Homosexuality

[intricatic]

Actually the Bible does quite likely go against the traditional 'Adam and Eve' type love and preferences. Particularly in the interesting case of David and Jonathan in Samuel, this I have not looked to in detail myself although there do seem to be various phrases of interest.
Interesting linky:

http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/faith/jt_add4.htm

Another interesting, if slightly explicit wiki linky (analysis of the three possible points):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Jonathan

The words used to express David's love for Jonathan has no sexual stigma; it's the same as love for one's son. For instance, Genesis 25:28, or in the context of the love God has for His children; or One's love for the Lord.

How anyone could get anything of the context of homosexuality from that, I have no idea. Not to mention, it's a serious twist on the cultural standards at the time to think that the King of the nation would allow such a thing in his own house.

 

[intricatic]

What are you calling "the act of homosexuality?" Can I assume you mean same-sex sexual acts?

That can be any number of acts, though...rape, as described in Sodom and Ghomorrah; Pederasty, as described in much of the New Testament; Pagan worship, as described in Old Testament law; or a loving, spiritual marriage, as described in 1 Samuel, when David left his father and cleaved to Johnathon, and they became one soul, and Johnathon loved David as his own soul. The first couple of acts are certainly condemned, and I am not trying to defend them. But the last one is merely described, with no judgement given either way.

Read my last post on the subject of David and Jonathan.

Are you saying it's simply idolatry that the NT is speaking against when it makes general claims of sexual relationships between both male, and both female participants outside of marriage, even though female homosexual prostitution was almost unheard of? Pedastry was certainly condemned, but it wasn't the only thing. Consensual sex between male/male adults and female/female adults was also mentioned in Romans 1 with no stigma of any cultural standards, attached specifically to creation [of the world, referencing the natural law that God had placed in every human heart].

 

[HunterRose]

Heh. The Bible says plenty from a social, historical, and cultural context on the act of homosexuality in general. Love is a wonderful thing, but the actions contrary to the natural archetype designed by God are almost always considered wrong; regardless of whether there is love involved or not.

Now, this is merely the reasoning behind it being wrong; how we, as believers are to treat it is an entirely different facet of the discussion, and I think most people on both sides screw it up a lot.

It actually says very little and what little it does say is remarkably unclear.

The only clear denouncement of homosexuality the bible has is in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13…but to use these passages to justify prejudice one has to contend with all the other unused and rather unpopular laws also presented in Leviticus. Laws such as the commending of slavery and of killing bratty children as well as laws about wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics and shaving.

 

[HunterRose]

What I see in Romans is Paul declaring any deviation from the natural order of creation as sinful

This falls apart when one considers 1 Cor. 7:1
“Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.”

- God giving them up to their desires, and those desires consuming them over a period of time. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the culture that was receiving the message is negligible to the intent of the message, although homosexuality was still accepted in many different forms in Roman society, and that was the reason Paul brought it up in the letter.

Only if you ignore the context …and pretend real hard.

EDIT: Also, the Romans 1 reference can be inclusive of any sexual activity that defies the archetype presented in Adam and Eve, although Paul does explicitly make reference to homosexual activities.

The reference is remarkably unclear

The first important issue which arises in the passage centers upon whether verse 26 addresses homosexuality among women. The Greed word (meh-teel-lax-ahn) only specifies that the women to whom Paul refers "changed" their practices. It does not specify what the new practices were, nor whether they were heterosexual or homosexual. The reason for believing that the practices were homosexual come from the first word in verse 27. In Greek, the word (oh-mee-os), translated "likewise," has the effect of an equals sign. Since the practices to which Paul refers in verse 27 are, indeed, homosexual, the word indicates that the practices in verse 26 were also homosexual Verse 26, then, is the only reference in the Bible to homosexuality among women. In characterizing these homosexual practices, Paul uses the Greek term, paraphysin translated "against nature." This phrase must not be confused with the same phrase as used in traditional theology in condemnation of homosexuality.

The Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. Contrary to popular belief, the word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic for that person. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals.




Some interpreters approaching this passage, then, have explained that since Paul was talking about people who leave heterosexual practices which are natural to them for homosexual practices which are not, people for whom homosexuality is already a basic life patter are not leaving heterosexual practice and are not included in this condemnation. There is ample evidence to support the fact that homosexual activity, like heterosexual activity, is of inherently neutral ethical value. Sexuality may be used my an individual to either good or evil purpose. Homosexual activity occurs quite as "naturally" as heterosexual activity in a context of caring and loving relationship. Both are equally subject to biblical values and guidelines. Some homosexual activity undoubtedly falls into that lustful and idolatrous characterization which Paul makes in these verses. So would some heterosexual behavior

 

[intricatic]

It actually says very little and what little it does say is remarkably unclear.

The only clear denouncement of homosexuality the bible has is in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13…but to use these passages to justify prejudice one has to contend with all the other unused and rather unpopular laws also presented in Leviticus. Laws such as the commending of slavery and of killing bratty children as well as laws about wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics and shaving.

Perhaps it's unclear if you look at it with a political bias, but the meaning of the teachings in the NT are fairly clear when analyzed through the cultural and contextual significance of the words used.

Now, for example, the David and Jonathan story is unclear when you look at it expecting to see something that lacks support from the context of the passages; but if you look at it within the frame that the passage was writen, it makes perfect sense. I'm not talking about Leviticus, though, especially not about the strictly cultural laws that only served as a measure to keep Israel prominent in the middle of the desert, with little source of agriculture. That's an entirely different debate, though.

 

[intricatic]

This falls apart when one considers 1 Cor. 7:1
“Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.”

I can't see what you're getting at here; this has little, if anything to do with what I was presenting. Paul was saying that any sexual relations are negative, but to take a wife if lust is too large of a desire to overcome.

Only if you ignore the context …and pretend real hard.

Sort of like what you're doing below this?

The reference is remarkably unclear

The first important issue which arises in the passage centers upon whether verse 26 addresses homosexuality among women. The Greed word (meh-teel-lax-ahn) only specifies that the women to whom Paul refers "changed" their practices. It does not specify what the new practices were, nor whether they were heterosexual or homosexual. The reason for believing that the practices were homosexual come from the first word in verse 27. In Greek, the word (oh-mee-os), translated "likewise," has the effect of an equals sign. Since the practices to which Paul refers in verse 27 are, indeed, homosexual, the word indicates that the practices in verse 26 were also homosexual Verse 26, then, is the only reference in the Bible to homosexuality among women. In characterizing these homosexual practices, Paul uses the Greek term, paraphysin translated "against nature." This phrase must not be confused with the same phrase as used in traditional theology in condemnation of homosexuality.

The Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. Contrary to popular belief, the word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic for that person. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals.

Some interpreters approaching this passage, then, have explained that since Paul was talking about people who leave heterosexual practices which are natural to them for homosexual practices which are not, people for whom homosexuality is already a basic life patter are not leaving heterosexual practice and are not included in this condemnation. There is ample evidence to support the fact that homosexual activity, like heterosexual activity, is of inherently neutral ethical value. Sexuality may be used my an individual to either good or evil purpose. Homosexual activity occurs quite as "naturally" as heterosexual activity in a context of caring and loving relationship. Both are equally subject to biblical values and guidelines. Some homosexual activity undoubtedly falls into that lustful and idolatrous characterization which Paul makes in these verses. So would some heterosexual behavior

This argument would make sense if Paul were refering to specific people, but he makes it incredibly general in his statement, no matter how you translate it. He's talking about deviations from gender. It comes full circle back to that, regardless of whether you're saying "uncharacteristic for the subject", the subject is sex and gender, not specific individuals, except to say the Gentiles - which is the category being discussed.

