Being Gay and Christian...is this possible?

[Searching_for_Christ]

The last thing that N.T. Wright is, is Ultra conservative. People at the time of Jesus knew exactly what homosexuality was, it wasn't some foreign thing undiscovered till the 19th century like Jace claims. Thats essentially the claim I made already..so I gave a link to a well respected New Testament scholar.

 

[ghendricks63]

The last thing that N.T. Wright is, is Ultra conservative. People at the time of Jesus knew exactly what homosexuality was, it wasn't some foreign thing undiscovered till the 19th century like Jace claims. Thats essentially the claim I made already..so I gave a link to a well respected New Testament scholar.

His bias has been well documented and therefor casts significant doubt on his ability to be objective in his research.

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

His bias has been well documented and therefor casts significant doubt on his ability to be objective in his research.

everyone has a bias. Why else do you think that liberal Scholars come out with liberal interpretations? while conservative scholars come out with conservative interpretations? give me a break.

 

[ghendricks63]

everyone has a bias. Why else do you think that liberal Scholars come out with liberal interpretations? while conservative scholars come out with conservative interpretations? give me a break.

Sure...nobody makes an effort to be objective...LOL

Whatever makes you feel better man.

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

Sure...nobody makes an effort to be objective...LOL

Whatever makes you feel better man.

if having an opinion on something immediatly disqaulifies a well respected scholar of the New Testament, then me and you have no business discussing this either, because we are both biased.

 

[lux et lex]

You mean "well respected".

 

[No Swansong]

His bias has been well documented and therefor casts significant doubt on his ability to be objective in his research.

It's a fallacy to claim that having a bias casts doubt on any particular individual's ability to be objective.

Is it possible that he's not objective? Sure it's possible. Just as it's possible that Elaine Pagels is not objective or that Richard Dawkins is not objective or that Stephen Hawking is not objective. It is not lacking a bias (which is basically a presumption) that determines objectivity but the ability to recognize that bias and to examine evidence understanding that the bias may cloud understanding. For what it is worth he is a well respected scholar and even his detractors admit that he does not ignore or disregard dissenting opinion.

 

[Jase]

The last thing that N.T. Wright is, is Ultra conservative. People at the time of Jesus knew exactly what homosexuality was, it wasn't some foreign thing undiscovered till the 19th century like Jace claims. Thats essentially the claim I made already..so I gave a link to a well respected New Testament scholar.

No, they knew what same-sex prostitution and pederasty were. They did not know what Sexual Orientation was, just like they didn't know the Earth revolved around the Sun. Most of the men who participated in same-sex behavior in Greco-Roman society, also had wives, children, and mistresses. They were not what we would call "gay".

Sparta was notorious for its "boy love" and same-sex behavior, and yet they were some of the most macho, testosterone driven men in human history. And they all married and had children.

Can you explain if you're right, why Philo, a Jewish contemporary of Paul, and expert on Jewish Law and Midrash wrote in 35 A.D., that Paul was condemning temple prostitutes in Corinthians and Romans, and that it was the same thing Moses referred to in Leviticus?

Is there any reason I should trust your opinion over a Jewish Legal expert who personally saw Paul's usage of those verses?

 

[Jase]

It's a fallacy to claim that having a bias casts doubt on any particular individual's ability to be objective.

Is it possible that he's not objective? Sure it's possible. Just as it's possible that Elaine Pagels is not objective or that Richard Dawkins is not objective or that Stephen Hawking is not objective. It is not lacking a bias (which is basically a presumption) that determines objectivity but the ability to recognize that bias and to examine evidence understanding that the bias may cloud understanding. For what it is worth he is a well respected scholar and even his detractors admit that he does not ignore or disregard dissenting opinion.

NT Wright is very conservative, and he has a bias against gays, particularly in the church.

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

Can you explain if you're right, why Philo, a Jewish contemporary of Paul, and expert on Jewish Law and Midrash wrote in 35 A.D., that Paul was condemning temple prostitutes in Corinthians and Romans, and that it was the same thing Moses referred to in Leviticus?

This doesn't by default make him correct. Link me to where he makes these claims , and I will give it a look, but being around at the time doesn't make him automatically correct. Origen had a hierarchle view on the trinity...does that make him correct?

Is there any reason I should trust your opinion over a Jewish Legal expert who personally saw Paul's usage of those verses?

Meh, and tell me why I should trust your opinion as well *shrugs*

 

[No Swansong]

NT Wright is very conservative, and he has a bias against gays, particularly in the church.

As I wrote previously having a bias does not negate his ability to be objective. Additionally as has already been pointed out he is a well respected scholar even by his detractors. Conservative is not synonymous with wrong.

 

[Jase]

Conservative is not synonymous with wrong.

Historically I might disagree with that. Liberals always seem to be the ones to push progression and truth, since conservatives are stuck on tradition. (Heliocentrism, end to slavery, women's rights, black rights, gay rights) primarily pushed by liberals.

Conservatives usually seem to be on the wrong side of history. Even Jesus himself criticized the conservatives of his day.

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

Historically I might disagree with that. Liberals always seem to be the ones to push progression and truth, since conservatives are stuck on tradition. (Heliocentrism, end to slavery, women's rights, black rights, gay rights) primarily pushed by liberals.

Conservatives usually seem to be on the wrong side of history. Even Jesus himself criticized the conservatives of his day.

yep..I think I'm going to have to stop taking you remotely serious, as I'm sure I just read your attempt to say that conservatives by nature are always wrong...unbelievable.

