Homosexuality | Page 3 | Religious Debate | Guild Forums

rmcdra

Loved Seeker

11,700 Points

300
500
150

Offline

Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 1:12 pm

Boxy

Homosexuality Is Not Prohibited by the Christian Bible

This is a thesis I have to thank my old debating buddy, Ananel. To him I dedicate this infodump in memory of his former thesis, as well as to commemorate his service to M&R and the religious studies community at large. To him I say vale and wish him the best in whatever travails may befall him in his journeys through life, the universe, and everything. I hope that this thesis, though paltry it may be, meets his approval and the approval of the peer review process here in M&R.

I had stood firmly on the side against this very argument, but I came to the realization that the Bible just doesn't say anything about a practice that either (A) didn't exist back then, or (B) didn't attract Paul's criticism. People sometimes force interpretations on the Bible when it was never meant to mean that in the first place. To do so is dishonest at best and even blasphemous at worst. As the Bible admonishes, it's wrong to add to scripture.

Thus, the only conclusion that I have is that prohibitions against homosexuality depend on the tradition you partake in. As a Mormon, I recognize that my tradition doesn't view homosexuality very positively and asks people who attracted to the same gender to remain celibate and/or marry the opposite gender regardless. In the future, the Church may change its stance, but meh. It is my opinion that there are far worse problems in our society than who is sleeping with whom, so therefore I will focus my efforts on clarifying truth, giving meaningful service, and calling out people who are being dishonest and disseminating clearly incorrect information.

It is important to understand the basis of this argument, because people can and do make public policy decisions based off what they perceive as theological truth that is unforgiving. And, quite frankly, that is a position that is just not true. Personally, as a Mormon, I'm not going to tell people what they can and can't do in their own bedrooms, unless I happen to be a legal and ecclesiastical representative of the Church, which I'm not right now. And even if I did, the only purview I could have would be over people in my own faith and in my own congregation. Until that time, I will show an increase in love towards my friends who happen to have fallen in love (and truly love it is) and formed a strong bond that serves as the bedrock for a family.

Leviticus 18:22, 20:13

These can arguably refer to temple prostitution or other pagan fertility rituals, as a good deal of the Torah tends to. Doing so makes you unfit for Hebrew rituals. That is what is meant by "ritual uncleanness," which a Christian shouldn't care about.

Though the scripture does not reference a particular ritual it is forbidding, the culture context is more important to consider. Canaanite fertility cults abounded around the Hebrews, and such practices as boiling a goat in its mother's milk were primarily a response to Canaanite practices. I mean, come on -- some of these mitzvot just don't make sense all by themselves. However, it does make sense in the cultural context the Israelites were surrounded with.

"After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. ... (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled [i.e. made common] ) ... Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the Lord your God." (Leviticus 18:3,27,30)

Clearly, these were all practices that the people before had done. As such, to distinguish the practice of worshiping YHWH from that of the Canaanite deities, he gives them prohibitions and actions that would make them "peculiar" (unique).

Chapter 20 of Leviticus also deals with various social and cultural practices which by banning would make the Israelites a completely distinct culture:

"And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people. ... A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:6,27)

Again, this deals with distinguishing the Israelites from the Canaanites, rather than from the fundamental immorality of the thing. Their practices were foreign, and the Israelites had already dilluted their culture by staying in Egypt for too long. Was it possible for Israel to come up with its own culture? Yes, but it had to extinguish the Canaanite practices. This was all about nationalism and the need to establish a new society, not from the underlying problems with talking with supernatural entities and/or engaging in sexual relations with a person you love and cherish.

In any case, the concepts of ritual cleanliness are abolished completely by the New Testament. "And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." (Acts 10:28 ) Thus, concepts of being unclean by virtue of disobeying specifics in Leviticus should be disregarded, since the concept of "cleanliness" is moot in Christianity.

The only thing that is important in Christianity is to have faith and to love one another. Peter again admonishes the early Church to not require the Gentiles to follow the Mosaic Law:

" 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." (Acts 15:8-11)

Faith makes a person pure, and the witness of the Holy Ghost tells a person that their sins are forgiven. It is not a checklist of to-dos and not-to-dos -- which about half of the New Testament goes into agonizing details.

However, there are some things that are required of Christians:

" 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication [temple prostitution], and from things strangled, and from blood." (same chapter, vs. 18-20)

All of these elements have some sort of connection to pagan rites, whether through eating something offered to an idol or engaging in the celebration of a deity other than YHWH. As such, these are subject to smititude.

Over and over the writers of the New Testament preach against Christians having to obey the "law of the circumcision," which incorporates all the ritual requirements of the Mosaic Law, including the prohibitions against wearing garments of more than one material, of having sex with a woman on her period (i.e. in the "time of her uncleanness" ) and having to celebrate the Feasts of Passover, Tabernacles, and so forth (which were absolutely required by practicing Jews).

So, in summary: the New Testament is rife with statements that you don't have to obey the Mosaic Law. In fact, Paul goes one more and states that any and all commandments have to be relatable somehow to the one commandment: love thy neighbor as thyself (Romans 13:10, Galatians 5:13-14). In order to maintain that God is against homosexuality, you have to prove definitively that it fundamentally goes against the notion of loving your neighbor as yourself. Under consensual homosexuality, I find this prospect incredulous at best.

1 Corinthians 6:9

There's a number of problems with this scripture in 1 Corinthians. The best way to describe this is to refer back to the original Greek just to show how poorly understood this scripture really is.

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakos], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Malakos means "catamite," which is a specific title of the submissive role in pedastery (which is nowadays considered *****). There's a problem of power disparity, as these young boys were often "submitting" to their professional mentors and masters so as to "learn the ways of the trade" of sex. This relationship had nothing at all to do with love (or even lust), and had more to do with learning sexual techniques and/or to gratify one's master.

Arsenokoites was a word of uncertain meaning, as the author was apparently coining the word as he wrote. It is a splicing-together of two words, arsenos meaning "man," and koites meaning "bed." It could mean two men in a bed, it could mean male prostitution (i.e. a woman inviting a man other than her husband into her bed), or it could mean a man alone in a bed engaging in sexual relations with himself. At various times, it has been translated as a temple prostitute, masturbator, those who are "morally soft" (i.e. wishy-washy), and even more curiously as "abuser of themselves with mankind" (which while adding content to the meaning, it does leave it accurately vague).