And nowhere does he mention idolatry in the subject; he specifically attached this statement to the idea of the creation of the world, and the order it was created to serve.

At this point:

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Although, one might attach idolatry as a secondary subject, considering that everything that defies the nature it was created to serve is considered idolatry, idolatry is mentioned more in passing.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Heh. The Bible says plenty from a social, historical, and cultural context on the act of homosexuality in general.

And what do you think it says? What do you see as the primary cultural context of the same sex acts?

 

[intricatic]

And what do you think it says? What do you see as the primary cultural context of the same sex acts?

See above; I already said previously [at the outset] in this thread that I don't want to get into this debate, and somehow I'm debating it. Meh.

 

[HunterRose]

Perhaps it's unclear if you look at it with a political bias,

Perhaps if you looked at them without bias you would come to a different conclusion

but the meaning of the teachings in the NT are fairly clear when analyzed through the cultural and contextual significance of the words used.

“Fairly clear”???? one would hope that something on which people use to justify hate and discrimination and even violence would be a little better than fairly clear

Now, for example, the David and Jonathan story is unclear when you look at it expecting to see something that lacks support from the context of the passages; but if you look at it within the frame that the passage was writen, it makes perfect sense.

I was referring to the well known translation issues with I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 and the problematic contextual issues (and again translation problems) associated with Romans 1:26-27

I'm not talking about Leviticus, though, especially not about the strictly cultural laws that only served as a measure to keep Israel prominent in the middle of the desert, with little source of agriculture. That's an entirely different debate, though.

But Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is the only place in the bible that his actually clear on the topic…and it is remarkable to note just how many Christians are happy to use Leviticus to condemn others while at the same time ignoring laws right next to these verse.

 

[intricatic]

Perhaps if you looked at them without bias you would come to a different conclusion

You seem to be expressing quite a bit of bias; I never approach any issue without doing research into both ends of the debate. IMHO; both sides are wrong when it comes to how it's enacted, and possibly with how it's interpreted.

“Fairly clear”???? one would hope that something on which people use to justify hate and discrimination and even violence would be a little better than fairly clear

One can use anything to justify hate and discrimination; that doesn't make the actions right, and it doesn't speak to the nature of the interpretation; but to the nature of how it effects one's behavior.

I was referring to the well known translation issues with I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 and the problematic contextual issues (and again translation problems) associated with Romans 1:26-27

Romans 1:26-27 is only unclear because people look at it with a faulty bias; this is often the problem with cultural relativism. It's also the case in how one acts after determining correct interpretation - people take the meaning and twist it to suite their own bias, regardless of interpretation.

But Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is the only place in the bible that his actually clear on the topic…and it is remarkable to note just how many Christians are happy to use Leviticus to condemn others while at the same time ignoring laws right next to these verse.

They're happy to use it because it's mirrored in the New Testament, while the former laws are rendered obsolete as the covenant expands to embrace all cultures, and not simply Hebrew culture as it existed during the time of it's conception.

 

[HunterRose]

I can't see what you're getting at here; this has little, if anything to do with what I was presenting. Paul was saying that any sexual relations are negative, but to take a wife if lust is too large of a desire to overcome.

If as you claim “in terms of the archetype of Adam and Eve”….”the actions contrary to the natural archetype designed by God are almost always considered wrong” then celibacy as Paul is saying in 1 Cor is sinful as well.

This argument would make sense if Paul were refering to specific people, but he makes it incredibly general in his statement, no matter how you translate it. He's talking about deviations from gender. It comes full circle back to that, regardless of whether you're saying "uncharacteristic for the subject", the subject is sex and gender, not specific individuals, except to say the Gentiles - which is the category being discussed.

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.

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 and what you desperately want it to mean.

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.

And nowhere does he mention idolatry in the subject; he specifically attached this statement to the idea of the creation of the world, and the order it was created to serve.

Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” Romans 1:22-23

 

[intricatic]

If as you claim “in terms of the archetype of Adam and Eve”….”the actions contrary to the natural archetype designed by God are almost always considered wrong” then celibacy as Paul is saying in 1 Cor is sinful as well.

Celibacy is not a sexual action, it's sexual inaction.

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.

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 and what you desperately want it to mean.

They were specifically described, though. If you're going to take this view, you have to explain what Paul was refering to with this passage:

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.


Also, was worship seen in the secular way we view it today, when this was writen? Or was it seen as a way of life?

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.

Perhaps, but as I said, he attached it specifically to the natural model of sexuality that was implied by the account of creation. If that part of the passage was removed, it would be a purely cultural critique.

Further, pathos (lusts) does not necessitate a sexual connotation.

What does it connotate? It would seem to me that the repetition of sexual themes in the passage would imply a sexual connotation.

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]

1. [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]
   [*] whatever befalls one, whether it be sad or joyous
   1. spec. a calamity, mishap, evil, affliction
   [*] a feeling which the mind suffers
   1. an affliction of the mind, emotion, passion
   2. passionate deed
   3. used by the Greeks in either a good or bad sense
   4. in the NT in a bad sense, depraved passion, vile passions
   [/FONT]

[/FONT][/FONT]

Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” Romans 1:22-23

As I said, idolatry was mentioned more in passing; idolatry is the turning from the nature given in creation for any use other than what was intended. Worshiping graven images was idolatry because it was worshiping creation rather than Creator.

 

[HunterRose]

You seem to be expressing quite a bit of bias; I never approach any issue without doing research into both ends of the debate.

Yet here you are doing just that.

One can use anything to justify hate and discrimination; that doesn't make the actions right, and it doesn't speak to the nature of the interpretation; but to the nature of how it effects one's behavior.

Not the point. You have moved form assurance that your personal interpretation is not just correct but that the bible “says plenty from a social, historical, and cultural context on the act of homosexuality in general. Love is a wonderful thing, but the actions contrary to the natural archetype designed by God are almost always considered wrong; regardless of whether there is love involved or not.”

But when confronted with the fact that the bible is not clear except in the case of Leviticus (where it is also clear that cutting your hair is a sin) you back peddle and claim that the bible is now just “fairly clear”

Yet the bible is the primary source for justification of prejudice and discrimination and even violence against gays and lesbians. You try to distance yourself buy saying these actins are “not right” yet you continue to present interpretations and claims about “fairly clear” condemnations that feed and justify these very behaviors

Romans 1:26-27 is only unclear because people look at it with a faulty bias; this is often the problem with cultural relativism.

Apparently “faulty basis” means not in agreement with your personal views.

It's also the case in how one acts after determining correct interpretation - people take the meaning and twist it to suite their own bias, regardless of interpretation.

And people take their personal basis and twist interoperations to justify prejudice.


They're happy to use it because it's mirrored in the New Testament, while the former laws are rendered obsolete as the covenant expands to embrace all cultures, and not simply Hebrew culture as it existed during the time of it's conception.[/quote]
They are happy to use it because it is the only place that clearly justifies their personal prejudices

 

[intricatic]

Yet here you are doing just that.


Not the point. You have moved form assurance that your personal interpretation is not just correct but that the bible “says plenty from a social, historical, and cultural context on the act of homosexuality in general. Love is a wonderful thing, but the actions contrary to the natural archetype designed by God are almost always considered wrong; regardless of whether there is love involved or not.”

But when confronted with the fact that the bible is not clear except in the case of Leviticus (where it is also clear that cutting your hair is a sin) you back peddle and claim that the bible is now just “fairly clear”

Yet the bible is the primary source for justification of prejudice and discrimination and even violence against gays and lesbians. You try to distance yourself buy saying these actins are “not right” yet you continue to present interpretations and claims about “fairly clear” condemnations that feed and justify these very behaviors

If this is what the Bible says, I'm not going to disagree with it. I will disagree with the people who take it and run into a mode of thinking contrary to the rest of the Bible, though.

