How Did I Come to My Conclusions About Homosexuality?

[PastorFreud]

I think if you knew my theology you would know that I see no worth in any man, and nothing at all in myself. No, I have no power to allow or disallow. Perhaps I should have said "should I just act like there is nothing wrong with them or with anyone?"

You are on logic's side and I, by God's grace, on love's.

You use your reason to dismiss Biblical teaching and will not even try to help people know where there is forgiveness.

Hardly. Are you saying logic is outside of God? Love and logic can and do coexist.

Now regarding Biblical teaching, what do you mean? Do you mean that I dismiss the unbiblical and young (less than 200 year old) notion that the meaning of the text is the English meanings of the words found in the English translation? Yes, I dismiss that. We are never taught to read the Bible this way. But I do not dismiss a reading of the text that respects the original language, the original author, the culture of the audience, and the literary form that the text is employing. When I read the text this way, I see that the Bible is not trying to proclaim that unicorns exist, neither is it condemning emotionally committed same sex relationships.

But I am glad that there is forgiveness. When you come to terms with the sin and evil that is only 18 inches from your own head, remember that God freely grants forgiveness to those who ask. I encourage you to keep hating sin and keep worrying about salvation, but just your own. We are not called to hate anyone else's sin or to work out anyone else's salvation.

 

[kimber1]

*MOD HAT ON
it's obvious that this topic is an extremely touchy subject. i just want to say one thing so this thread doesn't end up closed. we cannot judge someone elses salvation and the snide little subtle digs have not gone unnoticed. keep it general in here folks, not personal.
*MOD HAT OFF

 

[Rocinante]

Some here have said that ALL homosexual activity is sin, even that of a committed, monogamous homosexual relationship waiting for the blessing of marriage and perhaps even raising happy, healthy children.

We have shown that the Bible does not support this notion of sin at all.

Those who are wedded to the notion that all homosexuality is sinful do not seem to care that the Bible does not support their belief.

So it usually goes with FundaGelicals. They have made up their minds and do not wish to be confused by new facts that disagree with their pre-judging.

I am ESPECIALLY saddened by the view of some that human beings are totally unworthy.

Such a view gives you the opening to trash others because you are also saying that YOU yourself are intrinsically........scum.

What an opportunity to lash out and hurt.

When we are burdened by the low self-esteem engendered by the FundaGelical teaching that humans are naturally wretched, vile and evil........it is almost impossible to love.

How can one love when one hates oneself? So it becomes easy to tag the natural behavior of homosexuals as unnatural and say they are going to hell for this "sin."

People with low self-esteem have a NEED to attack. That's why some here label and hurt homosexuals.

Before we continue, I'd like to ask that people speak only for their own intrinsic unworthiness and not call others unworthy. They should also refrain from saying that homosexuals are hell-bound sinners because of their sexual activity.

If that is done, we could move on to discussing the remaining Bible verses that deal with homosexuality.......assuming everyone has had their say on the passages already featured.

 

[dnich163]

I have concluded that there is nothing sinful about homosexual relationships that are either marriages, civil unions or simply living
....................So do most conservative Americans qualify?

Is this American Imperialism at work in that only they can be homosexual?????....Only joking.

My own view is that homosexuality (the act of) is against the creative idea of God's plan...go forth and multiply.
I personally regard it as no greater a sin than adultery. As a human condition it is nothing new, some cultures were very positive towards homosexual love; great writers, singers , actors etc.

However in Biblical tewrms homosexuality is condemned in the OT and NT when encountered.
My understaning of modern biblical scholarship is that the suggestion is that the condemnation is often against a heterosexual person involved in homosexual acts when the situation suggests rape (Gen 19) or acts in a context of idolatrous connotations (Lev 18:22, 20:13) or which are seen as violations of social justice demands for hospitality (Isa 1:9, Ezek 16:46-51)

In the NT both male and female are condemned for expressing idolatry (Rom 1:25-27) and the other texts are in relation to violating God's law (Cor 69:10, 1st Tim 1:9-10)

Most modern exegetes however acknowledge the difficulty in determining the precise meaning of these texts.

