Pages: 1 2  Next -- Posted by Prince o palities at 1:46 pm on June 9, 2008 Before I begin my discourse on the Christian view of homosexuality, I need to state a few things for the sake of clarity. The first is that I am a proponent of civil rights for homosexuals. The question here is not, is homosexuality wrong and should we therefore seek to prevent it civilly, but is homosexuality wrong and should Christians therefore be participating in it. Second, I should say that for the duration of this post I will not make the fine distinction between homosexuality and homosexual acts. It may be assumed for the purposes of my post that a homosexual is someone who engages in homosexual acts. Because of this, homosexuality will be treated from here on out as a choice. Whether or not you believe there is some inherent, unavoidable determinant factor for sexual predilections, this post will treat homosexuality as a choice because I am dealing with actions and not predilections. That having been said, I will proceed broadly by first looking at the Old Covenant treatment of homosexuality, the biblical New Covenant treatment of homosexuality, and the church practices regarding homosexuality. The Old Covenant While a proponent of the belief that the New Covenant has caused the Old to become obsolete (cf. Heb 8:13), it is important for my purposes to demonstrate an unwavering stance on homosexuality that not only transcends cultures, but transcends circumstance and even time. By looking at the Old Covenant views of homosexuality in light of practice since those times, an unbroken chain may be seen linking the first sexual relationship to sexual relationships today. Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:15-25) It seems appropriate to start at the very beginning. Whether one believes that the account in Genesis is literal and historical or metaphorical, one cannot deny that Adam and Eve exist, as the first sexual relationship, as a type for all such relationships to come. (Paul uses Adam and Eve as a type for male/female interactions in 1 Timothy 2:12-14.) When we speak here of the created order, we are not speaking about the issue of whether or not homosexuality is natural (i.e. occurring in the natural world) but whether or not it conforms to divine intentions for sexual relationships. Divine intention is expressed in divine action. God made man and woman giving them one sexual mandate, that is procreation (Gen 1:28) Holiness Code (Leviticus 18-20) These verses are well known, however I will quote Lev 18:22 and 20:13 here for the record: Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is an abomination. If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. A great deal of posturing has been attempted to explain away these verses. Many suggest that they apply only to cultic prostitution or that they implicitly allow female homosexual relations. Both of these interpretations deny the plain sense of these verses. The answer to questions of female inclusion is one that only occurs in the absence of a knowledge of the historical context. One need only pick up the Hittite, Assyrian, or Babylonian law codes to see that consistently that universal codes are addressed to men. Women are almost exclusively only mentioned when a law pertains directly to women to the exclusion of men. To combat the claim that these are references strictly to cultic prostitution, one need only look at the immediate context to begin to see the issue with this argument. Both of these verses occur in lists of generic (almost exclusively) sexual prohibitions. You'll note that very rarely if ever will one argue that the prohibition against having intercourse with your brother's wife is only in the context of cultic prostitution. This is because there is no indication to that end. Similarly, nothing exists which indicates that these verse apply only to temple prostitutes. Quite the opposite, in Leviticus 18 where there is a reference made to temple rights, it is done explicitly. "Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech..." (18:21) In a list of generic prohibitions, the one pertaining specifically to cultic rights is made explicit. The above verses are not. Some will argue that the proximity of the prohibition in 18:22 to the reference to cultic practices demands that it be interpreted as a cultic ritual. Robert A. J. Gagnon has this to say: Few today give this argument much credence and for good reason. The repetition of the prohibition against homosexual intercourse in 20:13 does not follow immediately upon the references to child sacrifice in 20:4-5, but rather is sandwiched in between prohibitions of adultery and incest (20:10-12) and prohibitions of incest and bestiality (20:14-16). Furthermore, the language lends itself to a generic interpretation. Hebrew has specialized terminology for cultic prostitutes. They are the qades, the male counterparts of the qadesa. This word does not occur in the above passages however. The word used there is zadak, a generic term for a male. Period laws from other cultures show a similar precision with words when specificity is intended. For example, Middle Assyrian law has prohibition against homosexual coercion of the recaka (a man of equal social rank) and the necar (a boy or youth). Similarly, chapter 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead mentions the sin of homosexuality, but only the context of pederasty. The Babylonian omen text Summa alu makes very fine distinctions in its prescriptions. The man who has homosexual intercourse with his social equal is praised, while the recipient shamed. The one who has homosexual intercourse with an assinnu (male cult prostitute) will have his burdens lifted. However, one who has the same intercourse with a courtier will find only trouble, as will the man who has homosexual intercourse with his inmate in prison. You see, the Levitical prohibitions were written in both a time and culture that lended itself to fine distinction and total specificity with regard to occupational and social concerns. They don't appear in the Hebrew laws on homosexuality because the prohibitions are total. (It should here be noted that, though not essential to establishing a case that homosexuality was generally prohibited, literary cues tell us that the Holiness