Homosexuality - Here I stand.

[wayseer]

The debate has been raging across the boards for some time now and I have added my oar into the heady mix from time to time. Perhaps I should make my position somewhat clearer.

It worth remember that the debate about 'homosexuality' is more a debate about how one interprets the Bible. Those who stand on their claim that the Bible is literal will never be convinced on anything - they have already made up their minds. For the rest of us who use the Bible in order to shape our lives and to sustain our hope I offer these thoughts.

Point 1. Scientifically, we now know that HIV Aids did not originate within the homosexual community - it originated in the heterosexual community in Africa where its scourge remained masked by the myriad of other miseries that plague that continent. It was only when the virus was 'discovered' in a 'Western' country, the US, that it was even noticed and, unfortunately, it was 'noticed' in the gay community. Immediately, the so-called Church of God blamed homosexuals and levelled their full barrage of hate in that direction. Anyone who raised a different opinion was drowned out. Homosexuals have been living with the fall-out ever since. (Aids and Compassion (1988) edited by Dr. Jim McPherson).

Point 2. Sodom was not destroyed for its homosexuality. Isaiah cites justice as the issue (Isa 1:10, 3:9). For Jeremiah it was adultery, lying and avoiding repentance (Jer 23:14). Ezekiel thought pride, comfort and gluttony where its downfall (Eze 16:14). The Book of Wisdom mentions foolishness (10: 8) and hatred of strangers (19:14) as the reasons. Sirach thinks it was their arrogance (Sir 16:8). Jesus mentions Sodom (Matt 10:15, 11:23-24, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12, 17: 29) but makes no reference as to what caused its downfall. None make mention of homosexuality as the reason. The real problem with Sodom was it idolatry - its belief in itself that it could do whatever it wished. It could slake any desire, provide for any want - that's was its sin - it set itself up as god. (And herein lies a clear message for a self-indulgent West).

Point 3. The only claim in the Bible that homosexuality could have been the reason for Sodom's destruction comes in Jude 7. But Jude was written in about 80 AD and after one Philo of Alexandria (d. cira 50 AD), a Jewsih philosopher and writer living at the time of Paul, had claimed that Sodom's sin was homosexuality. It was Philo, the only Jewish writer from antiquity that made the first claim which, in all probability, influenced later authors like Paul and Jude.

Point 4. Paul certainly mentions homosexuality as a sin but it might be worth looking at the cultural with which the early believers were surrounded.

The Roman world had come into peace under Tiberius after years of civil wars. Pax Romana bought rest and wealth to a land weary of internal fighting. Tiberius was hailed as hero and was proclaimed Augusta - God with us. The Roman Empire now spanned many cultures and one was the Hellenised Greek culture - a culture that worshiped the human body. (The Olympic Games were held nude - well, at least for the athletics). This aesthetic influenced spread to Rome and coupled with the Emperor cult and the general peace and wealth enjoyed by the citizens, together with the practice of Temple prostitution and blood sports, resulted in a culture that was in love with itself - idolatry. This was the sin Paul was concerned with - the worship of the human body as god and the practice of self-indulgence. Paul was concerned to make separate his 'believers' from a population that worshipped 'self'.

Point 5. We come 'loaded' with the beliefs of the past - even the faulty ones. It is hard to throw off what we have been taught. Yet, we need to examine that past and see it for what it is - a sketchy and ambiguous kaleidoscope of images that are biased towards particular agendas. Yet, it seems clear there is no overwhelming prerogative that the Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin. Clearly there is some ambiguity at best. But what the Bible does teach time and time again is the sin of self-indulgence - where such self-indulgence becomes self-worship. That's our error - worshipping ourselves.

I have a prayer, I saw it somewhere and it stuck. 'God, thank you for not making me wealthy that I forget you nor so poor that I have to steal'. The West, and the Church, faces bigger problems than homosexuality - the problem of over indulgence.

 

[2ndRateMind]

An excellent and erudite post.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

 

[archaeologist2]

Point 1. Scientifically, we now know that HIV Aids did not originate within the homosexual community

not hard to refute and the above gives good reason not to trust wikipedia, hereis an alternative, one which is more credible:

http://www.rense.com/general61/outof.htm

Ask your physician where AIDS came from and he or she will probably tell you the epidemic started when monkeys or chimps in the African bush transferred the AIDS virus (HIV) to a person while butchering primate meat for food or through an animal bite. For the first two decades of the epidemic the green monkey theory of AIDS was widely heralded in the major media, and was accepted without question by leading AIDS experts and educators. The theory was so universally popular (except in Africa) that it easily became fact in the minds of most people.