In 1986, the Roman Catholic Church published a document called "The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons"

This document was mainly to clarify the approach of the church towards gay paople...they should of course be treated with the same love and respect and afforded the same dignity as everyone else.

The basic line; although there were a number of schools of thought,is that homosexuality is "essentially imperfect" by definition.
Heterosexuality is still accepted as God's intention revealed in nature.

I am aware that there are a number of issues relating to homosexuality in Theological terms.

What if the gene that makes us sexual is "from God as part of nature"...this opens up a whole new theme for the thinkers.

David

 

[kimber1]

This document was mainly to clarify the approach of the church towards gay paople...they should of course be treated with the same love and respect and afforded the same dignity as everyone else.

and this right here is what people need to keep in the forefront of their minds but sadly this isn't done often enough.

 

[Fideist]

I think it is only "plainly" saying that to people who want or expect to read it that way.



I'm more inclined to think that the conservative Christians who came up with the view that homosexuality is morally wrong from those verses ,and many others who read those verses later, have had less of a pre-set interpretation than the liberals.

Why?

It makes perfect sense to read the context as both of these being examples of giving up what is usual or expected for something that is not usual or not expected.

Indeed...but it doesn't stop there. Paul proceeds to expand on what he meant with the "Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. "

But where does it mention anything about women committing indecent acts with other women? I think these "shameless acts" had to do with the drunken orgiastic behavior that accompanied the religious festivals of Greek and Roman gods such as Dionysus. What Paul is condemning has to do with the worship of other gods and the accompanying practice of heterosexual males having sex with other heterosexual males.

Verse 26, if it is referring to lesbianism, is the only instance of the idea in the Bible. That in itself is unusual. Moreover, the subject of lesbianism was not widespread at this time in history, not even in the Greek or Roman civilizations where same gender sex was anything but unusual.

The fact that it wasn't widespread is probably why it isn't mentioned at other places in the Bible.

I think you misunderstand. I am not saying that lesbianism was not widespread (so little mention was made of women under any circumstances it would be very difficult to know), I'm saying the discussion (subject) or contemplation of it was not widespread. Writers rarely if ever, mentioned women, let alone their sexual lives. That would work against the idea that anyone would want to break the taboo.

It's mere existence in Rome as a form of sexual immorality (to which Paul says "even the women...") would've warranted a mention by Paul...especially since some would be inclined to think that only male homosexuality is forbidden

Actually, Paul states “their women” (literally “females of them”). The KJV and NIV translators appear to have included personal opinion. Once again, same gender sex was very common in Roman and Hellenistic society. It was not considered immoral in either society. Add to that the elevation of the whole notion of virginity (Vestal Virgins, etc) as a virtue and males not generally getting married until their 20s. All these in combination tended to work against pure heterosexuality. Males were discussed, written about and so on. But to read the literature, a person begins to wonder if females even existed. To borrow an English phrase "it just wasn't done." So, same gender sex was discussed, but female same gender sex was not. This all makes the idea of Paul mentioning lesbianism without a Biblical precedent, unlikely.

Yes, I’m aware of that. But the underlying Greek for "unnatural" in this case is para physin. If para physin refers to "unnatural relations" in the immoral sense, then what is meant in Romans 11:24?

“For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature [para physin], into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.”



Surely the above refers to something that is unexpected, out of the ordinary or unusual?





And 'unnatural'. Is it not unnatural to graft a branch unto a tree?

Of course, but what the verse does is to show that the term para physin - "unnatural" does not impute immorality or immoral action.

The next verse could very well mean that the similarities that you point out must be considered, because of the conjunctional phrase, mean that both examples have replaced the usual with the unusual, rather than both are engaging in same gender sex. There is no reason that I can see that would cause a reader to have to connect the two parallels as same gender sex. In fact I would see that as a response based more on expectation.

It could mean both.



They exchanged the natural for unnatural, ie they engaged in homosexual sex. The following bit about men committing indecent acts with men is a continuation of the train of thought.