Code takes a stronger stance on homosexuality than on most sexual sins. Note the multiple usage of the term tow'ebah or abomination. Of all the sexual sins listed, this is the only sin that receives that epithet specifically. They all receive it generally in the summation, but only homosexuality is called an abomination specifically...both times. In a list including incest, bestiality, and child sacrifice this should indicate that it is not an issue to be taken lightly.) Extra-biblical Jewish Texts Outside of scripture, particularly in the 300 years leading up to the coming of Christ and the writing of the New Testament documents, there is an abundance of Jewish commentary which directly addresses homosexuality. It reveals how ancient Jews interpreted the prohibition against homosexuality, which should influence and restrict our postulates about the subject. It additionally illustrates the context in which Paul will make his statements concerning homosexuality. Letter to Aristeas, ca 150 B.C. [Gentiles] not only draw near to [engage in intercourse with] males but also defil their mothers and even their daughters. [Jews] are quite separated from these practices. Sibylline Oracles, ca 163 B.C. (with regard to Rome conquering) ...immediately compulsion to impiety will come upon these men. Male will have intercourse with male and they will set up boys in houses of ill-fame...and it will throw everything into confusion...[Jews] are mindful of holy wedlock and do not engage in impious intercourse with male children...[and] avoid adultery and confused intercourse with males. With [Rome] are found adulteries and unlawful intercourse with males. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides, ca 50 B.C. ...the limits of sexual intercourse set by nature [should not be transgressed by] intercourse between males, nor should females imitate... 2 Enoch, pre-A.D. 70 This place [of torment], Enoch, has been prepared for those who do not glorify God...God convicts the persons who are idol worshipers and sodomite fornicators [PoP adds: in this case, it is a reference to pederasty, not homosexuality]...abominable fornications, that is, friend with friend in the anus, and every other kind of wicked uncleanness which is disgusting to report. It should be additionally noted that while the Qumran community does not explicitly forbid homosexual intercourse, it does prescribe strict punishments on a member of the community who so much as exposes his genitals to another member, even accidently. (1QS 7) Mishnah Sanhedrin, ca 200 These are they that are to be stoned: he that has sexual intercourse with his mother, his father's wife, his daughter-in-law, a male, or a beast...   The Argument from Silence While not critical in light of the overwhelming evidence about specific biblical prescriptions and continuity of practice into the first century, it should be noted that no statement of approval nor any approved example exists in the Old Testament literature that would indicate that the Jews had anything but a negative view of homosexuality. Thus, it has been established that, much as Paul will treat them in the New Testament, the sexual relationship of Adam and Eve is prototypical of all such divinely approved relationships: heterosexual, monogamous, and with the explicit sexual mandate of procreation. Levitical law then specifically prohibits on more than one occasion homosexual intercourse calling it (exclusively in those lists) an abomination. These laws are interpreted through history as prohibiting all homosexual intercourse up until and even after the time of Jesus in Jewish communities. In the absence of any positive approval of or approved example of homosexuality in the Old Testament, there is no reason to assume it was ever acceptable to those living under the Old Covenant. The New Testament Here is where Christian doctrine is laid out. If you read the above, you will know now the context in which Jesus lived and taught and in which Paul wrote. That is the exegetical lens through which all of the below should be viewed. The Silence of Jesus Jesus does not address the issue of homosexuality directly. Proponents of a positive view should not however begin rejoicing. Gagnon explains why: The univocal stance against homosexual conduct, both in ancient Israel and the Judaism of Jesus' day, makes it highly unlikely that Jesus' silence on the issue ought to be construed as acceptance of such conduct. Jesus was not shy about expressing his disapproval of the conventions of his day. Silence on the subject could only have been understood by his disciples as acceptance of the basic position embraced by all Jews. If Jesus had wanted to communicate affirmation of same-sex unions he would have had to state such a view clearly since first-century Judaism, so far as we know, had no dissenting voices on the matter. Without a clear statement none of his disciples would have made such a logical leap. In the total absence of any New Testament statement about homosexuality, it would not be safe for any Christian to assume that Jesus either supported or opposed homosexuality. However, it would be logical to assume that silence was tacit approval of his audience's position, while the opposite is illogical. This theory is aided by what his disciples successors have to say on the issue. The Cornerstone Text (Romans 1:24-27) This is often considered the most valuable text on the issue. It is certainly the most explicit. By comparison, the Levitical laws and Corinthians lists (yet to be discussed) appear to be mere snippets. Here occurs a definitive and absolute statement about homosexuality that addresses both male and female homosexual intercourse. Romans 1:24-27: Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.   Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. It is important here, as with all exegetical exercises, to know in what context this is said. The above statement is not a direct prescription to Christians, but a description of pagan culture. It is describing the lifestyle that results from ignorance of God. Many will take this and argue that because of this, these are not rules which pertain to Christians. However, it should be obvious that what is described is behavior contrary to God spawned because the people in question lacked knowledge of God. Thus, those who do not lack knowledge of God (Christians) should not be engaged in these activities. Note the use repeated use of unnatural that is reminiscent of phraseology quoted in the above extra-biblical literature and the "indecent" or "abominable" acts (the Greek is a rough equivalent). Here is a reiteration of the same condemnation that was expressed in the Law. Homosexuality is "unnatural" and "indecent," explicitly between both males and females. (Note, that unnatural here, as Douglas Moo and Gagnon suggest, means not "reflective of God's purpose.") Again, people will try to ignore this verse on the basis that it refers to cultic practices. Again, there is no indication in the context or wording that would suggest that. Rather than rehash all that old logic, I will simply point out that there is a scholarly consensus that the reference is generic homosexuality as evidenced by statements in the Anchor Bible Commentary on Romans (a collaborative work), and the commentaries of Moo and John Murray (who represent different localities, times, and religious traditions). To try and tie the condemnation of homosexuality to the "worship of images" mentioned earlier in the passage, one must additionally argue that all the listed sins (e.g. gossip, slander, disobedience to one's parents, arrogance) are cultic practices, a position which is indefensible. The "oun" (therefore) refers back to the abandonment of God which leads to many sins, including image worship and homosexuality (they are on the same list, not the one a subset of the other). Another important point rising out of this verse that makes pointed Paul's statement, is his use of arsaen (male) instead of the more standard anae (male) because it ties directly into the sin mentioned in Corinthians, arsaenokoitai (homosexual relations). The lists (1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10) These two verse contain lists of sins that need not be reproduced in total. In both lists there is mentioned the sin arsaenokoitai (which is often translated "perverts" or "homosexual offenders") and the Corinthian list includes the additional offense of malakoi (often translated "male prostitutes"). Malakos literally means "an effeminate male," and is typically used of prostitution, though not exclusively. Philo, for example, uses the word in On the Special Laws to refer simply to the penetrated party of a homosexual act. Still, when people argue that here the references to homosexuality are with regard to cultic prostitution, they have a case when the word in question is malakos, but this position ignores the presence of the other word. With the other word, they will attempt to take the translation "homosexual offender" and question what exactly is an offender as opposed to a regular homosexual. The terminology however is simply archaic. A "homosexual offender" is merely one who offends by virtue of the fact that he is a homosexual. Look at the lexical definition from the Thayer Lexicon: arsenokoitaes, -ou (arsaen a male; koitae a bed)   one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite   see 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10   As you can see, no indication of the supposed "prostitution" connotation and no distinction between an "offending" homosexual and a "unoffending" one. In fact, if you break down the word into its component parts, you see the true meaning. The word arsaen has already been used in the context of the Romans discussion. It is a more Homeric term for "male." Koitae should have been easily recognizable to most people as being the progenitor of our word "coitus." This word refers literally to a man (determined from the fact that it is a 2nd declension masculine noun) who has coitus with another man.   Thus the prohibition exists here in a prescriptive sense and in Romans in a descriptive sense. The inclusion of homosexuality in the umbrella term porneia (Research on this section is forthcoming) Here I have demonstrated first that there is again no positive statement about same sex relations, a statement which would need to be made considering the climate of Jesus' audience. In view of this, the absence of such a statement is a statement in itself. In addition to this, however, there are three positive statements in the New Testament regarding homosexuality. The first is a comprehensive description of homosexual male and female acts as being sinful and characteristic of those who don't know God. The latter two are prescriptive, intended to exhort Christians away from the behaviors mentioned. Church Practice Having seen that treatment of homosexuality remained consistent both through the Old Covenant and into the institution of the New Covenant, it is wise here to treat the early church much as it proved helpful to treat extra-biblical Judaism. In doing so, context can be found for any interpretation of the New Testament texts already mentioned. Homily on Romans IV, John Chrysostom (the whole homily is on Romans 1:26-27, but I'll only quote the introduction here, highlighted for emphasis and to show continuity of thought) ALL these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases. But behold how here too, as in the case of the doctrines, he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that "they changed the natural use." For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfil their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, "They changed the truth of God for a lie." And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, "Leaving the natural use of the woman." And in a like way with those, these he also puts out of all means of defending themselves by charging them not only that they had the means of gratification, and left that which they had, and went after another, but that having dishonored that which was natural, they ran after that which was contrary to nature. But that which is contrary to nature hath in it an irksomeness and displeasingness, so that they could not fairly allege even pleasure. For genuine pleasure is that which is according to nature. But when God hath left one, then all things are turned upside down. And thus not only was their doctrine Satanical, but their life too was diabolical. Commentary on Matthew , Origen But observe here that every great sin