[SIZE=+1]In Montagnier's book, Virus (2000), he states: "The origin of the epidemic remains a mystery, and the virus seems older than the epidemic" and "it is important to distinguish between the origins of the virus and that of the (AIDS) epidemic."[/SIZE]

in fact some historians thnk aids was alive and wellduring the roman empire, have to check on that to see ifthe sources were credible or not.

Point 2. Sodom was not destroyed for its homosexuality

wrong again, and has been addressed already. some people just do not give up even when they are so wrong.

Point 3. The only claim in the Bible that homosexuality could have been the reason for Sodom's destruction comes in Jude 7

wrong again but people still keep trying

Point 4. Paul certainly mentions homosexuality as a sin but it might be worth looking at the cultural with which the early believers were surrounded.

people are getting desperate to legitimize something that GOD Himself said was an abomination and sin. culture doesn't over rule God.

Point 5. We come 'loaded' with the beliefs of the past - even the faulty ones

trying to sow confusion and doubt now and desperately trying to get people to question what they know. it is a weak and poor attempt to be included in the body of Christ and continue to practice that which is sin.

The West, and the Church, faces bigger problems than homosexuality - the problem of over indulgence.

all sin is the church's problem, even homosexuality. repent then you will find the acceptance you desire but as long as people practice homosexuality as a lifetstyle or sexual choice there is NO acceptance in the church of God.

sinners are cast into the lake of fire and their only hope to avoid that judgment is to repent not change what God declared sin.

 

[wayseer]

not hard to refute and the above gives good reason not to trust wikipedia, hereis an alternative, one which is more credible:

Wikipedia is not reliable. Do you own research with reliable scholars.

wrong again, and has been addressed already. some people just do not give up even when they are so wrong.

Anyone who has a different opinion is wrong.

people are getting desperate to legitimize something that GOD Himself said was an abomination and sin.

Read the Bible - you might actually learn something. There is no conclusive evidence within the Bible that states homosexuality is a sin.

 

[Tavita]

The debate has been raging across the boards for some time now and I have added my oar into the heady mix from time to time. Perhaps I should make my position somewhat clearer.

It worth remember that the debate about 'homosexuality' is more a debate about how one interprets the Bible. Those who stand on their claim that the Bible is literal will never be convinced on anything - they have already made up their minds. For the rest of us who use the Bible in order to shape our lives and to sustain our hope I offer these thoughts.

Point 1. Scientifically, we now know that HIV Aids did not originate within the homosexual community - it originated in the heterosexual community in Africa where its scourge remained masked by the myriad of other miseries that plague that continent. It was only when the virus was 'discovered' in a 'Western' country, the US, that it was even noticed and, unfortunately, it was 'noticed' in the gay community. Immediately, the so-called Church of God blamed homosexuals and levelled their full barrage of hate in that direction. Anyone who raised a different opinion was drowned out. Homosexuals have been living with the fall-out ever since. (Aids and Compassion (1988) edited by Dr. Jim McPherson).

Point 2. Sodom was not destroyed for its homosexuality. Isaiah cites justice as the issue (Isa 1:10, 3:9). For Jeremiah it was adultery, lying and avoiding repentance (Jer 23:14). Ezekiel thought pride, comfort and gluttony where its downfall (Eze 16:14). The Book of Wisdom mentions foolishness (10: 8) and hatred of strangers (19:14) as the reasons. Sirach thinks it was their arrogance (Sir 16:8). Jesus mentions Sodom (Matt 10:15, 11:23-24, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12, 17: 29) but makes no reference as to what caused its downfall. None make mention of homosexuality as the reason. The real problem with Sodom was it idolatry - its belief in itself that it could do whatever it wished. It could slake any desire, provide for any want - that's was its sin - it set itself up as god. (And herein lies a clear message for a self-indulgent West).