Then why not just come right out and say it? Why did Paul not explicitly say that “their women” committed indecent acts with other women? Women were rarely mentioned, but Paul has already mentioned "their women," so why not continue and finish the statement? Why leave it for others to wonder about? Was Paul the type of writer who spared the detail? Gave only fleeting mention of things he felt strongly about?

 

[andybell]

What if the gene that makes us sexual is "from God as part of nature"...this opens up a whole new theme for the thinkers.

David

This is a very interesting notion and something that I have been pondering for a long time. Something that nobody I know can give me a straight answer on.

I have often heard from people who are homosexual that they have always felt that way and have never been attracted to the opposite sex. They were born that way. Lets take a look back (not so long ago) at when homosexuality was frowned upon in society and people were being bashed and killed for being gay. Would you 'come out' knowing that this was your fate? Would you commit yourself to that sort of torture if you had a choice? But like I have heard time and time again from gay people, they didn't have a choice, they were born that way.

So that brings me to the question that I still haven't received a good answer to. Is homosexuality a sin? A particular weakness to temptation, or is it a form of (for want of a better word) deformity? such as blindness or genetically fat, skinny, tall, small.

I am interested to hear some thoughts on this. If anyone can point me to another thread that might include this topic that would be great.

 

[Perceivence]

Why?

The Liberal argument drips of pre-conceived notions being injected into scripture.

But where does it mention anything about women committing indecent acts with other women? I think these "shameless acts" had to do with the drunken orgiastic behavior that accompanied the religious festivals of Greek and Roman gods such as Dionysus. What Paul is condemning has to do with the worship of other gods and the accompanying practice of heterosexual males having sex with other heterosexual males.

You see, you're presumptuously applying what you think you know of the situation about which Paul was writing to alter what Paul is actually saying.

It talks about women committing indecent acts with other women by saying "Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones." then proceeding to expand on the meaning of that with "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."


Unless Paul is, in mid-explanation, introducing a different line of thinking with his "Men committed indecnt acts with other men" bit, he's still talking about the abandonment of natural relations by women and men for unnatural relations with their same sex.

I think you misunderstand. I am not saying that lesbianism was not widespread (so little mention was made of women under any circumstances it would be very difficult to know), I'm saying the discussion (subject) or contemplation of it was not widespread. Writers rarely if ever, mentioned women, let alone their sexual lives. That would work against the idea that anyone would want to break the taboo.

So since the subject is unusual, it seems out of place that Paul would talk about it?

Actually, Paul states “their women” (literally “females of them”). The KJV and NIV translators appear to have included personal opinion. Once again, same gender sex was very common in Roman and Hellenistic society. It was not considered immoral in either society. Add to that the elevation of the whole notion of virginity (Vestal Virgins, etc) as a virtue and males not generally getting married until their 20s. All these in combination tended to work against pure heterosexuality. Males were discussed, written about and so on. But to read the literature, a person begins to wonder if females even existed. To borrow an English phrase "it just wasn't done." So, same gender sex was discussed, but female same gender sex was not. This all makes the idea of Paul mentioning lesbianism without a Biblical precedent, unlikely.

It was 'their women.' My mistake....I was quoting from memory.

It's either you consider that fact as it being unlikely...or Paul showing that lesbianism isn't excluded from the 'sexually immoral' heading either.

Of course, but what the verse does is to show that the term para physin - "unnatural" does not impute immorality or immoral action.

Who said it means immorality? That implication comes from the context.

Then why not just come right out and say it? Why did Paul not explicitly say that “their women” committed indecent acts with other women? Women were rarely mentioned, but Paul has already mentioned "their women," so why not continue and finish the statement? Why leave it for others to wonder about? Was Paul the type of writer who spared the detail? Gave only fleeting mention of things he felt strongly about?

He did say it. It's strikingly straight-forward that he's saying that both the men and women commited indecent acts with their own sex. All the translations I've seen have a near identical construct, all of which convey the same thing - the bit about the men and women are paralleled and, thus, what is said about one applies to the other.

 

[artybloke]

The Conservative argument drips of pre-conceived notions being injected into scripture

.

