Homosexuality

[intricatic]

How come Paul was so "clear" on homosexuality, while what he had to say about female teachers, long hair and head coverings only reflected his cultural background?

Because those things only bear a passing theological implication on scripture as a whole. They're symbolic of lesser antitypes in scripture, but not as pressing as the whole embodiment of the covenant archetype. Marriage is one of the most critical points in God's relationship to mankind, which translates also into what the covenant relationship itself is all about. Sexuality, marriage, etc... are mirrors of that antitype which reflect God's manifest design.

Long hair, female teachers (which is a separate issue closely related to the covenant archetype), head coverings (same as women, female teachers, etc... it all plays into one thing, but that's a subject for a different thread), etc... all have parts to play in scripture, but for the most part only one or two things in the spectrum of Paul's letters can be isolated as cultural statements, and those things have a lot to do with other underlying issues that played into the topic of covenant relationships. So to simplify what I'm getting at, nothing in Paul's letters can be said to only be cultural prohibitions - they all have important things to teach us, but some of the things he talks about are only passing symbolism that, due to cultural practices, transgressed upon other underlying issues.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I'm not saying that if one has homosexual desire, he or she is sinning. I said that if a homosexual is acting on his or her unnatural desire it only then becomes sin.

this same catch 22 has been used for ages by racists. They don't hate black people per say…they only have issue, they say, when black people sin and go against the bible and act as equals to whites

 

[BigBadWlf]

What about laws that are diametrically opposed to scriptures? Since they're laws, does that mean it's ok? And does the fact that the Bible doesn't explicitly say something mean that it doesn't deal with the issue or topic at hand?

like the first amendment to the constitution is opposed to Christianity?

as is the 13th and 14th amendment?

should we ignore these laws?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Yes. God created us man and woman for a reason. Sex is procreative in the fact that man's seed is implanted in the woman for the purpose of the possibility of new life. In a homosexual relationship, there is no possibility of new life.

so what of the infertile? Is sex with say a survivor of uterine cancer a sin then?

The act then becomes a mere means of a lustful act...which is sinful.
What if everyone was homosexual and gave into this lustfulness? The human race would soon disappear..no?

Why do you limit same sex relations to be only lustful. How would you respond to the accusation that the only reason you married was to satisfy your perverted sexual lusts?

Why are you limiting a minority from experiencing the same love you experience?

 

[TheTrueDemosthenes]

more to the point the continuous attacks against gays and lesbians, the justification and promotion of prejudice and hate and discrimination all fly in the face of the teachings of Jesus.

You pretty much nailed it. You obviously got my point, while Yodafett, unfortunately, did not.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Yes. I agree, and in both instances it is sinful. Romantic love is not real love. Real love is a sacrafice!



Leviticus 18:22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

do you follow all the laws of Leviticus.

or are you cherry picking a couple verses to prop up your personal prejudice?

Homosexual acts are sinful and can lead to loss of salvation...what could be more detrimental?

Condemning people just because they are different can lead to loss of salvation

 

[BigBadWlf]

To tack a bit on here, since people want to take a twist on what Paul meant in Romans...

Romans 1:26-27 KJV

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.

or NIV is that is preferred
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In 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.

And NASB, just for comparison
26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.


I don't speek ancient greek first hand, but according to Strong's, greek words used for "men" through the whole verse are

αρρσην and αρσην
male (as stronger for lifting): - male, man.

and the word used for lust was
orexis
excitement of the mind, that is, longing after: - lust.

And the word for another
ἀλλήλων
one another. : - each other, mutual, one another, (the other), (them-, your-) selves, (selves) together

Males longing after other males. How can that be misunderstood?

just like the word ‘understand’ has its meaning derived from its two root words…so to understand something you have to be on your feet while someone dangles an object or idea above your head.

 

[intricatic]

more to the point the continuous attacks against gays and lesbians, the justification and promotion of prejudice and hate and discrimination all fly in the face of the teachings of Jesus.

Generally speaking, because I know there are some people who do exactly what you're saying here, teachings that are often perceived as being attacks against homosexuals are actually in defense of alterations to theological issues that run far deeper than just homosexual prohibition. You remove one peg from the base of the building and the entire thing comes crashing down.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Because those things only bear a passing theological implication on scripture as a whole. They're symbolic of lesser antitypes in scripture, but not as pressing as the whole embodiment of the covenant archetype. Marriage is one of the most critical points in God's relationship to mankind, which translates also into what the covenant relationship itself is all about. Sexuality, marriage, etc... are mirrors of that antitype which reflect God's manifest design.

Long hair, female teachers (which is a separate issue closely related to the covenant archetype), head coverings (same as women, female teachers, etc... it all plays into one thing, but that's a subject for a different thread), etc... all have parts to play in scripture, but for the most part only one or two things in the spectrum of Paul's letters can be isolated as cultural statements, and those things have a lot to do with other underlying issues that played into the topic of covenant relationships. So to simplify what I'm getting at, nothing in Paul's letters can be said to only be cultural prohibitions - they all have important things to teach us, but some of the things he talks about are only passing symbolism that, due to cultural practices, transgressed upon other underlying issues.

special pleading.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/specplea.html

 

[IamAdopted]

more to the point the continuous attacks against gays and lesbians, the justification and promotion of prejudice and hate and discrimination all fly in the face of the teachings of Jesus.

Are you saying that Jesus taught it was okay to be homosexual? For this would not be truth.. He spoke truth to all that would hear and receive.Jesus showed us the Father.. But He always did the will of the Father.. In the Ot and the Nt homosexuality is condemned.. As far as the word goes I cannot say anything for They do not proclaim to know God. But in the Body of Christ We are to uphold our standards to Gods standards.. Not the worlds view.. So therefore if God condemns it then it is not to be allowed in His body of believers and shoved off as okay. For God has never in the OT or the NT proclaimed that this life style is okay..