Point 3. The only claim in the Bible that homosexuality could have been the reason for Sodom's destruction comes in Jude 7. But Jude was written in about 80 AD and after one Philo of Alexandria (d. cira 50 AD), a Jewsih philosopher and writer living at the time of Paul, had claimed that Sodom's sin was homosexuality. It was Philo, the only Jewish writer from antiquity that made the first claim which, in all probability, influenced later authors like Paul and Jude.

Point 4. Paul certainly mentions homosexuality as a sin but it might be worth looking at the cultural with which the early believers were surrounded.

The Roman world had come into peace under Tiberius after years of civil wars. Pax Romana bought rest and wealth to a land weary of internal fighting. Tiberius was hailed as hero and was proclaimed Augusta - God with us. The Roman Empire now spanned many cultures and one was the Hellenised Greek culture - a culture that worshiped the human body. (The Olympic Games were held nude - well, at least for the athletics). This aesthetic influenced spread to Rome and coupled with the Emperor cult and the general peace and wealth enjoyed by the citizens, together with the practice of Temple prostitution and blood sports, resulted in a culture that was in love with itself - idolatry. This was the sin Paul was concerned with - the worship of the human body as god and the practice of self-indulgence. Paul was concerned to make separate his 'believers' from a population that worshipped 'self'.

Point 5. We come 'loaded' with the beliefs of the past - even the faulty ones. It is hard to throw off what we have been taught. Yet, we need to examine that past and see it for what it is - a sketchy and ambiguous kaleidoscope of images that are biased towards particular agendas. Yet, it seems clear there is no overwhelming prerogative that the Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin. Clearly there is some ambiguity at best. But what the Bible does teach time and time again is the sin of self-indulgence - where such self-indulgence becomes self-worship. That's our error - worshipping ourselves.

I have a prayer, I saw it somewhere and it stuck. 'God, thank you for not making me wealthy that I forget you nor so poor that I have to steal'. The West, and the Church, faces bigger problems than homosexuality - the problem of over indulgence.

wayseer, you said it was the Roman culture of body or self worship that God is opposed to, and Paul seems to agree with you, but if you read this passage below Paul seems to point out that homosexual relations is a result of self worship and sin in itself. Sure I believe there are far worse sins to be concerned about but can you tell me what the homosexual community believes this passage is actually saying if it's not saying homosexuality is a sin?

I'm new to homosexual threads as it's never been an issue with me, I'd like to hear your thoughts on what this and other passages actually do say to a homosexual.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves:
Rom 1:25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.

 

[OllieFranz]

wayseer, you said it was the Roman culture of body or self worship that God is opposed to, and Paul seems to agree with you, but if you read this passage below Paul seems to point out that homosexual relations is a result of self worship and sin in itself. Sure I believe there are far worse sins to be concerned about but can you tell me what the homosexual community believes this passage is actually saying if it's not saying homosexuality is a sin?

I'm new to homosexual threads as it's never been an issue with me, I'd like to hear your thoughts on what this and other passages actually do say to a homosexual.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves:
Rom 1:25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.

Actually, in these verses, Paul is referencing, almost quoting verbatim, a famous example from Plato's Dialogue Laws of the sin ("Para physis," translated as "against nature," in a Greek philosophical work simply means vice or sin; "kata physis," "in accordance with nature," means virtue.) of hedonism or overindulgence. In the original Dialogue, Plato's character makes it clear that the issue is self-control and moderation and that the reason the example is homosexual in nature is a gentle poke at one of the characters.

It is not a direct quote because Paul took pains to obscure the fact that the women were mating with other women, since lesbianism is not condemned anywhere else in the Bible, and because he wanted to add in references to the five symptoms of lack of moderation and self-control, in order to be sure that the Romans would recognize the sin described.

And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.

 

[Stinker]

It is strange to me that some refuse to see that the Bible does not address the subjects as the Hermaphrodites, Transexuals, the Transgendered and the Homosexual males and females. It only addresses the state of Heterosexuality and a number of things they are not to do. The Levitical passages commanding the the men not to couple with other men or animals and the women not to couple with animals, is what we are dealing with. Lesbianism is not addressed. I think if we read just what the Bible addresses, leaving out the state of Homosexuality, Transexuality,Transgenderism, and Hermaphrodism, we could see more clearly what was the reason/s were for those prohibitions.