Same back to you. Just making statements like this doesn't mean anything. In what way? Does anyone come to the Bible without a set of preconcieved notions injected into scripture?

You see, you're presumptuously applying what you think you know of the situation about which Paul was writing to alter what Paul is actually saying.

Again, back at you. Why do you think that you're not doing the same, just because "everybody used to think like that?" Everybody used to think that the Bible was in favour of slavery; they even had the texts to back it up.

We got over that mountain, and behold, there was light.

natural

para physin is also used by Paul to talk about men "unnasturally" having long hair. Please explain how Paul's view of nature as being something relating to fashions in coiffure in one passage (and therefore meaning "usual") becomea a universal sense of Platonic natural forms in another. Especially as Paul was probably not a Platonist.

 

[chalice_thunder]

Puriteen,

I'm not talking about salvation (unless it's your salvation). I'm talking about the fact that the Bible does not condemn monogamous, committed homosexual relationships waiting to be blessed by marriage (as many are today).

Well said!!

That's all. Your constant claims that you are on a mission to save homosexuals from hell is ludicrous when the ones you are talking about may already be Christians......and besides being ludicrous--it's slanderous and hurtful.

Yes, I agree. It's funny...as a Christian I am required to believe that there is a Hell...but I am not required to believe that there is ANYONE THERE!

 

[Perceivence]

Same back to you. Just making statements like this doesn't mean anything. In what way? Does anyone come to the Bible without a set of preconcieved notions injected into scripture?

I know me saying it doesn't make it that way. I was simply making a comment. An observation, if you will.

And yes, people do come to the Bible without a set of preconceived notions to inject into it. Some people actually don't go to the scripture with anything set in mind that they want to interpret from it.

Again, back at you. Why do you think that you're not doing the same, just because "everybody used to think like that?" Everybody used to think that the Bible was in favour of slavery; they even had the texts to back it up.

It can't be right back at me because I know next to nothing precise about the situation that Paul was writing about.

And I've been hearing this thing about the Bible supporting slavery before...what were the verses that they used?

We got over that mountain, and behold, there was light.

But, strangely, the situation is totally different. Where I come from, the secular anti-slavery drive was motivated by Christians. Today, the Christian homosexual drive is being motivated by the secular world.

para physin is also used by Paul to talk about men "unnasturally" having long hair. Please explain how Paul's view of nature as being something relating to fashions in coiffure in one passage (and therefore meaning "usual") becomea a universal sense of Platonic natural forms in another. Especially as Paul was probably not a Platonist.

You misunderstand me.

I never claimed that because he called it unnatural it's automatically immoral. The immorality of the situation does not come from an intrinsic value of that word. Rather, it comes from the other things Paul is actually saying; the context in which he uses the word confers immorality with this unnatural behaviour, not all 'unnatural' behaviour.

The chapter is replete with the ungodly acts that the Romans' rejection of God and worship of false idols has resulted in. Homosexual sex is one of them.

 

[Perceivence]

And the thing about saying the Conservative argument drips of preconceived notions is that, in the majority of cases where it does apply, these 'preconceived notions' came from other parts of the Bible. As far as I see it, that's not the case for the Liberals.

 

[Fideist]

Why?


The Liberal argument drips of pre-conceived notions being injected into scripture.

The liberal argument is based on a full study of the language, the history, the anthropology, expert commentary from several sources and the subsequent development of a hermeneutic.

But where does it mention anything about women committing indecent acts with other women? I think these "shameless acts" had to do with the drunken orgiastic behavior that accompanied the religious festivals of Greek and

Roman gods such as Dionysus. What Paul is condemning has to do with the worship of other gods and the accompanying practice of heterosexual males having sex with other heterosexual males.

You see, you're presumptuously applying what you think you know of the situation about which Paul was writing to alter what Paul is actually saying.

I'm asking why you think he doesn't specifically mention that women did the same thing as the men. And, using the descriptions given by Paul, I'm comparing them with what I know about the Dionysian mysteries - of which Paul would have been familiar, originally coming from Tarsus.

It talks about women committing indecent acts with other women by saying "Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones." then proceeding to expand on the meaning of that with "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."