I've been saying the same thing throughout this entire discourse, just in different words. I'm not claiming that the Bible outright condemns the actions themselves, but it does speak clearly about them and how it should be handled, if explored in the context of the Bible as a whole.

Apparently “faulty basis” means not in agreement with your personal views.

Actually, my own personal views have been altered many times from delving into scripture; at least since I stopped thinking about politics.

And people take their personal basis and twist interoperations to justify prejudice.

Absolutely, and that's exactly what you're discussing when you promote the idea of changing the interpretations to deflate the prejudices instead of simply confronting the prejudices themselves.

They are happy to use it because it is the only place that clearly justifies their personal prejudices

It's something that backs the context of the quotes often misrepresented in the NT. Their own prejudices are political in nature, and any political thinking brought into a scriptural interpretation is bound to be flawed.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

See above;

I couldn't find anything clear...

Why don't we look at all the verses in the O.T. that reference homosexual acts...

Gen 19 and Judges 19 describe homosexual acts in the context of gang rape by men, most of whom are not homosexual by nature (though in Judges arguably they might be bisexual).

Deut 23:17, 1 Kings 14:24, 1 Kings 15:12, 1 Kings 22:46, 2 Kings 23:7, Job 36:14
all make reference to homosexual acts in the context of cult prostitution.

Male cult prostitutes played the part of women, generally dressing the part, so when a farmer wanted to ensure the fertility of his animals and land he would give a donation to the fertility god/goddess and lie with a man, as with a woman.

Leviticus 18 and 20 condemn laying with a male as with a woman.

A recap of the arguement over the meanings of the words Paul used in 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim will have to wait.

For the Hebrew/Greek of the verses in question see:
http://www.studylight.org/isb/
http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/

http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/paulcybl.html
and
The Construction of Homosexuality
by David F. Greenberg

 

[HunterRose]

Celibacy is not a sexual action, it's sexual inaction.

Choosing to not act is still choosing to act… Celibacy it remains a deviation of the “natural order of creation” that you cited as a means of condemning gays and lesbians.

They were specifically described, though. If you're going to take this view, you have to explain what Paul was refering to with this passage:

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

I already addressed the description free “shameful lusts” you mention. The same holds true of the undefined “indecent acts”

Perhaps, but as I said, he attached it specifically to the natural model of sexuality that was implied by the account of creation. If that part of the passage was removed, it would be a purely cultural critique.

Again Paul contradicted your “natural model” when he advised celibacy.

That aside Paul was, as noted and ignored by you, addressing non-Jews, indeed recently converted Pagans. Any other time Paul addresses such people he spends a great deal of ink making points involving Jewish tradition and lore painfully clear. He fails to do so here and the only reasonable explanation is that is not addressing Jewish conceptions but the concepts of the individuals he is addressing.

What does it connotate? It would seem to me that the repetition of sexual themes in the passage would imply a sexual connotation. [/qutoe]

Lust for Power
Lust for Prestige
Lust for Hubris
Lust for control

The list is practically endless.
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

As I said, idolatry was mentioned more in passing; idolatry is the turning from the nature given in creation for any use other than what was intended. Worshiping graven images was idolatry because it was worshiping creation rather than Creator.

No…you said “And nowhere does he mention idolatry”

 

[HunterRose]

If this is what the Bible says, I'm not going to disagree with it. I will disagree with the people who take it and run into a mode of thinking contrary to the rest of the Bible, though.
I've been saying the same thing throughout this entire discourse, just in different words. I'm not claiming that the Bible outright condemns the actions themselves, but it does speak clearly about them and how it should be handled, if explored in the context of the Bible as a whole.

But you ARE condemming

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

As I said, idolatry was mentioned more in passing;

Errr, no. The whole point of the Romans 1 passage revolves around the fact that this is the behavour of those who turned away from God and is contrasted <cough> with the behaviour of teh Jews in Romans 2.