 

[archaeologist2]

Read the Bible - you might actually learn something. There is no conclusive evidence within the Bible that states homosexuality is a sin.
__________________

oh pulleeeaaassee, the bible is very clear about it. give it a rest.

 

[HuntingMan]

Homosexuality
Under Construction

1.0
"abusers of themselves with mankind"

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
(Rom 1:24-27 KJV)

It doesnt get any clearer than that. Regardless of what else is going on the ACT of men being with men sexually is 'shameful'.
For idolatry God gave them over to their perverse desires and vile affections, but vile these affections ARE REGARDLESS of how they came to be !

And also;

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
(1Ti 1:10 KJV)

G733
(1Co 6:9 KJV)

G733
G733
ἀρσενοκοίτης
arsenokoitēs
Thayer Definition:
1) one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G730 and G2845

which is from :


G2845
κοίτη
koitē
koy'-tay
From G2749; a couch; by extension cohabitation; by implication the male sperm: - bed, chambering, X conceive.


G730
ἄῤῥην, αρσην
arrhēn arsen
ar'-hrane, ar'-sane
Probably from G142; male (as stronger for lifting): - male, man.

The word speaks for itself. Its no wonder Strongs and Thayers both believe this word is about homosexuals...especially given the rest of scripture on the matter.


And here we have the Mosaic Law, GODS law, which forbids men having sex with men like one does a woman.

(Lev 18:22 KJV) Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

(Lev 20:13 KJV) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Perfectly consistent...


2.0
Romans 1:26-27 - Vile Affections

In Romans 1 the state of the persons in Romans there is a RESULT of their idolatry.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
(Rom 1:26-27 KJV)

BECAUSE of their idolatry God gave them up TO their vile affections...the affections/desires themselves ARE vile/sinful.
One doesnt have to commit idolatry to commit sexual sin, so the connection between the two, while it DOES exist in Romans 1, doesnt necessarily have to exist in EVERY other instance.

In Romans 1:26 above we see that these were turned over to 'vile affections'.

For this causeG1223 G5124 GodG2316 gave them upG3860 G846 untoG1519 vileG819 affections:G3806...
(Rom 1:26 KJV+)

Here are the definitions of these words.

Vile
G819
ἀτιμία
atimia
at-ee-mee'-ah
From G820; infamy, that is, (subjectively) comparative indignity, (objectively) disgrace: - dishonour, reproach, shame, vile.

NT usage;
G819
ἀτιμία
atimia
Total KJV Occurrences: 7
dishonour, 4
Rom_9:21, 1Co_15:43, 2Co_6:8, 2Ti_2:20
reproach, 1
2Co_11:21
shame, 1
1Co_11:14
vile, 1
Rom_1:26


Affections
G3806
πάθος
pathos
path'-os
From the alternate of G3958; properly suffering (“pathos&#8221, that is, (subjectively) a passion (especially concupiscence): - (inordinate) affection, lust.

NT usage;
G3806
πάθος
pathos
Total KJV Occurrences: 4
affection, 1
Col_3:5
affections, 1
Rom_1:26
inordinate, 1
Col_3:5
lust, 1
1Th_4:5

As you can see the usage of each word in the new testament is quite consistent.

These were given over to these vile affections, and what does the scripture show that these 'vile affections' were being defined as ?

...vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly...

It is VERY clear that burning with lust for those of the same gender and acting out on that lust is what this 'vile affection'...otherwise the statement has no meaning.


Homosexuality is a sin and therefore the gay christian needs to abstain from that sin. To WILLFULLY continue in it would seem to lead one into the predicament mentioned in Hebrews 10.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
(Heb 10)

Obviously based on the context of the chapter and the entire book this isnt speaking about merely sinning otherwise we'd ALL be in this position, but very clearly there is some point where our WILLFULL sin shows that we have trampled the Son underfoot and spit in the face of the Spirit of Grace.


3.0

Same passage, different part.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
(Rom 1:24-27 KJV)

The context is clear enough that men gave up what was natural with the woman and turned to one another in their lusts.

