Homosexuality Is NOT A Sin: What Christ Said And More

[Zaxoth Arturos]

PoeticVengeance

OT does. The OT is no longer relevant to moral law. Therefore homosexuality is no longer an abomination.

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

[Kharybuce]

Korangar Igniscurro

PoeticVengeance

OT does. The OT is no longer relevant to moral law. Therefore homosexuality is no longer an abomination.

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

What god?

[PoeticVengeance]

Korangar Igniscurro

linaloki

Korangar Igniscurro

Also have to take into account that we no longer have to undergo such purification to approach God in prayer under the new covenant. But if something is still condemned under the new covenant (such as homosexuality, whether you like it or not), it is sin. Not everything prohibited of the priests implied it was sinful. The eating of pork and shellfish, for example, was prohibited because they had no means to cook such food properly, and it would make the priests ill.

Yes, I know we no longer need an intercessor to God. But remember this: Christ never condemned homosexuality. He gave thumbs up to some Levitical Laws, but not to the one that speaks of male a**l sex. Why would that be? Also, not all of those laws were meant specifically for priests. Within the same breath as the anti-male a**l sex law is a law prohibiting women to have sexual relations with animals. If the laws were only meant for priests and that is the only reason lesbian sex wasn't mentioned, then why did they mention female beastiality?

So if He had more important things to do, you think it is of no importance at all?

That made no sense at all. Do explain please.

Quote:

linaloki

Korangar Igniscurro

Glad I'm not the only one that pays attention when reading..

Bellbird

Thanks. I guess Loki isn't the only one that needs to go back and read carefully ^_^;;

As for these types of posts: I would appreciate it if they were to stop. These are bordering on libel. I have read the Bible 3 times, in different translation each time. I am planning on taking Hebrew and Biblical Greek so that I may read it once or twice more in its original language. Please do not talk as if I do not know of what I speak simply because you disagree with me.

If you stop attempting to demean the position of those against you as being trivial, I will do the same of yours.

Since when has he demeaned you in any way?

He's shown where your logic is flawed, and presented rebuttals to your statements. Some of the material you have presented has been irrelevant, that doesn't mean your position is trivial.

Don't resort to personal attacks because your rebuttals are not working.

Its extremely poor form.

Quote:

linaloki

Korangar Igniscurro

No, it's not. The whole thing is an attempt to use the Bible against Christianity. Which doesn't exactly work so well.. xd

Incorrect. It's an attempt to use the Bible against what people believe to be Christianity. Much like I would have done during the earlier 1900s, or even the 1960s, when people used the Bible to attempt to say discrimination against those of different race, specifically black, was okay.

And if what they believe to be Christianity is more accurate..?

Then its up to them to show it is so our views can be fixed.

So far no one has been able to do that. With all the inability to refute these assertions, I'm forced to conclude that these misconceptions are, in fact, truly misconceptions.

Quote:

After all, what you present as misconceptions are based on misreading scripture, and blatantly so.

Establish it then. So far you've failed to do so. Such a failure makes it more likely that you have misread Scripture then Loki.

Not certain obviously, it could simply be a lack of debate ability or lack of resources. But it does elevate the chances that you are wrong and we are right.

Quote:

linaloki

Korangar Igniscurro

But if you go on to read his posts, you will find that his 'misconceptions' of Christianity are quite literally 'his misconceptions' of Christianity.

You are now attacking my entire first post with this statement. If you have problems with my arguments beyond the realm of the homosexuality argument, state those problems. Otherwise, please stop attempting to slander and twist word context vainly.

You're the one that thinks Genesis 2:18-20 somehow means that Adam was made before animals.

I won't deal with this one. I have a bit too much on my plate to deal with anything other then the universe beyond Earth in Christianity, and homosexuality in this thread.

Quote:

And if you have forgotten, homosexuality was not the only topic you spoke of against which I have made statements. And if you can misinterpret such a simple passage as Genesis 2:18-20, I have no hope for anything else you have to say.

Fallacious guilt by association. Even if he did make a mistake with Genesis it doesn't matter. Acting as though all of his points are negated by one mistake (I have not read over that part, so I'm not making a statement on Genesis and your and his arguments over it) is fallacious, because it does not gaurantee that his other points are also not sound or valid.

Read over the other material and deal with it individually, and stop acting like being able to dismiss one point means you can dismiss them all. They are not dependant on each other.