I'm familiar with the passages, in case you hadn't noticed. And I think I've put more than adequate evidence into the record to show that verse 26 does not necessarily say what you say it says.

Unless

Paul is, in mid-explanation, introducing a different line of thinking with his "Men committed indecnt acts with other men" bit, he's still talking about the abandonment of natural relations by women and men for unnatural relations with their same sex.

Nope. He's talking about women doing something out of the ordinary. He does not specify what that is. He is specific about the male activity, but not the female activity.

I think you misunderstand. I am not saying that lesbianism was not widespread (so little mention was made of women under any circumstances it would be very difficult to know), I'm saying the discussion (subject) or contemplation of it was not widespread. Writers rarely if ever, mentioned women, let alone their sexual lives. That would work against the idea that anyone would want to break the taboo.

So since the subject is unusual, it seems out of place that Paul would talk about it?

It seems unlikely that he would 1) bother to talk about a subject that just wasn't spoken of, and 2) introduce a concept that is not referred to elsewhere in scripture. Where do you think Paul got his ideas about the law?

Actually,

Paul states “their women” (literally “females of them”). The KJV and NIV translators appear to have included personal opinion. Once again, same gender sex was very common in Roman and Hellenistic society. It was not considered immoral in either society. Add to that the elevation of the whole notion of virginity (Vestal Virgins, etc) as a virtue and males not generally getting married until their 20s. All these in combination tended to work against pure heterosexuality. Males were discussed, written about and so on. But to read the literature, a person begins to wonder if females even existed. To borrow an English phrase "it just wasn't done." So, same gender sex was discussed, but female same gender sex was not. This all makes the idea of Paul mentioning lesbianism without a Biblical precedent, unlikely.

It was 'their women.' My mistake....I was quoting from memory.

If you were quoting either the KJV or the NIV, your memory is fine. But their translations are marred by inserting additional and unnecessary words.

It's either you consider that fact as it being unlikely...or

Paul showing that lesbianism isn't excluded from the 'sexually immoral' heading either.

I'll tell you what. Show me the proscription against lesbianism in the Tanach (the Old Testament) that Paul was using to give him guidance on the lesbianism you say he was reporting as an immoral act. And then, quote me any sort of either Greek or Roman lit that describe the practice. If you cannot find a proscription for lesbianism in the OT, what law is it that you think Paul is accusing them of breaking in order to be immoral?

Of course, but what the verse does is to show that the term para physin - "unnatural" does not impute immorality or immoral action.

Who said it means immorality? That implication comes from the context.

No, the assumption that para physin is some sort of immoral act comes from the inferred context. But when you look at other instances of "unnatural", it just means out of the ordinary, different or unusual. Thus the behavior being described is unusual, but the reader has to add (infer) the idea of it also being immoral. But how do we know that it is immoral?

Then why not just come right out and say it? Why did

Paul not explicitly say that “their women” committed indecent acts with other women? Women were rarely mentioned, but Paul has already mentioned "their women," so why not continue and finish the statement? Why leave it for others to wonder about? Was Paul the type of writer who spared the detail? Gave only fleeting mention of things he felt strongly about?

He did say it. It's strikingly straight-forward that he's saying that both the men and women commited indecent acts with their own sex. All the translations I've seen have a near identical construct, all of which convey the same thing - the bit about the men and women are paralleled and, thus, what is said about one applies to the other.

According to your interpretation. But why should I accept your interpretation? I comprehend a different meaning when I read it. But to be fair, I'm reading it with other knowledge than just the translated words. I can read the raw language. I have consulted expert commentators. Not just one, but several. I know something of the history of first century Palestine, because I've read the work of first century historians. I've also read the work of scholars schooled in the anthropology of the region at the time. I know quite a bit about Paul because I’ve read scholarly treatises on him, etc. My interpretation is that Paul is describing and condemning the acts associated with the religious festivals of some of the Mystery religions. The transgression is not immorality, in his view, it is idolatry.

 

[Perceivence]

The liberal argument is based on a full study of the language, the history, the anthropology, expert commentary from several sources and the subsequent development of a hermeneutic.