 

[yodafett]

like the first amendment to the constitution is opposed to Christianity?

as is the 13th and 14th amendment?

should we ignore these laws?

How are those opposed to Christianity?

 

[holo]

So to simplify what I'm getting at, nothing in Paul's letters can be said to only be cultural prohibitions - they all have important things to teach us, but some of the things he talks about are only passing symbolism that, due to cultural practices, transgressed upon other underlying issues.

I must admit that I didn't understand too much of your post... how do you distinguish what is cultural and what is an eternal rule?

 

[BigBadWlf]

How are those opposed to Christianity?

Have you read any of them?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Are you saying that Jesus taught it was okay to be homosexual?

Are you saying that Jesus taught it was okay to condemn people because they are different? That prejudice and discrimination against a minority is ethical?

Can you cite chapter and verse where J esus says it is good and moral and just to hate those who are different?

Can you explain how discrimination and prejudice fit with Jesus’s command to love one another?

For this would not be truth.. He spoke truth to all that would hear and receive.Jesus showed us the Father.. But He always did the will of the Father.. In the Ot and the Nt homosexuality is condemned.. As far as the word goes I cannot say anything for They do not proclaim to know God. But in the Body of Christ We are to uphold our standards to Gods standards.. Not the worlds view.. So therefore if God condemns it then it is not to be allowed in His body of believers and shoved off as okay. For God has never in the OT or the NT proclaimed that this life style is okay..

Many things are condemned in the bible that modern Christian happily ignore.

I do not see Christians justify discrimination and hate against the overweight or the handicapped…why not?

Why is hatred directed against one minority acceptable?

 

[yodafett]

Have you read any of them?

Freedom of Speech, Abolition of Slavery, and the 14th covers a few items. Yes, I know of them. Would you please step down to my lowly level, and explain to me exactly how they oppose Christianity?

 

[BigMike835]

The concept of sexual orientation didn't even exist then...

This implies that sexual orientation is a relatively new concept...which implies that it wasn't there upon the creation of humanity...which implies it's not based on nature and is more of a socially/culturally initiated concept...which implies that it was possible at one time to choose NOT to initiate this concept just as the Wright brothers could have chosen NOT to make the first functional airplane.

That's a simplistic example but it should illustrate the point. A lot of what we feel is "natural" in society is actually something introduced into our lives through "man-made" instigation.

The concept of "sexual orientation" vs. "sexual actions" didn't exist upon creation and thus was a choice at one point in humanity.

This is just a logical conclusion to come to based on what the person quoted above had said.

 

[yodafett]

Are you saying that Jesus taught it was okay to condemn people because they are different? That prejudice and discrimination against a minority is ethical?

Can you cite chapter and verse where J esus says it is good and moral and just to hate those who are different?

Can you explain how discrimination and prejudice fit with Jesus’s command to love one another?


Many things are condemned in the bible that modern Christian happily ignore.

I do not see Christians justify discrimination and hate against the overweight or the handicapped…why not?

Why is hatred directed against one minority acceptable?

I haven't seen any hatred in this thread. I've seen discussion on a topic as to whether or not it's a sin. I haven't seen a single statement that even implies that any homosexual is of a lower class or any less human. If you have, please show me, because I agree, bigotry about that IS wrong. Telling someone that what they are doing is a sin, whatever that sin may be, isn't wrong, and isn't hatred.

 

[intricatic]

I must admit that I didn't understand too much of your post... how do you distinguish what is cultural and what is an eternal rule?

Did the Hebrew people ever follow external regulations and cultural prohibitions for no good reason other than separating themselves from the rest of the world?

Hint; answer is no. What is culture, and why would something be prohibited within a culture?

For clarity, exploring the idea of women in leadership, headcovering, etc... is a very good starting point for discussion into this issue. That wasn't simply given because cultural practices were infringing the covenant relationship archetype, but because the very example dealt directly with the covenant relationship. Marital covenants and God's covenant archetype with His chosen people are mutually linked and intimately related to one another, so the implications are far reaching for both. However, I think people often misunderstand a lot of the messages that Paul gives because they look at it as if the message itself is an end in itself. These things aren't regulations for us to follow, but examples for how a paradigmatic relationship is supposed to operate. Like Paul says in Ephesians...

32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
(Ephesians 5)

^ Antitypal relationship.

Most, if not all of the elements in the Pauline letters operate exactly the same way, though I haven't explored in depth all of the different parts yet, it's strikingly obvious that this is, to a large degree, a "normal Paul" utility for explaining the archetypal relationship of Christians to Christ.

 

[StTherese]

so what of the infertile? Is sex with say a survivor of uterine cancer a sin then?




Why do you limit same sex relations to be only lustful. How would you respond to the accusation that the only reason you married was to satisfy your perverted sexual lusts?

Why are you limiting a minority from experiencing the same love you experience?

Just a quick question...
Why do you have a Catholic icon if you do not hold the beliefs of the CC?
If you disagree with its teachings, you are not Catholic.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Freedom of Speech, Abolition of Slavery, and the 14th covers a few items. Yes, I know of them. Would you please step down to my lowly level, and explain to me exactly how they oppose Christianity?

Freedom of religion…all religions…not just Christianity but all

Definitely goes against the ‘no Gods before me’ thing


Abolition of slavery. Flies in the face of biblical support of slavery


Everyone being equal…that includes gays and lesbians