is a loss of the talents of the master of the house, and such sins are committed by fornicators, adulterers, abusers of themselves with men [arsaenokoitais], effeminate[malakois], idolaters, murderers. Epistle to Autolychus, Theophilus When there is rust on the mirror, it is not possible that a man's face be seen in the mirror; so also when there is sin in a man, such a man cannot behold God. Do you, therefore, show me yourself, whether you are not an adulterer, or a fornicator [arsaenekoitas], or a thief, or a robber, or a purloiner; whether you do not corrupt boys; whether you are not insolent, or a slanderer, or passionate, or envious, or proud, or supercilious; whether you are not a brawler, or covetous, or disobedient to parents; and whether you do not sell your children. And these of course are only a few. Conclusion The point here is not to make an exceedingly long "homosexuals are going to hell" topic. That's not how I operate. In fact, the general population of homosexuals shouldn't even bother themselves with this topic (unless they find themselves intrigued by Christian affairs). Rather, this is for the "Christian homosexual" and those who say that Christianity doesn't have a stance on homosexuality or that it takes a positive stance. This is hopefully a wake up call that this position is hardly defensible. In fact, I have shown overwhelmingly the total continuity of thought from the creation of the world (or at least the creation of the Jewish mythos regarding the creation of the world...should that be your belief about Genesis) up into the recent past where we have suddenly disregarded what has been persistent practice for new contortionist methods of understanding scripture. The Bible does speak out against homosexuality and the history of both Jews and Christians confirms what it says and how it should be understood. For a Christian, every indicator is that it is a sin to be a homosexual. Now, if you're not a Christian, we're going to sing "Just as I am" and you feel free to come to the front and receive Jesus... In reality, if you are not a Christian and a homosexual, God is less concerned with your flawed sexual relationships than with your flawed relationship with Him. I advocate that Christians should behave the same way. It is not my place to tell you to behave like a Christian if you are not one. However, it is the place of every member of the body of Christ to use the Scriptures to exhort other Christians to right doctrine and right living. That includes an acceptance of the plain sense of Scripture and, should it pertain to you, application of that plain sense in your life. Questions? Comments? Critiques? Rebuttals? I'm happy to field any of the above and refine my statements as it may be needed. I claim to be thorough, not inerrant. (All of this remembering of course that this topic is not about whether or not homosexuality is morally right but about whether or not it is right according to Christianity.) Bibliographical information should anyone desire to check my source material: Some base knowledge of Greek, Scripture, history, and Patristics (the sources for which are mentioned above). A Bible Lampe's Patristic Lexicon, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, and Sophocles' Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods Gagnon, Robert A. J. The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Nashville: Abingdom Press, 2001. The Roman Commentaries of The Anchor Bible Dictionary Group (ed. Fitzmyer), Douglas J. Moo, and John Murray. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 1:46 pm on June 9, 2008 You know...when I did this for pacifism, no one really debated it.  In fact, it was the last post in that topic.  I have a feeling this will surely stir more discussion. -- Posted by Wakeupcall at 1:51 pm on June 9, 2008 Eh, I'm not a christian, and I don't read the bible a lot, however I still believe that the whole 'god hates fags' thing is bullshit. I'm sorry if you were trying to convince me otherwise. -- Posted by AngelFxxk at 1:55 pm on June 9, 2008 That is a long ass post- even for me. I normally read anything no matter how long it is but WoW. -God didn't write the bible. People did. There's not doubt about it that people can be weird, stupid, insane ect. ect. Homosexuality is here. It's been here for a VERY long time. It's not going anywhere. Many, Many people are just fine with it, you know why? because it's not hurting anyone. So. Everyone just needs to Get the fuck over it. -- Posted by lovestruck13 at 2:00 pm on June 9, 2008 every place where the bible "states" that homosexuality is sin is either the old testimant or has been misinterpreted.   if someone uses the old testament to defend their opinion on homosexuality, ask them when's the last time they got a haircut, or wore mixed fabrics. there's a lot of things in that considered sins that hardly anyone debates over. there's a section in romans that describes a group of sinners, their sins including homosexual acts, who are damned, etc. but they were also worshipping other gods and not praising God. there's also this part of the bible i found (i forgot where) that has been misinterpreted. two angels (male) came down and stayed in this guy's house. then all of the men in the city surrounded the house and demanded the guy bring the two men out so they could have sex with them. the city was destroyed. many people say that this is because of the homosexual factor, but really it was inhospitality to a guest. i'm also sure that God wasn't happy about the mens' intent to rape the angels, men or women. also, the bible was written in a time with political and social views much different from our own. they may have been inspired by God's word, but they were human. they knew that the words in the book would have a lot of power one day, power over the entire world, and they would be tempted to add their own opinions and views to it. we can't know for sure if every word in the bible is exactly what god wanted in it. and this is what i tell to every person who tries to use religion to justify thier homophobic views: HOMOSEXUALITY PREVENTS ABORTIONS!!!! best thing ever said by anyone. found it on a facebook bumper sticker. -- Posted by tenchi1084 at 2:01 pm on June 9, 2008 I don't believe in christianity, but I do agree with your post, that christians should only attend to fellow christian affairs, and leave the non-christians out of their business. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 2:05 pm on June 9, 2008 Quote: from lovestruck13 at 4:00 pm on June 9, 2008 every place where the bible "states" that homosexuality is sin is either the old testimant or has been misinterpreted.   if someone uses the old testament to defend their opinion on homosexuality, ask them when's the last time they got a haircut, or wore mixed fabrics. there's a lot of things in that considered sins that hardly anyone debates over. there's a section in romans that describes a group of sinners, their sins including homosexual acts, who are damned, etc. but they were also worshipping other gods and not praising God. there's also this part of the bible i found (i forgot where) that has been misinterpreted. two angels (male) came down and stayed in this guy's house. then all of the men in the city surrounded the house and demanded the guy bring the two men out so they could have sex with them. the city was destroyed. many people say that this is because of the homosexual factor, but really it was inhospitality to a guest. i'm also sure that God wasn't happy about the mens' intent to rape the angels, men or women. also, the bible was written in a time with political and social views much different from our own. they may have been inspired by God's word, but they were human. they knew that the words in the book would have a lot of power one day, power over the entire world, and they would be tempted to add their own opinions and views to it. we can't know for sure if every word in the bible is exactly what god wanted in it. I answered those objections if you had bothered to read, including what relevance Old Testament passages have on the issue and an extensive exegesis of the passage in Romans 1.  You should actually have a look at it. -- Posted by Enzeru at 2:06 pm on June 9, 2008 Quote: from lovestruck13 there's also this part of the bible i found (i forgot where) that has been misinterpreted. two angels (male) came down and stayed in this guy's house. then all of the men in the city surrounded the house and demanded the guy bring the two men out so they could have sex with them. the city was destroyed. many people say that this is because of the homosexual factor, but really it was inhospitality to a guest. i'm also sure that God wasn't happy about the mens' intent to rape the angels, men or women. Are you speaking about the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah where Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt? And frankly being a non-denominational Christian I was always raised as God loves every human being, including those of homosexuality but he does not like their actions.   -- Posted by Prince o palities at 2:07 pm on June 9, 2008 Quote: from tenchi1084 at 4:01 pm on June 9, 2008 I don't believe in christianity, but I do agree with your post, that christians should only attend to fellow christian affairs, and leave the non-christians out of their business. Wow...proof that someone actually read at least a part of the post. Thanks for that. -- Posted by barnabas at 2:09 pm on June 9, 2008 Quote: from Enzeru at 4:06 pm on June 9, 2008 Quote: from lovestruck13  there's also this part of the bible i found (i forgot where) that has been misinterpreted. two angels (male) came down and stayed in this guy's house. then all of the men in the city surrounded the house and demanded the guy bring the two men out so they could have sex with them. the city was destroyed. many people say that this is because of the homosexual factor, but really it was inhospitality to a guest. i'm also sure that God wasn't happy about the mens' intent to rape the angels, men or women.   Are you speaking about the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah where Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt? And frankly being a non-denominational Christian I was always raised as God loves every human being, including those of homosexuality but he does not like their actions. God does love everyone. It doesn't mean its ok to sin. -- Posted by Enzeru at 2:10 pm on June 9, 2008 Quote: from barnabas at 5:09 pm on June 9, 2008 Quote: from Enzeru at 4:06 pm on June 9, 2008 Quote: from lovestruck13     there's also this part of the bible i found (i forgot where) that has been misinterpreted. two angels (male) came down and stayed in this guy's house. then all of the men in the city surrounded the house and demanded the guy bring the two men out so they could have sex with them. the city was destroyed. many people say that this is because of the homosexual factor, but really it was inhospitality to a guest. i'm also sure that God wasn't happy about the mens' intent to rape the angels, men or women.     Are you speaking about the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah where Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt?    And frankly being a non-denominational Christian I was always raised as God loves every human being, including those of homosexuality but he does not like their actions.   God does love everyone. It doesn't mean its ok to sin. I never said it was okay to sin, I did speak on the fact that he does not like their actions. So maybe I am confused at what remark you are trying to set? -- Posted by barnabas at 2:12 pm on June 9, 2008 Quote: from Enzeru at 4:10 pm on June 9, 2008 Quote: from barnabas at 5:09 pm on June 9, 2008 Quote: from Enzeru at 4:06 pm on June 9, 2008 Quote: from lovestruck13   there's also this part of the bible i found (i forgot where) that has been misinterpreted. two angels (male) came down and stayed in this guy's house. then all of the men in the city surrounded the house and demanded the guy bring the two men out so they could have sex with them. the city was destroyed. many people say that this is because of the homosexual factor, but really it was inhospitality to a guest. i'm also sure that God wasn't happy about the mens' intent to rape the angels, men or women.     Are you speaking about the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah where Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt?   