As in my other thread we can easily conclude that while God DID turn them over to this sin seemingly for their idolatries, the ACTS themselves are shown as
-unclean
-dishonour
-vile
-unseemly
-error

Here are the definitions of these words (as shown above in red).
These show the overall TONE of the acts these are involved in;

unclean
G167
ἀκαθαρσία
akatharsia
ak-ath-ar-see'-ah
From G169; impurity (the quality), physically or morally: - uncleanness.

dishonor
G818
ἀτιμάζω
atimazō
at-im-ad'-zo
From G820; to render infamous, that is, (by implication) contemn or maltreat: - despise, dishonour, suffer shame, entreat shamefully.

vile
G819
ἀτιμία
atimia
at-ee-mee'-ah
From G820; infamy, that is, (subjectively) comparative indignity, (objectively) disgrace: - dishonour, reproach, shame, vile.

unseemly
G808
ἀσχημοσύνη
aschēmosunē
as-kay-mos-oo'-nay
From G809; an indecency; by implication the pudenda: - shame, that which is unseemly.

error
G4106
πλάνη
planē
plan'-ay
Feminine of G4108 (as abstraction); objectively fraudulence; subjectively a straying from orthodoxy or piety: - deceit, to deceive, delusion, error.

So we see in this part of the passage that God has given them up to this 'uncleaness'.

God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Regardless of whether they were involved in this act PRIOR to God turning them over to it or not it is quite CLEAR that these acts themselves are all of the things listed above else scripture is quite erroneous to begin with.
These acts being defined as men and woman leaving the natural and lusting after those of the same gender and carrying out those lusts into actions.

 

[OllieFranz]

Hunting Man--

I find it interesting that you ignored that Paul was quoting Plato, and that the Romans would have known that, and at the same time you zeroed in on exactly the five words that I referred to when I mentioned that one of the reasons Paul's passage was not verbatim from Plato was that he wanted to include a reference to philosophers after Plato defined as the five symptoms of the sin of intemperence: epithymia (coveting), pathos (emotion), ekkaio (burning), orexis (desire), plane (straying)

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts (epithymia) of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections (pathos): for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned (ekkaio) in their lust (orexis) one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error (plane) which was meet.

How could you know that those five words were a key to understanding the passage and still not know just what the sin is that they are describing?

 

[Brennin]

The debate has been raging across the boards for some time now and I have added my oar into the heady mix from time to time. Perhaps I should make my position somewhat clearer.

It worth remember that the debate about 'homosexuality' is more a debate about how one interprets the Bible. Those who stand on their claim that the Bible is literal will never be convinced on anything - they have already made up their minds. For the rest of us who use the Bible in order to shape our lives and to sustain our hope I offer these thoughts.

Point 1. Scientifically, we now know that HIV Aids did not originate within the homosexual community - it originated in the heterosexual community in Africa where its scourge remained masked by the myriad of other miseries that plague that continent. It was only when the virus was 'discovered' in a 'Western' country, the US, that it was even noticed and, unfortunately, it was 'noticed' in the gay community. Immediately, the so-called Church of God blamed homosexuals and levelled their full barrage of hate in that direction. Anyone who raised a different opinion was drowned out. Homosexuals have been living with the fall-out ever since. (Aids and Compassion (1988) edited by Dr. Jim McPherson).

Point 2. Sodom was not destroyed for its homosexuality. Isaiah cites justice as the issue (Isa 1:10, 3:9). For Jeremiah it was adultery, lying and avoiding repentance (Jer 23:14). Ezekiel thought pride, comfort and gluttony where its downfall (Eze 16:14). The Book of Wisdom mentions foolishness (10: 8) and hatred of strangers (19:14) as the reasons. Sirach thinks it was their arrogance (Sir 16:8). Jesus mentions Sodom (Matt 10:15, 11:23-24, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12, 17: 29) but makes no reference as to what caused its downfall. None make mention of homosexuality as the reason. The real problem with Sodom was it idolatry - its belief in itself that it could do whatever it wished. It could slake any desire, provide for any want - that's was its sin - it set itself up as god. (And herein lies a clear message for a self-indulgent West).

Point 3. The only claim in the Bible that homosexuality could have been the reason for Sodom's destruction comes in Jude 7. But Jude was written in about 80 AD and after one Philo of Alexandria (d. cira 50 AD), a Jewsih philosopher and writer living at the time of Paul, had claimed that Sodom's sin was homosexuality. It was Philo, the only Jewish writer from antiquity that made the first claim which, in all probability, influenced later authors like Paul and Jude.