Here's a good source that goes into some detail:

ReligiousTolerance.org

I Corinthians 6:9 -- Sins that Paul believes will send you to Hell:

The author, Paul, listed a group of sinful activities. He believed that practicing any one of them would prevent a person from inheriting the Kingdom of God. They would be sent to Hell when they died. This verse has been translated in many ways among the 25 English versions of the Bible that we have analyzed.

One of the condemned behaviors is "malakoi arsenokoitai" in the original Greek. Malakoi means soft. It was translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. The actual meaning of arsenokoitai has been lost. Some sources in the early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. exhibiting unethical behavior. That may well be the correct meaning, because presumably people from that era would probably have still known the meaning of the word "arsenokoitai." Others in the early Church thought that it meant "temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was in universal use. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior, whereas many Christians were concentrating on homosexuality as a despised activity. New Biblical translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967. 1

Each Bible translating team seems to take whatever activity that their group particularly disapproves of and inserts it into this verse. To compound their error, they usually do not have the decency to indicate by a footnote that the actual meaning of the word is unknown, and that they are merely guessing its meaning.

Conservative Christians tend to be very concerned about their own salvation and that of their family and friends. It is a pity that one of the behaviors that many Christians feel will cause them to lose their salvation is currently unknown. Many probably fear that they might inadvertently engage in the activity and thus having to spend eternity in Hell.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/masturba3.htm

This source also provides a good discussion on differing interpretations of malakos and arsenokoites. My point is that the words themselves are vague and open to interpretation, not "clear" or concise in any way, shape, or form. Pretty par for the course whenever Paul uses words outside of their original context and makes up new words altogether. I mean, he barely knew Greek and most of his grammar is stumbling and imprecise.

Or, to summarize my point: Paul knew exactly what he was talking about, but we don't really have any idea whatsoever. Whatever he meant has been appropriated by just about everyone to mean whatever vague sexual indiscretion they feel like lampooning at the moment -- whether temple prostitution, masturbation, and being wishy-washy -- or as John would say, "lukewarm" (Rev. 3:16). The current vogue is to lombast homosexuality because a number of Christians happen to like boys/girls/both.

If you wish to interpret arsenokoites as "a man engaging in homosexual relations in a loving, closed relationship," I could interpret it just as easily as "a man who is at any time in a bed doing anything, including sleeping." It just does not fit like some people want to force it to be.

Romans 1:26-28

I'm gonna go old school on this one, and quote Karashebi from 2004 (or earlier), who had an excellent response to this particular scripture:

Karashebi

Romans 1:18-32 is the key to the argument. However, there are a series of problems with the classic interpretation of the passage.

One, we rarely take verses 26-27 in context with the rest of the passage. The lusts spoken of are the result of godlessness and the refusal of the gospel of God. The godless ones are described as being given over to their passions. This loss of control is key and important to the Greeks and Romans Paul is writing to, and was considered a very bad thing. It is important to realize that the passage is not centered on homosexual relations, no matter how you interpret it.

Two, the relationships are referred to as being unnatural. The term pushin is the Greek word for natural and refers, in general, to that which is according either to socially accepted morals or to one's innate nature. The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexual relationships to be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural to the Romans would specifically have been something where a citizen was "on bottom." Such a position degrades the citizen's status and was considered to be a horrible thing.

Three, the shameful lusts that are spoken of are not specifically described. Unlike Leviticus, where they are listed, the passage assumes that its audience knows what is being spoken of. While Paul is a born and trained Jew, familiar with the ceremonial law, he is preaching to newly converted Christians in Rome and Greece. These people, though somewhat familiar with Jewish beliefs, could not have been considered familiar enough to assume that "shameful lusts" meant what is said in Leviticus. Paul is not a man to leave explanations unclear. When necessary, he goes into great detail and repetition to make his point absolutely clear and understood. Therefore, by context it seems he is speaking to the Roman's understanding of shameful, the subjugation of a citizen for example. Further, pathos (lusts) does not necessitate a sexual connotation.

Four, the fact that we have women doing things with women instead of men and that we have men doing things with men instead of women is clear from what Paul says in verses However, Paul does not at any point say what is being done. He lacks the clarity of Leviticus. Any number of things could be occurring, and without a clear indication that the text is specifically speaking of homosexual sex acts on any level we are familiar with today we cannot claim that Romans 1 clearly declares that the ceremonial law still applies in this case.

My arguments are quite basic. This is only an overview of them. I have far more detailed descriptions of the issues involved and will happily offer them. This argument is also not new. You can find websites offering similar interpretations themselves. I came to these conclusions, however, through prayer and consideration with friends, not a website. These positions, also, are hardly universally accepted. There is strong evidence in both directions with regards Romans 1. Some churches still make the claim that parts of the ceremonial law remain intact. There are strong arguments for and against this

My single greatest point is this: Can you honestly declare something a sin when you cannot clearly show without serious contention that the Bible declares it to be a sin? When we look at the Ten Commandments, we know basically what they say and don't argue over them. Christ further explains them during his life, giving us more information about what they mean. We know these things to be sins, and there is little debate. Homosexual sex is found in the ceremonial laws and what few verses speak of it outside of that set of laws are hotly contested. How can we clearly state, based upon these facts, that homosexuality is indeed a sin?

Conclusion

The only conclusion that can be made is that the Bible does not speak against the practice of consensual homosexuality as we know it today. This is not to say that individual traditions can't make decisions about what their practicants should or shouldn't be doing -- however, the Bible is not an ironclad reference on this matter due to the reasons listed above. The Bible may very well be considered the very Word of God by any particular tradition, but to over-interpret it to the point of adding to what the Bible actually says is both dishonest and possibly blasphemous.

This is part of a long line of interpreting the Bible -- and particularly 1 Corinthians 6 -- in any way one sees fit to attack any given moral problem of their day. This is just downright dishonest, and although I can respect what their tradition asks of its members, I cannot in good conscience see this as any kind of a good justification for public policy decisions. We must stand up and acknowledge that members of our society have rights to participate in a communally-recognize institution which has been dominated by Judeo-Christian interpretations for the better part of two thousand years.