And frankly being a non-denominational Christian I was always raised as God loves every human being, including those of homosexuality but he does not like their actions.    God does love everyone. It doesn't mean its ok to sin. I never said it was okay to sin, I did speak on the fact that he does not like their actions.   So maybe I am confused at what remark you are trying to set? Just a comment that God's love is not really a factor. People often use "God's love" as an excuse to continue in their current behavior, regardless of its morality. Not implying you were or anything, just saying. -- Posted by Enzeru at 2:13 pm on June 9, 2008 I understand what you're saying now, just did not appear that way. Thanks for the elaboration, and yes I do concur with you on that factor. -- Posted by barnabas at 2:26 pm on June 9, 2008 Sean, what would you say to this and other quotes like this: Jimmy Creech, former senior pastor of the First United Methodist Church, in Omaha, Nebraska ...there was no understanding of sexual orientation in the culture and time when scripture was written. There was not even a word for 'homosexuality' or 'homosexual' in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, the original languages of scripture. There are biblical references that condemn same-sex sexual behavior, but they are all within contexts related to violence, idolatry, promiscuity and exploitation. Careful reading within the historical setting reveals that it is the violence, idolatry, promiscuity and exploitation that is condemned, not the same-sex sexual behavior. The same condemnation is given to opposite-sex sexual behavior that is violent, idolatrous, promiscuous and exploitative. or: William Placher at the Episcopal Summit on Homosexuality Scriptural condemnations of homosexuality merely reflect biblical authors' cultural biases and are not among the "essential" messages of the gospel. The Bible's condemnations of same-gender sexuality call to mind other scriptural passages used in past centuries to justify slavery and to keep women from participating fully in the life of the church -- on the basis of long-held interpretations that are largely abandoned today. We must draw a line between cultural conventions and the truths that Bible stories convey -- Posted by Prince o palities at 2:33 pm on June 9, 2008 To the first, I would direct him to the very versatile languages of the ANE and Greece.  They don't have a word for "homosexuality" because it is a modern construct.  They do however have words for non-violent, non-exploitative same sex intercourse.  The Greeks have to because of their regular practice of homosexual intercourse.  There is actually a rich vocabulary with which to talk about homosexual acts.  Arsaenokoitas is a perfect example.  It is a specific generic term simply meaning a man who has sex with another man.  Then there are terms that are loose and versatile that can mean thing from period to period and author to author like malakos.  Anyone who fears that Greek doesn't have a word for a practice to ubiquitous as same sex intercourse was doesn't have a proper appreciation for the language. The second guy just makes me sad.  That people can say that apostolic writing can have things contrary to the true message is little more than selective reading.  He wants expanded gender roles because they conform to society, hearkens to slavery for emotional appeal, and uses it all to justify the disregard of blatant prohibitions in Scripture. Truth be told, I respect the latter more.  The first argument is from ignorance or deceit.  The second is at least a conscious theological decision about the viability of Scripture.  It's a decision I think is fatal to Christianity, but at least it is a product of his choice and not his ignorance. -- Posted by Shaknbake at 3:43 pm on June 9, 2008 It's always made my head spin, seeing and hearing of openly, gay, practicing homosexuals who are otherwise observant Christians. There was a video on Youtube or somewhere similar showing these parents bleeding their hearts out about how nice it was they were able to find a traditional (I guess you call it High Church? The Eucharist, complex ceremonies and all that business) church that allowed practicing gay members in. I've never felt that Christianity had anything but negative things to say about homosexuality, and it's repulsing that unrepentant homosexuals would want to be a part of it. It really strikes me as similar to a battered wife staying with and being faithful to her abusive husband. "I know he really loves me..." Repent or wake up, as far as I'm concerned. -- Posted by barnabas at 4:25 pm on June 9, 2008 Quote: from Shaknbake at 5:43 pm on June 9, 2008 It's always made my head spin, seeing and hearing of openly, gay, practicing homosexuals who are otherwise observant Christians. There was a video on Youtube or somewhere similar showing these parents bleeding their hearts out about how nice it was they were able to find a traditional (I guess you call it High Church? The Eucharist, complex ceremonies and all that business) church that allowed practicing gay members in. I've never felt that Christianity had anything but negative things to say about homosexuality, and it's repulsing that unrepentant homosexuals would want to be a part of it. It really strikes me as similar to a battered wife staying with and being faithful to her abusive husband. "I know he really loves me..." Repent or wake up, as far as I'm concerned. It has always confused me as well. I read statements by people who are practicing christian gays and I am just confused by them. do they not see what they are saying. How can they read what I am reading and walk away saying, its chill, God loves me. It perplexes me to the very depths of my soul. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 8:10 pm on June 9, 2008 I clearly am confused (maybe distressed is a better word) as well. -- Posted by draakprinses at 8:14 pm on June 9, 2008 Quote: from barnabas at 2:12 pm on June 9, 2008 Quote: from Enzeru at 4:10 pm on June 9, 2008 Quote: from barnabas at 5:09 pm on June 9, 2008 Quote: from Enzeru at 4:06 pm on June 9, 2008 Quote: from lovestruck13        there's also this part of the bible i found (i forgot where) that has been misinterpreted. two angels (male) came down and stayed in this guy's house. then all of the men in the city surrounded the house and demanded the guy bring the two men out so they could have sex with them. the city was destroyed. many people say that this is because of the homosexual factor, but really it was inhospitality to a guest. i'm also sure that God wasn't happy about the mens' intent to rape the angels, men or women.     