Point 4. Paul certainly mentions homosexuality as a sin but it might be worth looking at the cultural with which the early believers were surrounded.

The Roman world had come into peace under Tiberius after years of civil wars. Pax Romana bought rest and wealth to a land weary of internal fighting. Tiberius was hailed as hero and was proclaimed Augusta - God with us. The Roman Empire now spanned many cultures and one was the Hellenised Greek culture - a culture that worshiped the human body. (The Olympic Games were held nude - well, at least for the athletics). This aesthetic influenced spread to Rome and coupled with the Emperor cult and the general peace and wealth enjoyed by the citizens, together with the practice of Temple prostitution and blood sports, resulted in a culture that was in love with itself - idolatry. This was the sin Paul was concerned with - the worship of the human body as god and the practice of self-indulgence. Paul was concerned to make separate his 'believers' from a population that worshipped 'self'.

Point 5. We come 'loaded' with the beliefs of the past - even the faulty ones. It is hard to throw off what we have been taught. Yet, we need to examine that past and see it for what it is - a sketchy and ambiguous kaleidoscope of images that are biased towards particular agendas. Yet, it seems clear there is no overwhelming prerogative that the Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin. Clearly there is some ambiguity at best. But what the Bible does teach time and time again is the sin of self-indulgence - where such self-indulgence becomes self-worship. That's our error - worshipping ourselves.

I have a prayer, I saw it somewhere and it stuck. 'God, thank you for not making me wealthy that I forget you nor so poor that I have to steal'. The West, and the Church, faces bigger problems than homosexuality - the problem of over indulgence.

Your claims are false. Josephus also associates Sodom and Gomorrah with (male) homoeroticism as does Jubilees. And where is your evidence that Jude read Philo?

Also, Paul condemns homoeroticism. Period. Your tap-dancing does not change that fact. And Jesus Christ makes it clear that God sanctions only two paths: a) heterosexual monogamy or b) abnegation.

 

[Brennin]

Hunting Man--

I find it interesting that you ignored that Paul was quoting Plato, and that the Romans would have known that, and at the same time you zeroed in on exactly the five words that I referred to when I mentioned that one of the reasons Paul's passage was not verbatim from Plato was that he wanted to include a reference to philosophers after Plato defined as the five symptoms of the sin of intemperence: epithymia (coveting), pathos (emotion), ekkaio (burning), orexis (desire), plane (straying)

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts (epithymia) of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections (pathos): for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned (ekkaio) in their lust (orexis) one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error (plane) which was meet.

How could you know that those five words were a key to understanding the passage and still not know just what the sin is that they are describing?

Why don't you quote the relevant part of Laws in the original Greek?

 

[OllieFranz]

Why don't you quote the relevant part of Laws in the original Greek?

OK, First Plato, then Paul:

καὶ εἴτε παίζοντα εἴτε σπουδάζοντα ἐννοεῖν δεῖ τὰ τοιαῦτα, ἐννοητέον ὅτι τῇ θηλείᾳ καὶ τῇ τῶν ἀρρένων φύσει εἰς κοινωνίαν ἰούσῃ τῆς γεννήσεως ἡ περὶ ταῦτα ἡδονὴ κατὰ φύσιν ἀποδεδόσθαι δοκεῖ, ἀρρένων δὲ πρὸς ἄρρενας ἢ θηλειῶν πρὸς θηλείας παρὰ φύσιν καὶ τῶν πρώτων τὸ τόλμημ' εἶναι δι' ἀκράτειαν ἡδονῆς.

And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.

..........

δια τουτο παρεδωκεν αυτους ο θεος εις παθη ατιμιας αι τε γαρ θηλειαι αυτων μετηλλαξαν την φυσικην χρησιν εις την παρα φυσιν ομοιως τε και οι αρσενες αφεντες την φυσικην χρησιν της θηλειας εξεκαυθησαν εν τη ορεξει αυτων εις αλληλους αρσενες εν αρσεσιν την ασχημοσυνην κατεργαζομενοι και την αντιμισθιαν ην εδει της πλανης αυτων εν εαυτοις απολαμβανοντες

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

So What is your point?