Just be honest about it. You may disagree with it, but don't lie about what the Bible says, because it might not say what you think it is. I hope and pray that we all take the study of our own and others' religions, worldviews, and philosophies with a grain of humility and deference, and that we acknowledge that from time to time we are, in fact, incorrect, and that the more bits of truth and reconciliation we gain, the greater this world will be.

Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 1:33 pm

Apacelull

When was love a sin?

indeed so. was it not in the bible "loive thy neighboor"? i mean, im not very religous at all. there are a few threads in the forums that i have posted that prove this. but the supposed "god" is contradicting himself when he says homosexuality is a sin. like you have said. since when was love a sin? i think if a couple wants to be together, regardless of if it is a same sex couple, let them be! they arent doing anything wrong to you. and besides. your supposed to "hate the sin. not the sinner". i, personally, am bisexual, and i do not think it is right that us "gays" dont have any rights as "gays". and why must we be put into a catagory? arent we the same as everyone else? and instead of being called "lovers" or " boyfriend and boyfriend" or "girlfriend and girlfriend", why are we called "partners"?
idk. the world is just so ignorant when it comes to things such as these. stare

GrimeasaurusRex_

3,050 Points

250
200
50

Offline

Someoneiknow

Offline

Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 5:14 pm

setachi93

Apacelull

When was love a sin?

indeed so. was it not in the bible "loive thy neighboor"? i mean, im not very religous at all. there are a few threads in the forums that i have posted that prove this. but the supposed "god" is contradicting himself when he says homosexuality is a sin. like you have said. since when was love a sin? i think if a couple wants to be together, regardless of if it is a same sex couple, let them be! they arent doing anything wrong to you. and besides. your supposed to "hate the sin. not the sinner". i, personally, am bisexual, and i do not think it is right that us "gays" dont have any rights as "gays". and why must we be put into a catagory? arent we the same as everyone else? and instead of being called "lovers" or " boyfriend and boyfriend" or "girlfriend and girlfriend", why are we called "partners"?
idk. the world is just so ignorant when it comes to things such as these. stare

We do let them be. But there are different kinds of love out there. You have to look at it in a different way. We do not hate the person, hence why we are trying to keep them from sin. If we really hated them, then why would we even acknowledge a homosexuals presence? Also, if you believed that the only way for eternal grace and bliss was to save someone, and to save them meant to keep them from certain acts, wouldn't you want to try and keep them from those acts just out of love?

And I hate the "gays have no rights" take. Instead of getting butt hurt and posting on gaia about how you have no rights, write a congressman. Gaia is not going to help you. But really the only rights that you do not have are marriage rights. But to appease those who wanted it, there was legal union, but many of the gay community didn't want that. It wasn't "marriage" in their eyes. Many in the gay community didn't want "rights", they just wanted to rub it in the face of Christians that they changed the tradition format of marriage.

Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:19 pm

I see no issue with homosexuality, and my being a religous Jew does not have to conflict. Love is Love. Homosexuals should have rights.

From the JGG (Jewish Gaians Guild) of which I am am member:
http://www.gaiaonline.com/guilds/viewtopic.php?t=9411075

darkphoenix1247

Quoted from Divash:

Basic Overview-The Torah and Homosexuality
The Torah mentions in Leviticus 18, "You shall not lie with a man in the same manner as with a woman." Stricter interpretations can mean "No man-man sexual acts at all, end of story." More liberal interpretations can mean, "No face-to-face penetrative sex between men; the rest is fair game."

More Detail
The Talmud is full of interpretations of both man-man activity and male solo activity. Some authorities forbid and some permit, but no decision is ever actually reached, which means that interpretation is still valid on all sides of the argument. Strictly speaking, only the face-to-face penetrative act between men is specifically forbidden.

Woman-woman acts, and solo female acts, are not mentioned at all in the Torah or in the rest of the Tanach. The Talmud contains basically one paragraph about woman-woman sexual acts: M'solel (literally, "scratching" ) is considered lewd by some authorities, not by others. It is not considered to be equivalent to sex, and therefore a m'solelet ("woman who 'scratches'" herself or another woman) may marry even a kohein (priest), even the kohein gadol (high priest), because she is still a virgin. Even the Talmud doesn't forbid a single sexual act; those who call it lewd still state that it is permitted.

BEING a homosexual is not the same as HAVING homosexual sex. It's a state of being, not a verb. BEING gay is forbidden nowhere. Not in Torah, not in the rest of Tanach, not in Mishnah, not in Gemara, not in responsa.

If you're disgusted by homosexuality, don't have homosexual sex. Asking or telling about ANY sexual act is very non-tzanuah (immodest) anyway, so let's all keep our personal details to ourselves. If you wouldn't ask a straight couple what they do in the bedroom (or kitchen, or living room, or basement), keep your nose out of what gay people do, too.

Other Info
By the way, Torah also forbids eating non-kosher animals, eating kosher animals that have not been slaughtered in kosher fashion, mixing meat with dairy or even benefiting from such, eating shellfish, eating bottom-feeding fish, eating or even touching reptiles, and eating or possessing any form of leavening, no matter how small, during Passover. It forbids the blending of wool with linen in any way, in any garment, even just by sewing a linen tag into a woolen garment, or even wearing both wool and linen at the same time in different garments.

Oh, and Torah also forbids man and wife from having relations, or even touching one another or passing one another items, while the woman is menstruating, or even during the seven clean days following menstruation, until she has immersed in the mikvah. In fact, there are over 200 commandments and Talmudic laws which relate to exactly how a married (heterosexual) couple are meant to be sexual together. ONE law related to male homosexuals, and NONE related to female homosexuals. It's not that G*D hates heterosexuals or finds them disgusting; he just must feel that they need more restrictions.

Lumanny the Space Jew

Blessed Poster

Offline

Nebulance

Tipsy Reveler

Offline

Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 7:04 pm

The Romans passage is obviously key, for Christians; so let's take a look at what it says:

My Source (click on the 'C' for the concordance and Hebrew/Greek lexicon)

Rom 1:26 God gave them up to vile[1] passions. For even their women exchanged the natural[2] use for what is against nature[3].