 

[ghendricks63]

if having an opinion on something immediatly disqaulifies a well respected scholar of the New Testament, then me and you have no business discussing this either, because we are both biased.

There is a big difference between bias and opinion. An opinion is simply one's conclusion after evaluating the facts to the best of their ability. A bias is a predetermined conclusion which preceeds and influences an objective evaluation of the facts.

I can't speak for you...but I believe I have opinions rather than biases. In fact since my opinions used to be ultra conservative untill I truly searched out the facts for myself I know that what I hold are opinions rather than biases.

 

[ghendricks63]

yep..I think I'm going to have to stop taking you remotely serious, as I'm sure I just read your attempt to say that conservatives by nature are always wrong...unbelievable.

While it is true Jase may be generalizing too much, there is certainly grounds for such an argument from history. Perhaps I would say fundamentalist rather than conservative.

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

While it is true Jase may be generalizing too much, there is certainly grounds for such an argument from history. Perhaps I would say fundamentalist rather than conservative.

Both sides of the spectrum have skeletons in the closet......there are no grounds for any generalizations for it. I will probably not speak with him about this anymore..he obviously has an extreme distrust, and ugly opinion of conservatives.

 

[Jase]

While it is true Jase may be generalizing too much, there is certainly grounds for such an argument from history. Perhaps I would say fundamentalist rather than conservative.

Yeah, I agree I was generalizing a bit, sorry I was speaking more so on big progressive issues like civil rights, science etc., I see a historic trend based on affilation. And not all conservatives were against such changes. I don't think conservatives are wrong on every day to day thing.

But the very definition of conservatism seems to lend to that idea, does it not?

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society.

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

Yeah, I agree I was generalizing a bit, sorry .

In that case I forgive you.

But the very definition of conservatism seems to lend to that idea, does it not?

Possibly, but thats politically speaking, and I myself....am a Libertarian however in a theological context, I do not think that "progression" is anything that should be a main focus...not on all things.

 

[Assyrian]

NT Wright seems pretty wise to me, talking about the need for both sides to actually talk to each other.

 

[hedrick]

[I hope this isn't a duplicate. I thought I had posted it, but it didn't how up.]


I'd like to look at Rom 1 again. I've seen, here and elsewhere, a claim that Paul was only speaking of heterosexuals.

First, the passage isn't about homosexuality. It's about idolatry. Hence Paul doesn't speak very explicitly about homosexuality. He just takes it for granted that we see something negative about it. That's one thing that leaves the passage open for multiple interpretations.

Second, it looks to me like he's speaking of the culture as a whole. Because they don't believe in God, pagans are subject to all kind of sinful and abusive behavior. This is one of them (but the one he seems most upset about). From the point of view of pure logic, he could say what he did even if he thought there were a few people who are naturally homosexual.

But since he isn't talking specifically about homosexuality, we have to read between the lines. And when you move from an unnaturally legalistic reading to seeing what the passage says about his assumptions, his statement sure doesn't sound to me someone who thinks homosexuality is OK as long as it involves people who are naturally homosexual. To the contrary, I believe he takes it for granted that natural relations are heterosexual and anything else is contrary to God's design.

For me the real problem is that we're trying to push Paul to speak on issues he didn't speak about. He isn't speaking about homosexuality. He's speaking about paganism. But he does refer to it as an obvious evil. In principle, we don't know what he would say if confronted with Christians who are living an otherwise ordinary Christian life, but with gay sex. It's a situation I'd say he had never thought about.

When the evidence is unclear, it becomes more important than usual to approach the issue objectively, with good judgement. I think the usual interpretation is compromised by the obvious bias of most of the people making it. I would be more sympathetic to someone who says "while Paul isn't speaking directly about homosexuality, his comments are sufficiently negative that we have to assume he thinks it's wrong." However when people treat it as a sin much more serious than ones that are mentioned much more clearly, and deny that there's any ambiguity, I think it's clear that we have influences at work other than sola Scriptura. Now good arguments are accepted even from people who are wrongly motivated. But when it comes down to a matter of judgement, it becomes more relevant whether someone shows signs of good judgement.

Aside from irrational components, it is clear that differences in Scriptural interpretation are a key here. If you think God guarantees every word, with no room for the authors to be writing from the perspective of their culture, you'll follow any verbal hint of an answer. In that case, it's natural that you would say that the Bible condemns homosexuality. If you are willing to make allowance for the cultural context of the discussion, you'll be more open. Of course everyone takes the second point of view on a lot of issues, which is why I find the so-called literal interpretation so hard to take. (Few people get as hot under the collar about women with short hair – 1 Cor 11:12 – as gays.)

I've seen some comments that I'm not clear on my stand. Sorry, I'm trying to look at Paul's position, taking full account of grays. I understand that on this issue people tend to look only at whether someone agrees or disagrees with them, regardless of what they are saying. I don't consider that a good sign. But to be clear: I think one's conclusion about Rom 1 will be controlled by one's Scriptural interpretation. If one believes in context-free interpretation, one will come away saying the God condemns homosexuality. If one doesn't, one will come away seeing room for the Church to make its own judgement. I believe in the long run that this judgement will be based on whether or not gay Christians live lives that are otherwise similar to heterosexual Christians. If it turns out that -- unless you reject the possibility from the outset -- many gays have relationships that show the grace of Christ in the same way that heterosexual couples do, then I think the Church will come to accept it. If it turns out that there are problems with gay relationships such that they are never truly equivalent to heterosexual ones, then I think in the end acceptance of homosexual sex will remain limited to a few Christians. I can't be any clearer than this without violating the rules of CF.