[PoeticVengeance]

Shennanigans

I've been thinking about this "there was no word for homosexuality in early 1st Century Greek so it must be okay" argument.

That's a terrible argument.

Who the hell has been using that argument?

Quote:

That just doesn't fly with me.

Um... it doesn't fly at all, which is why none of us have used it (to my knowledge)

I only bring it up to the idiots that think the English word "homosexual" in the NASB and the other translations somehow magically means that homosexuality is evil, instead of checking translations when its revealed to them that such a translation is in doubt.

And for those that think the original Bible was written in English.

Quote:

Particularly, how can one defend that position while at the same time accepting that Paul created a word expressly to condemn the practice?

Paul actually created a word expressly to condemn pedastry, not homosexuality.

Quote:

Furthermore, in the absence of direct mention of homosexual sex in the New Testament, wouldn't we investigate the early Latin sources to determine their stance on homosexuality and work backwards to find the roots of such a stance in the Greek texts and comments?

Greeks and Romans were fine with it, a point that has been raised numerous times by other debators in reference to the verse in Romans.

Quote:

Otherwise, wouldn't we cross reference the Septuagint and Greek writings with Hebrew translations in order to find the words that have been used to translate "homosexuality," and accept that as the way that 1st Century Jews would refer to homosexuality?

Christian =/= Jew back then.

In fact, the Early Christians were considered very heretical by the Jews.

Quote:

At the very least, we could figure out by Rabbinic commentary what the position of a nominal Jew in the 1st Century would have been on homosexual sex.

Also irrelevant. We're dealing with Christians or their early equivalent that was slowly seperating from judiasm.

It would be an interesting time though.

[PoeticVengeance]

Korangar Igniscurro

PoeticVengeance

Purification doesn't necessarily mean that something is evil in God's eyes. Remember certain meats were not allowed to be consumed by the Jews for purity reasons.

Now they are allowed to consume them as Christians. If something was actually forbidden, then God would forbid it to the entire Jewish population, something you have easily admitted is not true.

And I already touched on that subject. Thank you for keeping up with the rest of us.

I am a little behind. Keep patient or shut your mouth.

Quote:

Quote:

If I'm not mistaken, the priests were not allowed to engage in quite a lot of things that are no longer considered sinful.

Are all of those things abhorrant to God as well?

Hardly.

Within the new covenant, yes.

You have yet to prove it.

Quote:

Despite what you choose to think.

Maybe you can try to prove your assertions then. Instead of posturing and puffing up your chest.

Quote:

Quote:

Or it means that priests shouldn't do it for reasons specific to being a priest.

If something was wrong in the eyes of God, he would of told the entire population to not do it.

Now, was the portion telling not to be homosexual in the part of Leviticus listing the things a priest cannot do?

I recall you saying it was referencing things a priest shouldn't do. So I argued within that assumption.

Are you retracting your earlier statements?

Quote:

After all, Leviticus 20 is a list of immoralities. The commands included in it are to all of the people.

Establish it.

Quote:

Quote:

And false. Your logic is not sound.

Only when viewed by the illogical.

Sad, so sad. Don't blame your inadequacies on me.

Quote:

Do try to keep up?

I'll try love, but you leave a lot of bullshit to clean up in this thread, and I do hate uncleanliness.

[PoeticVengeance]

Korangar Igniscurro

PoeticVengeance

Exactly!

Which means that if homosexual sex was sinful for priests, it in no way makes it sinful for everyone else.

So if you're not a priest of YHWH, then you can have all the homosexual sex you want.

Until you examine Leviticus 20 and note that it is directed to all of the people, and not just the priests.

Once again, arguing within your own point.

Do you retract your statement then?

Quote:

Good try. Come again when you can read an entire passage.

I have. I'm only arguing within your shitty statements.

Unless that wasn't what you meant.

Do correct yourself if you meant something else.

[Zaxoth Arturos]

PoeticVengeance

Um... it doesn't fly at all, which is why none of us have used it (to my knowledge)

I only bring it up to the idiots that think the English word "homosexual" in the NASB and the other translations somehow magically means that homosexuality is evil, instead of checking translations when its revealed to them that such a translation is in doubt.

And for those that think the original Bible was written in English.