Rom 1:27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural[2] use[4] of the woman, burned in their lust[5]for one another, men with men committing what is shameful[6], and receiving in themselves the penalty[7] of their error[8] which was due[9].

1. Greek: atimia
Dishonor:
from a, negative, time, "honor," denotes "dishonor, ignominy, disgrace," in Rom 1:26, "vile passions" (RV), lit., "passions of dishonor," in Rom 9:21, "dishonor," of vessels designed for meaner household purposes (in contrast to time, "honor," as in 2Ti 2:20); in 1Cr 11:14, said of long hair, if worn by men, RV, "dishonor," for AV, "shame," in contrast to doxa, glory, ver. 15; so in 1Cr 15:43, of the "sowing" of the natural body, and in 2Cr 6:8, of the Apostle Paul's ministry. In 2Cr 11:21 he uses it in self-disparagement, AV, "reproach," RV, "disparagement."
See DISPARAGEMENT, REPROACH, SHAME, VILE.

2. Greek: phusikos
Natural, Naturally:
originally signifying "produced by nature, inborn," from phusis, "nature" (see below), cp. Eng., "physical," "physics," etc., denotes
(a) "according to nature," Rom 1:26, 27;
(b) "governed by mere natural instincts," 2Pe 2:12, RV, "(born) mere animals," AV and RV marg., "natural (brute beasts)."

3. Greek: phusis
Kind (Noun):
among its various meaning denotes "the nature, the natural constitution or power of a person or thing," and is translated "kind" in Jam 3:7 (twice), "kind" (of beasts etc.), and "(man)kind," lit., "human kind."
See NATURE, NATURAL.

4. Greek: chresis
Use (Noun), Useful:
"use" (akin to chraomai, "to use"),

5. Greek: orexis
Lust (Noun and Verb):
lit., "a reaching" or "stretching after" (akin to oregomai, "to stretch oneself out, reach after"), a general term for every kind of desire, is used in Rom 1:27, "lust."

6. Greek: aschemosune
Shame (Noun, and Verb):
denotes
(a) "unseemliness;"
(b) "shame, nakedness"

7. Greek: antimisthia
Recompence, Recompense:
"a reward, requital" (anti, "in return," misthos, "wages, hire"), is used

8. Greek: plane
Delude, Delusion:
lit., "a wandering," whereby those who are led astray roam hither and thither, is always used in the NT, of mental straying, wrong opinion, error in morals or religion. In 2Th 2:11, AV, it is translated "delusion," RV, "error."
See DECEIT, ERROR.

9. Greek: dei
Behove:
"it is necessary," is rendered "behoved," in Luk 24:46; RV, (that the Christ) "should" (suffer). Dei expresses a logical necessity, opheilo, a moral obligation; cp. chre, Jam 3:10, "ought," which expresses a need resulting from the fitness of things (Trench, cvii).
See MEET, MUST, NEED, OUGHT.

Twist it however you like; saying that this passage doesn't dissaprove of homosexuality doesn't pass the giggle test for me. 'God gave them up to homosexual passions and actions, which are vile, unnatural, shameful, deluded, lustful, and for which consequences are fitting.' Just rearranging the words and adding in our modern-day term for M/M or F/F-- now, you want to argue that this passage is all for homosexuality?

EDIT: Added definition of antimisthia.

Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 7:43 pm

Nebulance

The Romans passage is obviously key, for Christians; so let's take a look at what it says:

My Source (click on the 'C' for the concordance and Hebrew/Greek lexicon)

Rom 1:26 God gave them up to vile[1] passions. For even their women exchanged the natural[2] use for what is against nature[3].

Rom 1:27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural[2] use[4] of the woman, burned in their lust[5]for one another, men with men committing what is shameful[6], and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error[7] which was due[8].

1. Greek: atimia
Dishonor:
from a, negative, time, "honor," denotes "dishonor, ignominy, disgrace," in Rom 1:26, "vile passions" (RV), lit., "passions of dishonor," in Rom 9:21, "dishonor," of vessels designed for meaner household purposes (in contrast to time, "honor," as in 2Ti 2:20); in 1Cr 11:14, said of long hair, if worn by men, RV, "dishonor," for AV, "shame," in contrast to doxa, glory, ver. 15; so in 1Cr 15:43, of the "sowing" of the natural body, and in 2Cr 6:8, of the Apostle Paul's ministry. In 2Cr 11:21 he uses it in self-disparagement, AV, "reproach," RV, "disparagement."
See DISPARAGEMENT, REPROACH, SHAME, VILE.

2. Greek: phusikos
Natural, Naturally:
originally signifying "produced by nature, inborn," from phusis, "nature" (see below), cp. Eng., "physical," "physics," etc., denotes
(a) "according to nature," Rom 1:26, 27;
(b) "governed by mere natural instincts," 2Pe 2:12, RV, "(born) mere animals," AV and RV marg., "natural (brute beasts)."

3. Greek: phusis
Kind (Noun):
among its various meaning denotes "the nature, the natural constitution or power of a person or thing," and is translated "kind" in Jam 3:7 (twice), "kind" (of beasts etc.), and "(man)kind," lit., "human kind."
See NATURE, NATURAL.

4. Greek: chresis
Use (Noun), Useful:
"use" (akin to chraomai, "to use"),

5. Greek: orexis
Lust (Noun and Verb):
lit., "a reaching" or "stretching after" (akin to oregomai, "to stretch oneself out, reach after"), a general term for every kind of desire, is used in Rom 1:27, "lust."

6. Greek: aschemosune
Shame (Noun, and Verb):
denotes
(a) "unseemliness;"
(b) "shame, nakedness"

7. Greek: plane
Delude, Delusion:
lit., "a wandering," whereby those who are led astray roam hither and thither, is always used in the NT, of mental straying, wrong opinion, error in morals or religion. In 2Th 2:11, AV, it is translated "delusion," RV, "error."
See DECEIT, ERROR.

