When exactly did "disagreeing" become an equivalent of "not understanding" ?

Question

I disagree with a lot of Christians on a lot of parts of the Bible. For example: i don't think Romans 1:26-27 or the story of Sodom says anything about homosexuality (just an example).

When i try to talk about this with Christians, or ask questions about it on this forum here, the most answers i recieve are: 'you obviously don't understand, read the Bible'.

Problem is: i did read that book, even several times. It doesn't even take much intellect to understand that book.

So, my main question here is: why does a group of Christians think they own the intellectual right on interpreting the Bible?

Answer 1

I don't think disagreeing and not understanding are always equivalent. But sometimes misunderstanding leads to disagreement, right?

I can understand how you could disassociate homosexuality from Soddom, but can you tell me how you come to the conclusion that "Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful..." is not about homosexuality?

That seems pretty clear and a little graphic to me.

As far as interpreting the Bible, Christians are obligated to do so. They are not obligated to interpret for anyone else. But we each will be held accountable for what we read and understood. (Or failed to read and understand, as the case may be.)

Answer 2

Ahhh you have opened Pandora's Box -- and good for you.

I am most likely going to get bashed for this but here goes.

The bible as you know was written by man and was inspired by God. However, what Christians don't and won't recoginze is that the council of *men* who wrote the books all decided to pick and choose those books, and decided what went in those books and what did not.

God did not come down and hand everyone the bible and say "Here are my words" . There were notes, and scrolls that were handed down over the years, and changed.

There are even missing books from the bible as you know that are known as The Apocrypha, that were intentionally left out of the Bible. In some Protestant Bibles, they are placed between the New and Old Testament. In the Roman Catholic Bibles the books are interspersed with the rest of the text. In this case they are also called 'Deuterocanonical', which means 'secondary canon.' The books on this page are all Deuterocanonical.

Anyhow -- my feeling is that many people cleave to their denomination out of fear.

Frankly I find it terribly dismissive when so called "born again" Christians who are suppose to love one another, be compassionate, tolerant, and followers of Christ are the first folks who say: "You clearly do not understand, read the Bible".

My reply to those kinds of people are -- "When you receive your degree in theology and you can come back to the table and really talk to me -- not at me, about this subject matter, I welcome it. In the mean time, I am going to pray for you -- because it's clear you have the spirit of inappropriatness on your back."

As far as Romans 1:26-27

"Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And 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 [sic] of their error which was meet."

This passage is unique in that it is the only place in the Bible that refers to same-gender sexual behavior by women. Bennett Sims, the former Episcopal bishop of Atlanta, believes that these verses have done more to form Christians' negative opinion of homosexuality than any other single passage in the Bible. He writes: "For most of us who seriously honor Scripture these verses still stand as the capital New Testament text that unequivocally prohibits homosexual behavior. More prohibitively, this text has been taken to mean that even a same-sex inclination is reprehensible, so that a type of humanity known as 'homosexual' has steadily become the object of contempt and discrimination."

Everyone must fine their own truth, and far be it from me to judge you and your life if it's different than my own.

You know what I mean?

Answer 3

Sorry, but if you are reading the same bible as I do, they both are about homosexuality. Disagree all you want, but the words say what they say. They don't actually say its a sin, but in those specific cases, it was something frowned upon by god (Sodom) and the people of the time. I'm not saying homosexuality is wrong, since, its not a choice, just that those cases were wrong.

Answer 4

You are NOT wrong to ask...

but you need to ask the right people. The Fathers of the Church were the disciples of those who wrote the texts of the New Testament, which unlocked the Old Testament. These are HIGHLY recommended for guidance when reading the Bible.

St. John Chrysostom is one of the most popular of these Fathers, and I found you a homily online about Romans.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2102.htm

Also, keep looking for the Church Fathers' commentary on the Bible for explanations.

Take care.

Answer 5

Like you said, the Bible is not a hard book to understand.
Most of the scriptures are clear and easy to read.
Romans 1:26,27 is very staightfroward and not open to private interpretation. What do you suppose this means, if not a direct reference to homosexuality:

24 Wherefore God also agave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God agave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their alust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Do you have a reprobate mind? Are you trying to justify for yourself a lifestyle that is clearly condemned?

Answer 6

I am sorry that you have so much trouble with Christians with your Bible questions. I have never told anyone, if they ask me a question that I could answer to read their Bible for the answer. I don't know everything about the Bible (and I do suggest you read it) but if I don't know the answer then I tell you so! I don't know the answer - Sorry!@

Answer 7

The way I understand what you're asking without coming out of the closet is , What does the Bible say about homosexuality? It is an abomination.

Answer 8

I don't think people learn to agree to disagree any more. They can't fathom that you, with you life experience that varies from theirs could think any differently about a subject than they do so if only you read it in the "correct" way, you'd completely agree with them. It's a generation raised to be the center of the universe and when they close their eyes the earth disappears. You just have to shrug and move on.

Answer 9

My advice to you show them the errors of their ways. christianity has always been an evil religion. the dark ages the crusades the holocaust the withctrials most will deny it but the truth be told all were christian atrocities Islamics are just as bad dont be fooled Jehovah and Allah are evil war Gods that hate humans.

Answer 10

The people that you are referring to do not operate from a 'rational' world-view. They use 'faith' as a substitute for evidence and 'belief' as a substitute for knowledge. But neither faith nor belief are sufficient to sustain a rational world view... they are only sufficient to sustain willful ignorance and delusion.

'Belief' is an insidious mind-killer... it cuts on off from the intellectually honest (willing to question and doubt the veracity of one's own assumptions) consideration of alternative possibilities.