Not just the NASB. And while you yourself think the word used in such instances is about 'pedastry' (Which isn't a word, mind you), linguistic scholars have come to concede that the word used was, in fact, used of homosexuality. Do some not agree on this? Of course. But some also believe the Bible to be contradictory. Or believe that there isn't eternal condemnation for sins. Or that there isn't a God at all.

[linaloki]

Korangar Igniscurro

PoeticVengeance

OT does. The OT is no longer relevant to moral law. Therefore homosexuality is no longer an abomination.

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

That doesn't mean that He doesn't change policies.

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

Korangar Igniscurro

Biblical teaching on homosexuality is sparse, limited to a few OT texts (Gen 19:1-29; Lev 18:22; 20:13) and writings associated with Paul (Rom 1:18-32; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:9-10; of. 2 Pet 2:7-8; Jude 7),

And I contest that any of these actually touch on homosexuality, and most do not come near homosexual anything.

Korangar Igniscurro

but in each case the judgment on homosexual behavior is negative.

Except that certain other points are ignored.

Korangar Igniscurro

Recently, however, doubts have been expressed over the relevance of 1 Cor 6:9-11 for the church’s position on homoeroticism, mostly for reasons of Greek lexicography.

Only slightly more recently than the phrase was twisted into that.
It's challenged for good reason.

Korangar Igniscurro

The purpose of this article is to summarize and evaluate the critical issues regarding 1 Cor 6:9-1 1, and to examine its context and co-text for clues to its relevance to the current debate, and then finally to note the caution this passage gives to those who hold to the traditional view of human sexuality: “fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness.”

Oh, doesn't this sound fun. And unsourced, seeing as this quotation does not appear in this passage or in the bible. He's referring to doctrine, such as the following:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_umc6.htm

1984: [The General Conference of Methodist churches] passed a "fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness" statement (Paragraph 402.2) which stated:

"Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church."

Shortly after the UMC statement, the New York Conference passed a resolution stating: "We deeply regret our denomination's continued oppression of homosexual persons ... We look forward to the day when the church will accept gay and lesbian persons into full fellowship."

Bishop Jack M. Tuell, May 18, 2003

If I were to give a one sentence answer to the question it would be: “I changed my mind when I changed my heart.” But since I’m expected to speak longer than this, let me spell out what I mean by that and how it happened.

It’s February 1983, a little over 20 years ago. I am meeting in an airport in Albuquerque with two other United Methodist bishops and an executive of the Division of Ordained Ministry out of Nashville. We are doing preliminary work on legislation for the 1984 General Conference our subject matter was ordained ministry. We worked on many aspects of the subject. But a particular concern being raised was: “How do we screen out homosexual persons from becoming ordained ministers?” I proposed a seven-word addition to the list of things to which candidates for ministry must commit: “Fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness.”

The phrase had the advantage of not singling out homosexual persons, but being generic applying to all candidates regardless of sexual orientation. It was accepted by all. That little phrase made its way and was acted upon by the Division of Ordained Ministry, the BHEM, a General Conference legislative committee, the General Conference, and was then printed in The Book of Discipline where it remains to this day. This is by way of confession.

Now why did we do that? You would think that on as important a matter as that we might look to Wesley’s guidelines of discernment: that is, scripture, tradition, experience and reason. But I’m here to tell you that we did not look at the scriptures; we never mentioned tradition; we did not refer to experience, and reason. It was almost absent from our discussion. Instead of those four classic words guiding our conversation, we were unconsciously guided by two other words: institutional protection. In other words, this issue was raising controversy and problems within our connection the placid sea of United Methodism was being roiled so we would cut it off at the pass.

Korangar Igniscurro

Translating Arsenokoitai
The main issue highlighted in recent debate over 1 Cor 6:9-11 concerns the correct way to render the Greek term arsenokoitai which occurs here. The NRSV reads, “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites (arsenokoita), thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers— none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.’

In this recent critical translation arsenokoitai is taken as a reference to those who practice homosexuality. Arsenokoitai poses a problem to the translator because this is its earliest known occurrence in Greek literature.

Ding! Correct.
And there's really no support for this conclusion, beyond "well, it sort of looks like it could have meant that."

Korangar Igniscurro

Robin Scroggs has plausibly suggested that Paul created this new word by combining the two terms found in the Greek version of Lev 18:23 (LXX 18:22) and 20:13: arsen = “male,” and koite = “bed,” which translate the Hebrew for “lying with a male” (mishkav zakur; The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate [Fortress, 1983] 106-8 ).