8. Greek: dei
Behove:
"it is necessary," is rendered "behoved," in Luk 24:46; RV, (that the Christ) "should" (suffer). Dei expresses a logical necessity, opheilo, a moral obligation; cp. chre, Jam 3:10, "ought," which expresses a need resulting from the fitness of things (Trench, cvii).
See MEET, MUST, NEED, OUGHT.

Twist it however you like; saying that this passage doesn't dissaprove of homosexuality doesn't pass the giggle test for me. 'God gave them up to homosexual passions and actions, which are vile, unnatural, shameful, deluded, lustful.' Just rearranging the words and adding in our modern-day term for M/M or F/F-- now, you want to argue that this passage is all for homosexuality?

How are you tying all of that in together?

If we take Phusikos for example it's defined as this:

1. produced by nature, inborn
2. agreeable to nature
3. governed by (the instincts of) nature

Since homosexual relationships and/or acts are observed in multiple species throughout the natural world then it's only logical to conclude that homosexuality (some sort of attraction or "animal relationship" with the same sex) is what is natural for them.

The message from these verses really have nothing at all to do with homosexuality which is clear from the proceeding verses:

Romans 1:21-23 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

They were unrighteous and God left them to their unrighteousness, they knew God but did not honor him or give him thanks and they replaced God with images that resemble mortal man, birds...etc.

Romans 1:28-31 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

This is another set of verses that is contingent upon the ones proceeding it. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God Well, a lot of Gay people do love and acknowledge God so something just isn't adding up here.

Semiremis
Captain

Offline

Nebulance

Tipsy Reveler

Offline

Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 7:53 pm

Semiremis

Nebulance

The Romans passage is obviously key, for Christians; so let's take a look at what it says:

My Source (click on the 'C' for the concordance and Hebrew/Greek lexicon)

Rom 1:26 God gave them up to vile[1] passions. For even their women exchanged the natural[2] use for what is against nature[3].

Rom 1:27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural[2] use[4] of the woman, burned in their lust[5]for one another, men with men committing what is shameful[6], and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error[7] which was due[8].

1. Greek: atimia
Dishonor:
from a, negative, time, "honor," denotes "dishonor, ignominy, disgrace," in Rom 1:26, "vile passions" (RV), lit., "passions of dishonor," in Rom 9:21, "dishonor," of vessels designed for meaner household purposes (in contrast to time, "honor," as in 2Ti 2:20); in 1Cr 11:14, said of long hair, if worn by men, RV, "dishonor," for AV, "shame," in contrast to doxa, glory, ver. 15; so in 1Cr 15:43, of the "sowing" of the natural body, and in 2Cr 6:8, of the Apostle Paul's ministry. In 2Cr 11:21 he uses it in self-disparagement, AV, "reproach," RV, "disparagement."
See DISPARAGEMENT, REPROACH, SHAME, VILE.

2. Greek: phusikos
Natural, Naturally:
originally signifying "produced by nature, inborn," from phusis, "nature" (see below), cp. Eng., "physical," "physics," etc., denotes
(a) "according to nature," Rom 1:26, 27;
(b) "governed by mere natural instincts," 2Pe 2:12, RV, "(born) mere animals," AV and RV marg., "natural (brute beasts)."

3. Greek: phusis
Kind (Noun):
among its various meaning denotes "the nature, the natural constitution or power of a person or thing," and is translated "kind" in Jam 3:7 (twice), "kind" (of beasts etc.), and "(man)kind," lit., "human kind."
See NATURE, NATURAL.

4. Greek: chresis
Use (Noun), Useful:
"use" (akin to chraomai, "to use"),

5. Greek: orexis
Lust (Noun and Verb):
lit., "a reaching" or "stretching after" (akin to oregomai, "to stretch oneself out, reach after"), a general term for every kind of desire, is used in Rom 1:27, "lust."

6. Greek: aschemosune
Shame (Noun, and Verb):
denotes
(a) "unseemliness;"
(b) "shame, nakedness"

7. Greek: plane
Delude, Delusion:
lit., "a wandering," whereby those who are led astray roam hither and thither, is always used in the NT, of mental straying, wrong opinion, error in morals or religion. In 2Th 2:11, AV, it is translated "delusion," RV, "error."
See DECEIT, ERROR.

8. Greek: dei
Behove:
"it is necessary," is rendered "behoved," in Luk 24:46; RV, (that the Christ) "should" (suffer). Dei expresses a logical necessity, opheilo, a moral obligation; cp. chre, Jam 3:10, "ought," which expresses a need resulting from the fitness of things (Trench, cvii).
See MEET, MUST, NEED, OUGHT.

Twist it however you like; saying that this passage doesn't dissaprove of homosexuality doesn't pass the giggle test for me. 'God gave them up to homosexual passions and actions, which are vile, unnatural, shameful, deluded, lustful.' Just rearranging the words and adding in our modern-day term for M/M or F/F-- now, you want to argue that this passage is all for homosexuality?

How are you tying all of that in together?

If we take Phusikos for example it's defined as this:

1. produced by nature, inborn
2. agreeable to nature
3. governed by (the instincts of) nature

Since homosexual relationships and/or acts are observed in multiple species throughout the natural world then it's only logical to conclude that homosexuality (some sort of attraction or "animal relationship" with the same sex) is what is natural for them.

The message from these verses really have nothing at all to do with homosexuality which is clear from the proceeding verses:

Romans 1:21-23 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

They were unrighteous and God left them to their unrighteousness, they knew God but did not honor him or give him thanks and they replaced God with images that resemble mortal man, birds...etc.

Romans 1:28-31 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

This is another set of verses that is contingent upon the ones proceeding it. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God Well, a lot of Gay people do love and acknowledge God so something just isn't adding up here.

Because, obviously, when it says, "men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful," it means idol-worship. stare

Yes, the context does help. BECAUSE they worshiped idols, God GAVE THEM UP to vile passions (the two are not one and the same). The first 'vile passion' that Paul details is homosexuality.

Is this really so hard to understand? If you don't like it, fine, but pretending it says something else is just silly.

EDIT: And how am I 'tying it all in together?' Um, I'm talking about a passage two verses long-- why would I need to tie its contents 'together?' Those actually already are together, in the Bible.