 

[wayseer]

wayseer, you said it was the Roman culture of body or self worship that God is opposed to, and Paul seems to agree with you, but if you read this passage below Paul seems to point out that homosexual relations is a result of self worship and sin in itself. Sure I believe there are far worse sins to be concerned about but can you tell me what the homosexual community believes this passage is actually saying if it's not saying homosexuality is a sin?

You make good points and I admit that it is fine line I tread. However, I think you answer your own question when you write a result of self worship. This worship of 'self' is the key I think to understanding Paul.

I'm new to homosexual threads as it's never been an issue with me, I'd like to hear your thoughts on what this and other passages actually do say to a homosexual.

Nothing like a challenge - let's see.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves:
Rom 1:25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.

All from Paul's letter to the Romans which is the culmination of his theological position. The passage Rms 1:18 -32 is Paul's hell and brimstone bit but a key sentence leaches out his real intent. ... they worship and served what God has created instead of the Creator himself ... (Rms 1:25)

'Worship and serving what had been created' - not the Creator. To me this is the defining moment - the fine line of which I speak. Whenever our actions follow a desire to worship 'self' then it seems, for Paul, we move across that line - we move from the Creator to the creation - and most particularly, our bodies and in doing so Paul speaks of 'natural' acts as against 'unnatural' acts.

Here, I don't think Paul is necessarily talking about 'nature' because 'nature' is creation. The 'shameful passion' for Paul is the way we use creation, or nature, sex, not to the glory of the Creator but to glorify ourselves. What then is this glory of God. I think Jesus said all that needed to be said when he issued the new commandment to love - and by demonstrating this love and compassion all of humanity will know we are Christ's disciples. Therefore, I am led to believe, that regardless of our sexual orientation, if we demonstrate love and compassion then it appears we fulfill Christ's commandment. It is when we use our sex to glorify ourself - self worship - we cross that rather blurred line.

I think it worthy of comment that Paul did not reserve his wrath for matters of sex within this passage. He was perhaps even more vehement over matters of gossip, malice, deceit, fighting, pride and failing to keep promises all of which, I suggest, are more destructive that two men, or two women, forming a loving relationship.

 

[wayseer]

Regardless of whether they were involved in this act PRIOR to God turning them over to it or not it is quite CLEAR that these acts themselves are all of the things listed above else scripture is quite erroneous to begin with.
These acts being defined as men and woman leaving the natural and lusting after those of the same gender and carrying out those lusts into actions.

HH - I am not convinced, despite your exegesis, that the matter is not as 'clear' as you would like. You have not taken into account the Roman culture of Paul's day. You have look at scripture in isolation. I think you have to look at the social forces at play with which Paul had to deal.

 

[wayseer]

Your claims are false. Josephus also associates Sodom and Gomorrah with (male) homoeroticism as does Jubilees. And where is your evidence that Jude read Philo?

References please.

I did not claim Jude read Philo. I pointed out that Philo had made his comments before Jude wrote his letter. And Jude is the only author that connects Sodom with homosexuality. So Jude is a 'one off' event - an outlier - and without other supporting evidence must be treated as such.

Also, Paul condemns homoeroticism. Period. Your tap-dancing does not change that fact.

Exactlly - homoeroticism - which is the worship of the self which is my argument. Happy that you agree.

 

[Brennin]

OK, First Plato, then Paul:

καὶ εἴτε παίζοντα εἴτε σπουδάζοντα ἐννοεῖν δεῖ τὰ τοιαῦτα, ἐννοητέον ὅτι τῇ θηλείᾳ καὶ τῇ τῶν ἀρρένων φύσει εἰς κοινωνίαν ἰούσῃ τῆς γεννήσεως ἡ περὶ ταῦτα ἡδονὴ κατὰ φύσιν ἀποδεδόσθαι δοκεῖ, ἀρρένων δὲ πρὸς ἄρρενας ἢ θηλειῶν πρὸς θηλείας παρὰ φύσιν καὶ τῶν πρώτων τὸ τόλμημ' εἶναι δι' ἀκράτειαν ἡδονῆς.

And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.

..........

δια τουτο παρεδωκεν αυτους ο θεος εις παθη ατιμιας αι τε γαρ θηλειαι αυτων μετηλλαξαν την φυσικην χρησιν εις την παρα φυσιν ομοιως τε και οι αρσενες αφεντες την φυσικην χρησιν της θηλειας εξεκαυθησαν εν τη ορεξει αυτων εις αλληλους αρσενες εν αρσεσιν την ασχημοσυνην κατεργαζομενοι και την αντιμισθιαν ην εδει της πλανης αυτων εν εαυτοις απολαμβανοντες

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

So What is your point?