Possible does not mean plausible.
If we went around taking every verbal construct at face value, I shudder to think what horrible equivocation might be documented about us in a millennium or two.

Well, 'ladyprimer' obviously refers to a female elementary student...

A whole is not always the sum of its parts, and it is dangerous to assume so in this case. Any first-year linguist could tell you as much.

Korangar Igniscurro

With the likelihood that these Levitical prohibitions are echoed in 1 Cor 6:9, the NRSV is justified in translating the term as a reference to homoerotic intercourse, even if the English “sodomites” is somewhat archaic.

Translation: I agree with the position, so I think it's likely correct.
Eisegesis at its finest.

Korangar Igniscurro

The most vociferous critic of taking arsenokoitai as a reference to homoerotic practice is the late, gay scholar J. Boswell (Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality [University of Chicago, 1980] 335-53). He concludes that arsenokoitai refers to male prostitutes without specifying the gender of their partners.

And the conclusion is possibly true.

Korangar Igniscurro

Boswell’s theory has been popularized by the widely known work of gay Catholic J.J. McNeil, who confesses his dependence on Boswell even though his work appeared earlier (The Church and the Homosexual [Sheed, Andrews & McMeel, 1976] 200). Boswell’s broader thesis, the Bible does not justify the later homophobia that appealed to it, has not been challenged, but his lexicography has come under unfavorable review.

Which means nothing.
Any work that challenges traditional thought - particularly religious inference - is likely to be less than popular.

Korangar Igniscurro

David F. Wright has devoted an article to demonstrating the inaccuracies of Boswell’s presentation of the data (“Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of ARSENOKOITAI (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10),” Vigiliae Christianae 38 [1984] 125-53). Wright and Boswell engage in highly sophisticated and detailed lexicographical argumentation, which space prohibits re-presenting in this brief article. Wright’s most telling argument is that Boswell seriously underestimates the use of arsenokoitai in early Christian writers, and he is especially negligent in his highly selective and inaccurate use of the early, Greek-speaking bishop John Chrysostom. Wright points out how the very texts from Chrysostom cited by Boswell, when viewed in light ofedi their surrounding texts, both undermine Boswell ‘s interpretation and support the traditional view that arsenokoitai refers to homosexuality.

Translation: They used big words to attack Boswell, and they were correct, and Boswell's a hypocrite, even though I cannot offer one concrete example of how.

Korangar Igniscurro

W.L. Petersen agrees with Wright’s dissection of Boswell’s lexicography but draws attention to an anachronism evident in the alternative that Wright offers (“Can ARSENOKOITAI Be Translated by ‘Homosexuals’ (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10)?”, Vigiliae Christianae 40 [19861187-91). Petersen criticizes Wright for using “homosexuals” and “homosexuality” as appropriate English terms for arsenokoitai when this is clearly anachronistic. The Oxford classicist K.J. Dover has demonstrated that there was no Greek term for homosexual identity, and the concept of sexual identity itself is a recent phenomenon (Greek Homosexuality [Duckworth, 1979]). The terms in Greek refer to homoerotic practice, not sexual identity.

This claim indicates that Dodd is not referring to homosexuality itself, no matter how much he may think he is.

Korangar Igniscurro

With this in mind the NRSV is not far off the mark, though “sodomites” wrongly draws attention to an intertextual echo suggested by the English term (to Sodom and Gomorrah), when instead arsenokoitai echoes the prohibitions of Leviticus. The NRSV translation is problematic and needs to be revised, but it is more accurate than some critics have allowed.

This is a hodge-podge of restated fallacies, shifting positions, and quibbling over terminology in what I must hope is a feeble attempt to divert attention away from the glaring logical problems.

Korangar Igniscurro

Homoeroticism and the Corinthian Social Context
Petersen’s criticism of Wright centers on anachronistically importing twentieth-century concepts of homosexual identity into the translation of ancient texts. This leads us to consider what practice exactly Paul is referring to. Scroggs has argued that Paul did not think—and could not have been thinking—of anything other than the practice of pederasty, intercourse between an active and older man (usually called an erastes, but here an arsenokoitos) and a passive younger man or boy (usually an eromenos but here malakos). Scroggs’ own suspicion is that Paul was against the more degrading forms of this practice that employed a young male prostitute (malakos) or the sexual domination of a master with his slave (109-18 ). Scroggs rightly points out that pederasty, prostitution, and a master’s sexual abuse of his slaves are clearly documented as the most common homosexual practices cited in the known literature and portrayed on vase paintings, but extrapolates from this that these are all that Paul could have known of homoeroticism.