Are you speaking about the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah where Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt?       And frankly being a non-denominational Christian I was always raised as God loves every human being, including those of homosexuality but he does not like their actions.     God does love everyone. It doesn't mean its ok to sin. I never said it was okay to sin, I did speak on the fact that he does not like their actions.  So maybe I am confused at what remark you are trying to set? Just a comment that God's love is not really a factor. People often use "God's love" as an excuse to continue in their current behavior, regardless of its morality. Not implying you were or anything, just saying. However, the morality/immorality of homosexuality is debatable. I have encountered some very moral homosexuals, and even more immoral heterosexuals. -- Posted by iamben at 9:14 pm on June 9, 2008 I agree with your post. The only place I can see argument is that Paul and others held the view common to Jews. That is, they were biased by the opinions of the time, which reflected in their viewpoint. I understand that, as you said, these are values held by the old covenant. So then, the opinions expressed by those in the new testament are hardly adding anything to the matter. This chain of argument goes by the basis that the bible was written by man, not God through man. It's just a thought, not a stance I hold. -- Posted by Shogun villimax at 12:18 am on June 10, 2008 Quote: from AngelFxxk at 1:55 pm on June 9, 2008 That is a long ass post- even for me. I normally read anything no matter how long it is but WoW. -God didn't write the bible. People did. There's not doubt about it that people can be weird, stupid, insane ect. ect. Homosexuality is here. It's been here for a VERY long time. It's not going anywhere.   Many, Many people are just fine with it, you know why? because it's not hurting anyone. So. Everyone just needs to Get the fuck over it. Never. That,"It's ben here for a long time" argument Is a slipery slope. assault and battery have ben around for a long time and some people are just fine with THEM,doe's that make them right? No. -- Posted by Moridin at 12:30 am on June 10, 2008 When we speak here of the created order, we are not speaking about the issue of whether or not homosexuality is natural (i.e. occurring in the natural world) but whether or not it conforms to divine intentions for sexual relationships.  Divine intention is expressed in divine action.  God made man and woman giving them one sexual mandate, that is procreation So you are saying that sterile people should not have sex? A great deal of posturing has been attempted to explain away these verses.  Many suggest that they apply only to cultic prostitution or that they implicitly allow female homosexual relations.  Both of these interpretations deny the plain sense of these verses. So you agree that Christians have a duty to kill homosexuals? If you claim that it no longer applies, then you cannot use that reference to support your homophobic worldview. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 5:52 am on June 10, 2008 I never said anything about sterile people nor did I say sex only existed for procreation, only that it was the marital sexual mandate of the prototypical couple. And I already explained how looking at Old Covenant practice can be pertinent to the discussion while still believing that the New Covenant has made obsolete those laws which are not reiterated by Jesus and the apostles. -- Posted by Moridin at 5:58 am on June 10, 2008 Quote: from Prince o palities at 3:52 pm on June 10, 2008 I never said anything about sterile people nor did I say sex only existed for procreation, only that it was the marital sexual mandate of the prototypical couple. Prototypical according to who? Sex is just a ateleological attribute of nature, it does not exist "for" something. And I already explained how looking at Old Covenant practice can be pertinent to the discussion while still believing that the New Covenant has made obsolete those laws which are not reiterated by Jesus and the apostles. So you are asserting that false moral propositions are relevant? So you are asserting moral relativism? -- Posted by Prince o palities at 6:03 am on June 10, 2008 It exists for something if you are a Christian...which is who this topic addresses.  Trying to derail onto moral relativism won't get you anywhere. You'd think you'd be happy with this post.  In your own warped little mind you have everything to gain by a proof that Christians are "homophobic."  It validates your world view that religion is harmful and must be stamped out. ...but no.  I think you just like to bicker and don't mind being inconsistent in yourself. -- Posted by Moridin at 6:10 am on June 10, 2008 Quote: from Prince o palities at 4:03 pm on June 10, 2008 It exists for something if you are a Christian...which is who this topic addresses.  Trying to derail onto moral relativism won't get you anywhere. You'd think you'd be happy with this post.  In your own warped little mind you have everything to gain by a proof that Christians are "homophobic."  It validates your world view that religion is harmful and must be stamped out. ...but no.  I think you just like to bicker and don't mind being inconsistent in yourself. You seem to have two options here. 1. Agree that it is objectively true that you ought to kill homosexuals in accordance with the verse from Leviticus. or 2. Assert that the particular verse is not longer true, but that some other moral proposition is true, thus affirming moral relativism (which is false). -- Posted by tkster at 7:52 am on June 10, 2008 Quote: from lovestruck13 at 4:00 pm on June 9, 2008 every place where the bible "states" that homosexuality is sin is either the old testimant or has been misinterpreted. Did you read the OP?  You just made a nice little assertion and then presented no evidence to back it up whatsoever.  