I must be misunderstanding what your challenge is here.

Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 9:12 pm

Mei tsuki7

Bouidicca

Mei tsuki7

Voldemort point two

Bouidicca

It is NOT a sin, but there will always be those that take portions of the Bible and use their interpretations of the passages as "facts" to continue pushing the idea that it is a sin.

I know. It is easy to misinterpret "do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." There are millions of different interpretations of Leviticus 18:22, this can't be the right one. [/sarcasm]

Well you can't lie with a man as you can with a woman. A man doesn't have a v****a.

Sure you can. A woman has an a**s, too.

But a women doesn't have a d**k. Having sex with a man and having sex with a woman are completely different things.

How about lesbians that use strap-ons? Does that count? It isn't any different. Sex is an act between two people who love each other.

How about homosexuality in nature? It has been documented with primates being the easiest to study. Do they have the ability to choose? Is it thought of amongst them that it's a sin? If so, than you'd have to concede that their intelligence matches man's.

Boudica Celtic Queen

8,400 Points

100
100
100

Offline

Shmearwhiz

Offline

Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 9:21 pm

The Bible rejects a LOT of things. If you reject one thing in the name of the Bible, you better had reject them all. If it's so wrong, why hasn't something terrible befallen the gay community (not counting the people who aggravate them.)

Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 9:29 pm

Shmearwhiz

The Bible rejects a LOT of things. If you reject one thing in the name of the Bible, you better had reject them all. If it's so wrong, why hasn't something terrible befallen the gay community (not counting the people who aggravate them.)

I do reject all things that the Bible (where it applies to me under the New Covenant outlined by Jesus) tells me to reject. And not all wrongdoing is made right in this life, but it is in the next.

Nebulance

Tipsy Reveler

Offline

Someoneiknow

Offline

Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:07 pm

Bouidicca

Mei tsuki7

Bouidicca

Mei tsuki7

Voldemort point two

Bouidicca

It is NOT a sin, but there will always be those that take portions of the Bible and use their interpretations of the passages as "facts" to continue pushing the idea that it is a sin.

I know. It is easy to misinterpret "do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." There are millions of different interpretations of Leviticus 18:22, this can't be the right one. [/sarcasm]

Well you can't lie with a man as you can with a woman. A man doesn't have a v****a.

Sure you can. A woman has an a**s, too.

But a women doesn't have a d**k. Having sex with a man and having sex with a woman are completely different things.

How about lesbians that use strap-ons? Does that count? It isn't any different. Sex is an act between two people who love each other.

How about homosexuality in nature? It has been documented with primates being the easiest to study. Do they have the ability to choose? Is it thought of amongst them that it's a sin? If so, than you'd have to concede that their intelligence matches man's.

so instead of rising above the animal kingdom we would rather just fling poo at each other and eat the gnats off of each others backs also?

Also, my dog humps everything he sees, it's not about them loving each other or not, it's about the male getting horny and screwing the first hole he sees. Sex =/= love.

Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:09 pm

Shmearwhiz

The Bible rejects a LOT of things. If you reject one thing in the name of the Bible, you better had reject them all. If it's so wrong, why hasn't something terrible befallen the gay community (not counting the people who aggravate them.)

Not every sin comes with a curse from God. Otherwise, we would not have our agency to choose. We would immediately see the consequences of our actions, rather than over time.

Someoneiknow

Offline

In Medias Res IV

Offline

Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:13 pm

G-d wanted me to be gay, He created me as such, and as such I shall live just as He wanted me to.

Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:18 pm

Someoneiknow

Bouidicca

Mei tsuki7

Bouidicca

Mei tsuki7

Well you can't lie with a man as you can with a woman. A man doesn't have a v****a.

Sure you can. A woman has an a**s, too.

But a women doesn't have a d**k. Having sex with a man and having sex with a woman are completely different things.

How about lesbians that use strap-ons? Does that count? It isn't any different. Sex is an act between two people who love each other.

How about homosexuality in nature? It has been documented with primates being the easiest to study. Do they have the ability to choose? Is it thought of amongst them that it's a sin? If so, than you'd have to concede that their intelligence matches man's.

so instead of rising above the animal kingdom we would rather just fling poo at each other and eat the gnats off of each others backs also?

Also, my dog humps everything he sees, it's not about them loving each other or not, it's about the male getting horny and screwing the first hole he sees. Sex =/= love.

We are no better than the rest of the animal kingdom. That is pompous. The point you're missing is homosexuality is a natural part of nature. So do you feel that all sex =/= love? Why is it so difficult to accept to men or two women loving each other? Or that they can have sex in a loving way with each other? You could say lust is involved in many heterosexual relationships if that is your view. Assuming that the male (animal or human) will just screw anything hole he sees because he's horny has no basis in fact. You might as well say animals are choosing to sin, thus acknowledging intelligence in line with ours.

Boudica Celtic Queen

8,400 Points

100
100
100

Offline

quietstorm 2

Clean Member

Offline

Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:40 pm

rmcdra

Boxy

Homosexuality Is Not Prohibited by the Christian Bible

This is a thesis I have to thank my old debating buddy, Ananel. To him I dedicate this infodump in memory of his former thesis, as well as to commemorate his service to M&R and the religious studies community at large. To him I say vale and wish him the best in whatever travails may befall him in his journeys through life, the universe, and everything. I hope that this thesis, though paltry it may be, meets his approval and the approval of the peer review process here in M&R.

I had stood firmly on the side against this very argument, but I came to the realization that the Bible just doesn't say anything about a practice that either (A) didn't exist back then, or (B) didn't attract Paul's criticism. People sometimes force interpretations on the Bible when it was never meant to mean that in the first place. To do so is dishonest at best and even blasphemous at worst. As the Bible admonishes, it's wrong to add to scripture.

Thus, the only conclusion that I have is that prohibitions against homosexuality depend on the tradition you partake in. As a Mormon, I recognize that my tradition doesn't view homosexuality very positively and asks people who attracted to the same gender to remain celibate and/or marry the opposite gender regardless. In the future, the Church may change its stance, but meh. It is my opinion that there are far worse problems in our society than who is sleeping with whom, so therefore I will focus my efforts on clarifying truth, giving meaningful service, and calling out people who are being dishonest and disseminating clearly incorrect information.

