible said for them to do. I love her for never telling me what I should do, but for making me study things out and find my own way. My father also a scientist was not a Christian and also made me think and study things thoroughly. I avoided college simply because they were shifting at that time to teaching students what to think and not how to think. It is for this same reason that I avoid churches, clubs with creeds, or joining a political party.
================================================================================= If everything is as you say, no problem accepting that for now, and the surgery was done, but it happened over a hundred years ago, with no scientific tests, no dna at all, no, with nothing at all to indicate she was not a female, do you think she would or might have gotten married like any other woman might have then ?
To be a tad more on spot, Paul was writing specifically to the Church in Corinth regarding how the congregants of Christianity were NOT supposed to look like. Due to the fact that many of the Temple “prostitutes” (men and women) in Corinth converted to Christianity but they still clung to the outward appearances of their past religion and honored position in that religion. *The women and men both wore heavy make-up and jewelry with the men growing their hair and the women shaving it off*. Paul’s position was simply based on that a follower of Christ shouldn’t be mistaken for a temple prostitute and should be apart from them. It’s a bit of a shame that women and men in a couple of denominations should worry so heavily about the contents of a letter written to a specific people but then again, I do believe that viewing some of today’s standards, there are those who Should take a better look at that letter.
That's a human trait and a human failing. You'll hear it from behind the pulpit, too. In fact, it's hard not to do that. When someone says something that I disagree with in a religious context, I will often turn to the Bible in order to find support for my preconceived idea of what the answer should be. In defense of myself, often my preconceived idea of what is correct was gleaned from previous, more objective, Bible study, but I've certainly been guilty of picking and choosing passages that support the argument, not for a proper understanding of the Bible, but to win the argument. We all enjoy winning arguments.
Along those same lines, too many "Christians" take Bible verses totally out of context and use them to suit their own purpose/agenda. My thought is this; if there is a God, he knows what's in a person's heart. Just be a good person and don't worry about "interpretation." Generally speaking, yours is the only soul you need to concern yourself with.
When behind the pulpit or teaching, at some point in the message or class I will tell everyone NOT to believe anything I have to say until they have fact checked every pertinent word. My job has never been to Be God’s word but merely to Lead people To God’s word.
While teaching, I would tell my students to, "Ask me anything. If I don't know the answer, I'll make something up."
She was born with very small testes at her vagina top. That indicated that she was not all female. DNA testing wasn't even available when she was born. It was later doctors tested her DNA. 100 years ago they would have known she had those parts and called her hermaphrodite and back in those days usually lived alone. Many were known as old maids. Today many marry males and some even other women since they are male by DNA. I won't judge any intersex person for their decisions.
I understand what you are writing and to some degree I can agree with you but…..(there’s always a but isn’t there?) It’s a given that we do have to protect our own souls but at the same time, if someone is drowning, would it not be right to throw them a rope to help save their life? If perchance that person didn’t want to be saved he would push away the rope but if seeing that the rope could save his life, and he wanted life, he would grasp onto it. I’m already out of the water and safe so when I see someone else in the water, all I do is throw the rope. It’s up to them to grab onto it. If they do, I can introduce them to someone who can teach them how to swim thus saving them from ever worrying about drowning again.