There are two reasons why we should not accept Scroggs’ reconstruction. First, Paul stands in line with a long ethical tradition of Judaism that condemned all homosexual practice (as Scroggs is well aware [66-98]),

Which, however, does not invalidate Scroggs' argument.

Korangar Igniscurro

and Scroggs himself acknowledges that Paul identifies with this OT tradition as echoed in his coinage of the lexeme arsenokoitai.

And this is just unsourced well poisoning based on some weird form of tu quoque, rather than an actual secondary point.

And there's something else, too.
If Paul is speaking from this "long ethical tradition of Judaism," then it's time to start ignoring him, because he certainly isn't speaking from the not-so-long ethical tradition of Yeshua, who overrode the OT. Apostolic heresy FTW.

Korangar Igniscurro

This leads to a second and decisive reason why we cannot accept Scroggs understanding that Paul’s conception must have been limited to pederasty. Pederasty occurred between men and boys, but in Romans 1 Paul condemns a practice that cannot be identified as pederasty: “Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another” (Rom 1:26).

Hooray for taking verses out of context!
Anyone else see the major problems with this one?

Korangar Igniscurro

Under no conditions can this verse be reduced to a reference to mere pederasty as Scroggs seeks to do.

Throwing an unrelated verse at a passage doth not a refutation make.
Under no conditions can I accept this as a decisive blow to an already strawman argument, riddled with flagrant appeals to unqualified authority.

Korangar Igniscurro

Furthermore, Scroggs cites the evidence from other Greek writers from Plato to Plutarch and Pseudo-Phocylides who refer to female homoerotic acts (1 30-39). Against Scroggs’ contention, there is evidence for homoerotic activity that was not pederasty. He deals with the evidence that contradicts him with the disclaimer, “What the female part of the slogan may have included is beyond recovery” (133).

Straight eisegesis.
"[T]he evidence that contradicts him," indeed.
What further imaginary evidence will Dodd bring up next?

Korangar Igniscurro

Scroggs has clearly succumbed to the reductionism he claims he avoids (139). The evidence—which Scroggs himself cites—shows Paul could and did have something besides pederasty in mind, and he condemns both male and female homoeroticism as against the will of God.

More straw man tactics. More attacks implying hypocrisy and not actually addressing the text or the argument itself.

Korangar Igniscurro

The Co-text of 1 Corinthians 5-7
It has often been pointed out that the so-called vice list imbedded in 1 Cor 6:9-10 is somewhat stereotyped, probably adapted from Hellenistic Judaism. Furthermore, there is evidence that this list is combined with elements of a baptismal liturgy which Paul has adopted, describing the effects of being baptized into Christ.

Major assumptions made, no evidence given.

Korangar Igniscurro

Paul asserts that conversion and baptism (“you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified”) effect an elimination of the sins listed. The list is not exhaustive nor is it exactly duplicated elsewhere (cf. Rom 1:29-31; 1 Cor 5:10-11; Gal 5:19-21), but it points to the character change brought by the Spirit’s presence in a believer’s life: “And this is what some of you used to be.” The past tense verb indicates that Paul believed that spiritual conversion wrought ethical transformation that includes a reconstruction of one’s sexual practices (cf. Gal 5:16-25; 1 Thess 4:4).

So let's review.
Paul believes that conversion/baptism mean wiping the slate clean.
And changed sexual preference and action to "vanilla" or "none whatsoever."

Korangar Igniscurro

There is a further, perhaps even more important, observation to make about the larger co-text of 1 Corinthians 5-7. The first two terms of the vice list in 1 Cor 6:9, “fornicators” (pornoi) and “idolaters,” link this brief passage with the unifying themes of 1 Corinthians 5-10. At 5:1 the issue of sexual immorality (porneia) is announced, a theme that is addressed in various ways from 5:1-6:20, and the issue of porneia (cf. 7:2) is developed in relation to marriage in 7:1-40, while chs. 8-10 engage the issue of idolatry and idol meat. Thus “the sexually immoral” and “idolaters,” the first two terms of the vice list in 6:9, are representative issues of the teaching of 5:1-10:33.