It is important to understand the basis of this argument, because people can and do make public policy decisions based off what they perceive as theological truth that is unforgiving. And, quite frankly, that is a position that is just not true. Personally, as a Mormon, I'm not going to tell people what they can and can't do in their own bedrooms, unless I happen to be a legal and ecclesiastical representative of the Church, which I'm not right now. And even if I did, the only purview I could have would be over people in my own faith and in my own congregation. Until that time, I will show an increase in love towards my friends who happen to have fallen in love (and truly love it is) and formed a strong bond that serves as the bedrock for a family.

Leviticus 18:22, 20:13

These can arguably refer to temple prostitution or other pagan fertility rituals, as a good deal of the Torah tends to. Doing so makes you unfit for Hebrew rituals. That is what is meant by "ritual uncleanness," which a Christian shouldn't care about.

Though the scripture does not reference a particular ritual it is forbidding, the culture context is more important to consider. Canaanite fertility cults abounded around the Hebrews, and such practices as boiling a goat in its mother's milk were primarily a response to Canaanite practices. I mean, come on -- some of these mitzvot just don't make sense all by themselves. However, it does make sense in the cultural context the Israelites were surrounded with.

"After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. ... (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled [i.e. made common] ) ... Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the Lord your God." (Leviticus 18:3,27,30)

Clearly, these were all practices that the people before had done. As such, to distinguish the practice of worshiping YHWH from that of the Canaanite deities, he gives them prohibitions and actions that would make them "peculiar" (unique).

Chapter 20 of Leviticus also deals with various social and cultural practices which by banning would make the Israelites a completely distinct culture:

"And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people. ... A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:6,27)

Again, this deals with distinguishing the Israelites from the Canaanites, rather than from the fundamental immorality of the thing. Their practices were foreign, and the Israelites had already dilluted their culture by staying in Egypt for too long. Was it possible for Israel to come up with its own culture? Yes, but it had to extinguish the Canaanite practices. This was all about nationalism and the need to establish a new society, not from the underlying problems with talking with supernatural entities and/or engaging in sexual relations with a person you love and cherish.

In any case, the concepts of ritual cleanliness are abolished completely by the New Testament. "And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." (Acts 10:28 ) Thus, concepts of being unclean by virtue of disobeying specifics in Leviticus should be disregarded, since the concept of "cleanliness" is moot in Christianity.

The only thing that is important in Christianity is to have faith and to love one another. Peter again admonishes the early Church to not require the Gentiles to follow the Mosaic Law:

" 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." (Acts 15:8-11)

Faith makes a person pure, and the witness of the Holy Ghost tells a person that their sins are forgiven. It is not a checklist of to-dos and not-to-dos -- which about half of the New Testament goes into agonizing details.

However, there are some things that are required of Christians:

" 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication [temple prostitution], and from things strangled, and from blood." (same chapter, vs. 18-20)

All of these elements have some sort of connection to pagan rites, whether through eating something offered to an idol or engaging in the celebration of a deity other than YHWH. As such, these are subject to smititude.

Over and over the writers of the New Testament preach against Christians having to obey the "law of the circumcision," which incorporates all the ritual requirements of the Mosaic Law, including the prohibitions against wearing garments of more than one material, of having sex with a woman on her period (i.e. in the "time of her uncleanness" ) and having to celebrate the Feasts of Passover, Tabernacles, and so forth (which were absolutely required by practicing Jews).

So, in summary: the New Testament is rife with statements that you don't have to obey the Mosaic Law. In fact, Paul goes one more and states that any and all commandments have to be relatable somehow to the one commandment: love thy neighbor as thyself (Romans 13:10, Galatians 5:13-14). In order to maintain that God is against homosexuality, you have to prove definitively that it fundamentally goes against the notion of loving your neighbor as yourself. Under consensual homosexuality, I find this prospect incredulous at best.

1 Corinthians 6:9

There's a number of problems with this scripture in 1 Corinthians. The best way to describe this is to refer back to the original Greek just to show how poorly understood this scripture really is.

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakos], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Malakos means "catamite," which is a specific title of the submissive role in pedastery (which is nowadays considered *****). There's a problem of power disparity, as these young boys were often "submitting" to their professional mentors and masters so as to "learn the ways of the trade" of sex. This relationship had nothing at all to do with love (or even lust), and had more to do with learning sexual techniques and/or to gratify one's master.

Arsenokoites was a word of uncertain meaning, as the author was apparently coining the word as he wrote. It is a splicing-together of two words, arsenos meaning "man," and koites meaning "bed." It could mean two men in a bed, it could mean male prostitution (i.e. a woman inviting a man other than her husband into her bed), or it could mean a man alone in a bed engaging in sexual relations with himself. At various times, it has been translated as a temple prostitute, masturbator, those who are "morally soft" (i.e. wishy-washy), and even more curiously as "abuser of themselves with mankind" (which while adding content to the meaning, it does leave it accurately vague).

Here's a good source that goes into some detail:

ReligiousTolerance.org

I Corinthians 6:9 -- Sins that Paul believes will send you to Hell:

The author, Paul, listed a group of sinful activities. He believed that practicing any one of them would prevent a person from inheriting the Kingdom of God. They would be sent to Hell when they died. This verse has been translated in many ways among the 25 English versions of the Bible that we have analyzed.

One of the condemned behaviors is "malakoi arsenokoitai" in the original Greek. Malakoi means soft. It was translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. The actual meaning of arsenokoitai has been lost. Some sources in the early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. exhibiting unethical behavior. That may well be the correct meaning, because presumably people from that era would probably have still known the meaning of the word "arsenokoitai." Others in the early Church thought that it meant "temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was in universal use. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior, whereas many Christians were concentrating on homosexuality as a despised activity. New Biblical translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967. 1

Each Bible translating team seems to take whatever activity that their group particularly disapproves of and inserts it into this verse. To compound their error, they usually do not have the decency to indicate by a footnote that the actual meaning of the word is unknown, and that they are merely guessing its meaning.