I would ask you the same thing. Even if Paul were intimately familiar with Plato, that does not detract from the fact that he, an eminent Christian authority, condemns homosexual acts.

Incidentally, you should have provided this from the get go in light of your claim that Paul quoted Plato "almost verbatim."

 

[Brennin]

References please.

I provided them.

Josephus

1. ABOUT this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, insomuch that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices. God was therefore much displeased at them, and determined to punish them for their pride, and to overthrow their city, and to lay waste their country, until there should neither plant nor fruit grow out of it.

2. When God had thus resolved concerning the Sodomites, Abraham, as he sat by the oak of Mambre, at the door of his tent, saw three angels; and thinking them to be strangers, he rose up, and saluted them, and desired they would accept of an entertainment, and abide with him; to which, when they agreed, he ordered cakes of meal to be made presently; and when he had slain a calf, he roasted it, and brought it to them, as they sat under the oak. Now they made a show of eating; and besides, they asked him about his wife Sarah, where she was; and when he said she was within, they said they would come again hereafter, and find her become a mother. Upon which the woman laughed, and said that it was impossible she should bear children, since she was ninety years of age, and her husband was a hundred. Then they concealed themselves no longer, but declared that they were angels of God; and that one of them was sent to inform them about the child, and two of the overthrow of Sodom.

3. When Abraham heard this, he was grieved for the Sodomites; and he rose up, and besought God for them, and entreated him that he would not destroy the righteous with the wicked. And when God had replied that there was no good man among the Sodomites; for if there were but ten such man among them, he would not punish any of them for their sins, Abraham held his peace. And the angels came to the city of the Sodomites, and Lot entreated them to accept of a lodging with him; for he was a very generous and hospitable man, and one that had learned to imitate the goodness of Abraham. Now when the Sodomites saw the young men to be of beautiful countenances, and this to an extraordinary degree, and that they took up their lodgings with Lot, they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence; and when Lot exhorted them to sobriety, and not to offer any thing immodest to the strangers, but to have regard to their lodging in his house; and promised that if their inclinations could not be governed, he would expose his daughters to their lust, instead of these strangers; neither thus were they made ashamed.

4. But God was much displeased at their impudent behavior, so that he both smote those men with blindness, and condemned the Sodomites to universal destruction.

Jubilees

And in this month the Lord executed his judgments on Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Zeboim, and all the region of the Jordan, and He burned them with fire and brimstone, and destroyed them until this day, even as [lo] I have declared unto thee all their works, that they are wicked and sinners exceedingly, and that they defile themselves and commit fornication in their flesh, and work uncleanness on the earth.
6 And, in like manner, God will execute judgment on the places where they have done according to
7 the uncleanness of the Sodomites, like unto the judgment of Sodom.

Exactlly - homoeroticism - which is the worship of the self which is my argument. Happy that you agree.

Homoeroticism refers to sexual acts between members of the same sex. If you are conceding that people guilty of same sex acts worship themselves then I accept your concession.

 

[davedjy]

The only thing condemned in Romans 1 is same sex lust...and that is the only thing that can be proven. All lust is seen as a "degrading passion". Paul clearly thought these men were heterosexual (I'm sure he even thought ALL men were heterosexual by inborn nature). If you take a part the Greek words they have to do with one's natural instincts AS WELL as the natural order. Gays and lesbians are not the focus of the passage...as a result of their total depravity, they were turned over to complete spiritual ruin. Gays and lesbians have a natural disposition to the same sex, and that is proven.

Paul is not observing same sex couples or gays and lesbians...he is observing idolatry with worshiping graven images of human beings, birds, animals, and reptiles (material images). Cult pagan ritual orgies IS the proven historical context, and it fits with this analysis.

Even if he viewed it as shameful...Paul also mentions that men with long hair is shameful (1 Corinthians 11:14). The historical context always has to be taken into account.

 

[HuntingMan]

I find it interesting that you ignored that Paul was quoting Plato

Paul wasnt quoting Plato....he was presenting GODS instruction for man to obey.