That doesn't even make sense.

Korangar Igniscurro

In this larger co-text Paul gives multiple indications of what is included in the scope of the catch-all term “sexual immorality” (porneia—cf. Gal 5:19; Col 3:5; 1 Thess 4:3), including incest (5:1) and involvement with prostitutes (6:13-20). In 6:9-10 the list is expanded to include adultery, and passive and active homoeroticism.

Except that none of it is. Much of this may have referred to ritual context.

Korangar Igniscurro

But we find in 7:2 the most revealing passage about what Paul considers porneia: “on account of porneia let each man have his own wife, and each woman have her own husband.”

Might as well call it "sexual desire," then.

Korangar Igniscurro

Paul here sets “sexual immorality” against the broader biblical framework of marriage as the proper context for sexual expression. Appeal to Gen 2:24 is to the point since Paul cites this very scriptural tradition in 6:16 as an explanation of the marital-sexual bonding between man and woman: “The two shall become one flesh.” It is this marital expression of sexuality that Paul sets at the rhetorical climax of this section (1 Corinthians 7), building up to this solution after thoroughly portraying the plight of improper sexual expression in the previous two chapters. Thus homoeroticism is not singled out as somehow worse than other forms of porneia, but merely as one other example of it.

If, indeed, it is mentioned at all.
This is still unestablished.

Korangar Igniscurro

For Paul, sex is for marriage, which by biblical definition is consummated by sexual intercourse between one man and one woman.

I'll get into this later, if I must.
As it is,

Korangar Igniscurro

A Cautionary Conclusion
Even though it is clear that Paul, like Judaism before him, identifies homoeroticism as another instance of sexual immorality,

No, it really isn't, because the work here is inconclusive.

Korangar Igniscurro

its inclusion in this vice list is incidental to the heterosexual immoral practices that he must treat in an extended way in this section of 1 Corinthians. This does not reduce the relevance of 1 Cor 6:9-1 1 as support for the traditional Christian stance,

It's still useless? That's good to know.

Korangar Igniscurro

but it does point out a log-in-the-eye syndrome that currently plagues those who are rightly convinced of the biblical foundation for maintaining “fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness.”

Not to mention Paul's.

Korangar Igniscurro

Recent statistics, in addition to the balance of Paul’s text, suggest that pastoral stress needs to fall upon heterosexual indifference to the biblical teaching about the appropriate expression of sexuality. By the mid-1980s one-half of all couples getting married had cohabited. In 1990 there were 2.9 million households in America where the partners were not married, and a third of those had children under fifteen living with them (L.F. Bouvier and C.J. DeVita, “The Baby Boom—Entering Midlife,” Population Bulletin 46.3 [Population Reference Bureau, 1991]), and this is to say nothing about the predominant ethos of a sex-crazed society characterized by promiscuity.

Hello non sequitur!
So let's see here.
We're discussing the 'problem' of heterosexual rejection of Dodd's interpretation of Paul's teaching.
In a population of Christians, Jews, and many, many others.
And with no adequate way to test for marriage.

Legal marriage is a far cry from marriage in the eyes of God. These statistics are worthless.

Korangar Igniscurro

Homosexuality is a small issue by comparison, comprising less than 10 per cent of the population (a recent survey funded by the Wellcome Trust suggests that 2 per cent of the population has had at least one homosexual partner in the last five years [A. Johnson et aI., Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1994) ch. 7]).

I won't quibble over that one. May be somewhere around the ten percent mark, difficult to test for.

Korangar Igniscurro

In our quest to understand and embody scriptural holiness we must be evenhanded in our application of Scripture with the full conviction that the moral change Christ brings affects all people alike: “fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, those who practice homosexuality, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers” (1 Cor 6:9-10). These things we were, but baptism into Christ yields a cleansing and conversion through the power of the Spirit to live in holy obedience to God (1 Cor 6:11).

Because obviously no baptised person has ever committed adultery.
Oh wait.

Korangar Igniscurro

By Brian J. Dodd, Ph.D., John Wesley Fellow and UM Elder in the California-Nevada Annual Conference.