As for the clarity of Romans 1:26-27 concerning women:

Looking back at early interpreters of this verse, while some have believed that this verse referred to lesbians (John Chrysostom), many key church leaders have not held this view, such as Clement of Alexandria and Saint Augustine, who believed this to be anal or oral sex between heterosexuals (Brooten, 1985; Miller, 1995). One early Christian writer, Anastasios, clearly dismisses the view that Paul was referring to lesbianism in his comments on Romans 1:26:

Clearly they (the females referred to in Romans 1:26) do not go into one another, but rather offer themselves to the men. (Brooten, 1996, p. 337n)​

Augustine continues this line of thought (fairly explicitly):

But if one has relations even with one's wife in a part of the body which was not made for begetting children, such relations are against nature and indecent. In fact, the same apostle earlier said the same thing about women, "For their women exchanged natural relations for those which are against nature." (Marriage and Desire, 20.35)​

http://www.jeramyt.org/gay.html#romans
You might be able to find an online version of those writings to check as well.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

If this is what the Bible says, I'm not going to disagree with it. I will disagree with the people who take it and run into a mode of thinking contrary to the rest of the Bible, though.

I've been saying the same thing throughout this entire discourse, just in different words. I'm not claiming that the Bible outright condemns the actions themselves, but it does speak clearly about them and how it should be handled, if explored in the context of the Bible as a whole.

I just want to make a few meta-comments:
I understand how one comes to the traditional view by reading the Bible, I disagree, but I understand.

I appreciate the fairly civil tone of this discussion.

The following isn't aimed at you per se but needs to be injected periodically into these discussions:
I think it is incumbant upon those who cite Biblical verses against homosexuality to make clear that they do not justify violence and to make clear what if any discrimination they feel is justified, and why.

 

[intricatic]

Choosing to not act is still choosing to act&#8230; Celibacy it remains a deviation of the &#8220;natural order of creation&#8221; that you cited as a means of condemning gays and lesbians.

That archetype is not static, it's the representation of healthy natural sexuality, when persued. It's not to say that celibacy is a deviation from that, as celibacy is the act of not expressing any sexuality. Thus, devoid from the archetype. The reasoning Paul gave was so people could live as "priests" and "prophets" did in Hebrew culture; those who were not dedicated entirely to the service of the Lord [prophets, priests, teachers, etc...] were expected to marry young, or were shunned for their distancing from the archetype presented. Priests, teachers, and prophets were allowed celibacy so they could more fully devote themselves to their calling. Christ is a prime example of this rendition.

That aside Paul was, as noted and ignored by you, addressing non-Jews, indeed recently converted Pagans. Any other time Paul addresses such people he spends a great deal of ink making points involving Jewish tradition and lore painfully clear. He fails to do so here and the only reasonable explanation is that is not addressing Jewish conceptions but the concepts of the individuals he is addressing.

This still doesn't support in any way the POV that you're expressing. It could very easily support my own, both from a cultural perspective, and a contextual perspective [within the Bible as a whole]. Lack of definitive evidence does not support an idea.

No&#8230;you said &#8220;And nowhere does he mention idolatry&#8221;

I did edit this a few minutes after writing it, beuause I realized it wasn't clear, to be fair.

This argument would make sense if Paul were refering to specific people, but he makes it incredibly general in his statement, no matter how you translate it. He's talking about deviations from gender. It comes full circle back to that, regardless of whether you're saying "uncharacteristic for the subject", the subject is sex and gender, not specific individuals, except to say the Gentiles - which is the category being discussed.

And nowhere does he mention idolatry in the subject; he specifically attached this statement to the idea of the creation of the world, and the order it was created to serve.

At this point:

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities&#8212;his eternal power and divine nature&#8212;have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Although, one might attach idolatry as a secondary subject, considering that everything that defies the nature it was created to serve is considered idolatry, idolatry is mentioned more in passing.