Please, I would love to see you address what Sean wrote. there's a section in romans that describes a group of sinners, their sins including homosexual acts, who are damned, etc. but they were also worshipping other gods and not praising God. You must have missed the context and the "God gave them over" part.  I love how Sean addressed just this, please read: It is important here, as with all exegetical exercises, to know in what context this is said.  The above statement is not a direct prescription to Christians, but a description of pagan culture.  It is describing the lifestyle that results from ignorance of God.  Many will take this and argue that because of this, these are not rules which pertain to Christians.  However, it should be obvious that what is described is behavior contrary to God spawned because the people in question lacked knowledge of God.  Thus, those who do not lack knowledge of God (Christians) should not be engaged in these activities.  Note the use repeated use of unnatural that is reminiscent of phraseology quoted in the above extra-biblical literature and the "indecent" or "abominable" acts (the Greek is a rough equivalent). Here is a reiteration of the same condemnation that was expressed in the Law.  Homosexuality is "unnatural" and "indecent," explicitly between both males and females.  (Note, that unnatural here, as Douglas Moo and Gagnon suggest, means not "reflective of God's purpose.") Again, people will try to ignore this verse on the basis that it refers to cultic practices.  Again, there is no indication in the context or wording that would suggest that.  Rather than rehash all that old logic, I will simply point out that there is a scholarly consensus that the reference is generic homosexuality as evidenced by statements in the Anchor Bible Commentary on Romans (a collaborative work), and the commentaries of Moo and John Murray (who represent different localities, times, and religious traditions).  To try and tie the condemnation of homosexuality to the "worship of images" mentioned earlier in the passage, one must additionally argue that all the listed sins (e.g. gossip, slander, disobedience to one's parents, arrogance) are cultic practices, a position which is indefensible.  The "oun" (therefore) refers back to the abandonment of God which leads to many sins, including image worship and homosexuality (they are on the same list, not the one a subset of the other). Another important point rising out of this verse that makes pointed Paul's statement, is his use of arsaen (male) instead of the more standard anae (male) because it ties directly into the sin mentioned in Corinthians, arsaenokoitai (homosexual relations). Please, elucidate on why Sean is incorrect here in his contextual argument of this passage. there's also this part of the bible i found (i forgot where) Wait ... besides just tossing out random assertions without addressing the OP, you don't even know where you are getting your material.  Wow. that has been misinterpreted. two angels (male) came down and stayed in this guy's house. then all of the men in the city surrounded the house and demanded the guy bring the two men out so they could have sex with them. the city was destroyed. many people say that this is because of the homosexual factor, but really it was inhospitality to a guest. i'm also sure that God wasn't happy about the mens' intent to rape the angels, men or women. Even if that were true, it ignores the fact that the passage is directly related to what Paul says in Romans 1:18 - which is an example of what Paul was stating. also, the bible was written in a time with political and social views much different from our own. they may have been inspired by God's word, but they were human. they knew that the words in the book would have a lot of power one day, power over the entire world, and they would be tempted to add their own opinions and views to it. we can't know for sure if every word in the bible is exactly what god wanted in it. Cute, but this topic isn't about whether the Bible is God's Word.  People like myself certainly don't think so, but that is not pertinent to this topic now is it?  This topic is about whether Christianity and Homosexuality are compatible and Sean is presenting not only Biblical passages to support his assertions in their context, but also historical figures within Christianity. It should be of note then, that you in order to pertain to this topic, you need to present a rebuttal using just that.  You either didn't read the material whatsoever or you just wanted to pop in, post your view and run, but please actually take the time like Sean did and address the points or you have been thoroughly refuted. tk -- Posted by kendall716 at 3:05 pm on June 10, 2008 You're such a historian. It was pretty great though. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 3:27 pm on June 10, 2008 Thanks, tk.  I was just going to ignore it. Moridin, this topic is not for the discussion of whether or not it is consistent for Christians to oppose homosexuality without stoning homosexuals or for a discussion of moral relativism.  As I know you have made topics about both in the past, you're welcome to discuss that in either of those topics. This topic asks whether or not Christians ought to be homosexuals in light of Scripture and history.  Any more of your posts not addressing this issue will be gleefully removed. -- Posted by clomb at 4:04 pm on June 10, 2008 Pauline writings aren't always taken to be unquestionable or even the infallible 'word of God' by all Christians though. Most Protestant churches now have female preachers (and even Catholics have female nuns, missionaries etc) who preach in Church despite Paul's warning in Corinthians that a woman must not speak in Church. Neither are his strict instructions on how Christians, male and female, must wear their hair in public or whilst worshipping. I can't find a bible at the minute but you seem pretty well versed in this so I'm sure you know the passages I'm referring to. If its accepted that social factors played a part in Paul's writing in these cases and thus should not be adhered to by modern Christians, the same could, in theory, be understood of Paul's fairly occasional opposition to homosexually. Pages: 1 2  Next