Conservative Christians tend to be very concerned about their own salvation and that of their family and friends. It is a pity that one of the behaviors that many Christians feel will cause them to lose their salvation is currently unknown. Many probably fear that they might inadvertently engage in the activity and thus having to spend eternity in Hell.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/masturba3.htm

This source also provides a good discussion on differing interpretations of malakos and arsenokoites. My point is that the words themselves are vague and open to interpretation, not "clear" or concise in any way, shape, or form. Pretty par for the course whenever Paul uses words outside of their original context and makes up new words altogether. I mean, he barely knew Greek and most of his grammar is stumbling and imprecise.

Or, to summarize my point: Paul knew exactly what he was talking about, but we don't really have any idea whatsoever. Whatever he meant has been appropriated by just about everyone to mean whatever vague sexual indiscretion they feel like lampooning at the moment -- whether temple prostitution, masturbation, and being wishy-washy -- or as John would say, "lukewarm" (Rev. 3:16). The current vogue is to lombast homosexuality because a number of Christians happen to like boys/girls/both.

If you wish to interpret arsenokoites as "a man engaging in homosexual relations in a loving, closed relationship," I could interpret it just as easily as "a man who is at any time in a bed doing anything, including sleeping." It just does not fit like some people want to force it to be.

Romans 1:26-28

I'm gonna go old school on this one, and quote Karashebi from 2004 (or earlier), who had an excellent response to this particular scripture:

Karashebi

Romans 1:18-32 is the key to the argument. However, there are a series of problems with the classic interpretation of the passage.

One, we rarely take verses 26-27 in context with the rest of the passage. The lusts spoken of are the result of godlessness and the refusal of the gospel of God. The godless ones are described as being given over to their passions. This loss of control is key and important to the Greeks and Romans Paul is writing to, and was considered a very bad thing. It is important to realize that the passage is not centered on homosexual relations, no matter how you interpret it.

Two, the relationships are referred to as being unnatural. The term pushin is the Greek word for natural and refers, in general, to that which is according either to socially accepted morals or to one's innate nature. The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexual relationships to be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural to the Romans would specifically have been something where a citizen was "on bottom." Such a position degrades the citizen's status and was considered to be a horrible thing.

Three, the shameful lusts that are spoken of are not specifically described. Unlike Leviticus, where they are listed, the passage assumes that its audience knows what is being spoken of. While Paul is a born and trained Jew, familiar with the ceremonial law, he is preaching to newly converted Christians in Rome and Greece. These people, though somewhat familiar with Jewish beliefs, could not have been considered familiar enough to assume that "shameful lusts" meant what is said in Leviticus. Paul is not a man to leave explanations unclear. When necessary, he goes into great detail and repetition to make his point absolutely clear and understood. Therefore, by context it seems he is speaking to the Roman's understanding of shameful, the subjugation of a citizen for example. Further, pathos (lusts) does not necessitate a sexual connotation.

Four, the fact that we have women doing things with women instead of men and that we have men doing things with men instead of women is clear from what Paul says in verses However, Paul does not at any point say what is being done. He lacks the clarity of Leviticus. Any number of things could be occurring, and without a clear indication that the text is specifically speaking of homosexual sex acts on any level we are familiar with today we cannot claim that Romans 1 clearly declares that the ceremonial law still applies in this case.

My arguments are quite basic. This is only an overview of them. I have far more detailed descriptions of the issues involved and will happily offer them. This argument is also not new. You can find websites offering similar interpretations themselves. I came to these conclusions, however, through prayer and consideration with friends, not a website. These positions, also, are hardly universally accepted. There is strong evidence in both directions with regards Romans 1. Some churches still make the claim that parts of the ceremonial law remain intact. There are strong arguments for and against this

My single greatest point is this: Can you honestly declare something a sin when you cannot clearly show without serious contention that the Bible declares it to be a sin? When we look at the Ten Commandments, we know basically what they say and don't argue over them. Christ further explains them during his life, giving us more information about what they mean. We know these things to be sins, and there is little debate. Homosexual sex is found in the ceremonial laws and what few verses speak of it outside of that set of laws are hotly contested. How can we clearly state, based upon these facts, that homosexuality is indeed a sin?

Conclusion

The only conclusion that can be made is that the Bible does not speak against the practice of consensual homosexuality as we know it today. This is not to say that individual traditions can't make decisions about what their practicants should or shouldn't be doing -- however, the Bible is not an ironclad reference on this matter due to the reasons listed above. The Bible may very well be considered the very Word of God by any particular tradition, but to over-interpret it to the point of adding to what the Bible actually says is both dishonest and possibly blasphemous.

This is part of a long line of interpreting the Bible -- and particularly 1 Corinthians 6 -- in any way one sees fit to attack any given moral problem of their day. This is just downright dishonest, and although I can respect what their tradition asks of its members, I cannot in good conscience see this as any kind of a good justification for public policy decisions. We must stand up and acknowledge that members of our society have rights to participate in a communally-recognize institution which has been dominated by Judeo-Christian interpretations for the better part of two thousand years.

Just be honest about it. You may disagree with it, but don't lie about what the Bible says, because it might not say what you think it is. I hope and pray that we all take the study of our own and others' religions, worldviews, and philosophies with a grain of humility and deference, and that we acknowledge that from time to time we are, in fact, incorrect, and that the more bits of truth and reconciliation we gain, the greater this world will be.

After reading the above I'm somewhat confused about the thing that took place in Sodom and Gomorrah, and how GOD could turn against something he approves of? That would make him a liar would'nt it? Since he is GOD it was not necessary to make them male and female, he had a choice, didn't he? The design was for a purpose and I was under the impression that our purpose on this earth as his creation was to please GOD. Those without his spirit possibly can not understand that, and that is understandable. It's hard to express what we don't possess. And you are absolutely correct; "(that we should acknowledge that from time to time we are, in fact, incorrect). I say we should pray for knowledge and not lean unto our own understanding; thats why the world is in such bad shape now. Keep up the hard work and research. May GOD bless and keep you.

Welcome to Gaia! ::

Gaia Guilds

Debate/Discuss Religion

Quick Reply

More Information