And while somewhat better-read than most, his positions are still circularly defined and somewhat self-defeating.

Allow me to cite reviewer Michael J. Mazza:

Quote:

In "The Problem with Paul," Christian author Brian J. Dodd attempts to "rehabilitate" the image of Paul, the apostle who authored many of the letters of the New Testament. Dodd's book is an uneasy blend of "politically correct" posturing and neo-conservative rigidity. Ultimately, Dodd seems to defend an approach to biblical interpretation which allows the believer to continue to wallow in convenient prejudices.

Throughout history, the New Testament writings attributed to Paul have been abundant sources of "proof-texts"--that is, texts used to justify one's position--by racists, anti-Semites, sexists, anti-gay bigots, and other supporters of destructive ideologies. (Jim Hill and Rand Cheadle have documented some of the "Pauline problem" in their book "The Bible Tells Me So: Uses and Abuses of Holy Scripture." wink Dodd addresses some of these controversies and tries to re-paint Paul as a misunderstood guy with some genuinely forward-thinking ideas.

But I find Dodd's approach to be contradictory and unconvincing. He asserts, for example, that Christians need not follow Paul's restrictions regarding female headgear (1 Cor. 11:5-6) and female leadership in church (1 Tim. 2:11-15), and accuses Christians who take these verses literally of an "interpretive naivete" which Dodd deems "unhelpful." But then he turns around and asserts that Christians must adhere to an anti-gay interpretation of other Pauline passages. Although he performs ample verbal gymnastics in order to justify his positions, it seems to me that Dodd is picking and choosing which verses he wants to read "literally," and which he wants to write off as culturally bound. And woe to anyone who disagrees with Dodd's personal likes and dislikes; in his view, they are obviously wrong!

Particularly ridiculous is his chapter about Paul's comments on the institution of slavery. A large part of his argument seems to boil down to the equation that ancient Greco-Roman slavery was good, and American slavery was bad. Does it follow that, as long as Christians follow the allegedly benevolent ancient model, it is perfectly all right for them to hold their fellow humans as slaves?

Some of the ground covered by Dodd is dealt with in a much more thoughtful and morally consistent manner by Peter J. Gomes in "The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart." While Dodd has some interesting ideas, and is clearly a skilled writer, "The Problem with Paul" as a whole is riddled with problems.

I am far more inclined to agree with Mazza than to take anything Dodd says at face value.

[Zaxoth Arturos]

PoeticVengeance

Establish it.

Leviticus 20

The LORD said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites: 'Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death, I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech. "'I will set my face against the person who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute himself by following them, and I will cut him off from his people. "'Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the LORD your God. Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the LORD, who makes you holy. "'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head. " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. "'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. "'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads. "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. "'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you. "'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. "'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. "'If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible. "'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people. "'Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible. "'If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless. "'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless. "'Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. But I said to you, "You will possess their land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey." I am the LORD your God, who has set you apart from the nations. "'You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those which I have set apart as unclean for you. You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own. "'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.'"

Established.

[linaloki]

Korangar Igniscurro

PoeticVengeance

Establish it.

Leviticus 20

Leviticus 20

Established.

Oh dear. Still doesn't mention lesbian sex.

[Zaxoth Arturos]

linaloki

That doesn't mean that He doesn't change policies.

Then give one instance when God changed His mind that was not God stilling His wrath or bringing punishment in response to acts of people.

[PoeticVengeance]

Korangar Igniscurro

PoeticVengeance

OT does. The OT is no longer relevant to moral law. Therefore homosexuality is no longer an abomination.

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

So?

God can be the same and still change the Scriptures. It all depends on whether you believe God has an inherant morality that he can not change, ever, even as the world changes and whether you can establish that this morality (which remains static) includes homosexuality.

[linaloki]

Korangar Igniscurro

linaloki

That doesn't mean that He doesn't change policies.

Then give one instance when God changed His mind that was not God stilling His wrath or bringing punishment in response to acts of people.

Jesus?

And I didn't say changed His mind. I said changed policies. Stop adding words.

[PoeticVengeance]

Kharybuce

Korangar Igniscurro

PoeticVengeance

OT does. The OT is no longer relevant to moral law. Therefore homosexuality is no longer an abomination.

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

What god?

Excuse me. We are arguing within the scope of the Christian Religion. If you wish to discuss multiple deities, go somewhere else.