And this Conservative argument is based on the Holy Spirit's guidance.

I'm asking why you think he doesn't specifically mention that women did the same thing as the men. And, using the descriptions given by

Paul, I'm comparing them with what I know about the Dionysian mysteries - of which Paul would have been familiar, originally coming from Tarsus.

I'll be the first to say that I know nothing of those.

Anyway, Paul did specifically mention that women do the same thing as men. He didn't repeat everything he said about the men with 'the women' inserted in it, but he did do it.

I'm familiar with the passages, in case you hadn't noticed. And I think I've put more than adequate evidence into the record to show that verse 26 does not necessarily say what you say it says.

You have?

Nope. He's talking about women doing something out of the ordinary. He does not specify what that is. He is specific about the male activity, but not the female activity.

You don't want to see it so you won't.

It seems unlikely that he would 1) bother to talk about a subject that just wasn't spoken of, and 2) introduce a concept that is not referred to elsewhere in scripture. Where do you think

Paul got his ideas about the law?

Its isolation does not make it unlikely. Especially since the entire concept isn't a new one.

Paul talked about women more than once in his letters. If he thought that people would've incorrectly concluded that male homosexual sex is wrong but female homosexual sex isn't, then he would've included the bit about the females...and it appears that's what happened.

If you were quoting either the KJV or the NIV, your memory is fine. But their translations are marred by inserting additional and unnecessary words.

I intended to quote the NIV...but I didn't. The NIV says 'their women.'

I'll tell you what. Show me the proscription against lesbianism in the Tanach (the Old Testament) that

Paul was using to give him guidance on the lesbianism you say he was reporting as an immoral act. And then, quote me any sort of either Greek or Roman lit that describe the practice. If you cannot find a proscription for lesbianism in the OT, what law is it that you think Paul is accusing them of breaking in order to be immoral?

He was guided by the Holy Spirit.

No, the assumption that para physin is some sort of immoral act comes from the inferred context. But when you look at other instances of "unnatural", it just means out of the ordinary, different or unusual. Thus the behavior being described is unusual, but the reader has to add (infer) the idea of it also being immoral. But how do we know that it is immoral?

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
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.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.





Do I need to explain anything or is the added emphasis enough?

According to your interpretation. But why should I accept your interpretation? I comprehend a different meaning when I read it. But to be fair, I'm reading it with other knowledge than just the translated words. I can read the raw language. I have consulted expert commentators. Not just one, but several. I know something of the history of first century

Palestine, because I've read the work of first century historians. I've also read the work of scholars schooled in the anthropology of the region at the time. I know quite a bit about Paul because I’ve read scholarly treatises on him, etc. My interpretation is that Paul is describing and condemning the acts associated with the religious festivals of some of the Mystery religions. The transgression is not immorality, in his view, it is idolatry.

I see.

So what Paul is saying is not what he meant?

 

[Fideist]

Anyway, Paul did specifically mention that women do the same thing as men. He didn't repeat everything he said about the men with 'the women' inserted in it, but he did do it.

Sorry, but I don't see it.

Paul talked about women more than once in his letters. If he thought that people would've incorrectly concluded that male homosexual sex is wrong but female homosexual sex isn't, then he would've included the bit about the females...and it appears that's what happened.

Talking about women does not equal talking about lesbianism.

I intended to quote the NIV...but I didn't. The NIV says 'their women.'

Not exactly, the word "even" is added:

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. - The New International Version, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House) 1984.

He was guided by the Holy Spirit.

You're right, there is no proscription against lesbianism in the OT.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
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.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

So, for you quoting Paul to back up your personal reading of Paul is sufficient? Sorry, but that's not enough for me.

So what Paul is saying is not what he meant?

Sorry, no. What you are saying is not what Paul meant.

 

[Perceivence]

Sorry, but I don't see it.

*sigh*

I was hoping you would...but didn't expect you to.

Talking about women does not equal talking about lesbianism.

Obviously.

I was commenting on your claim that talking about women, generally, was unheard of in those times. I was showing that no, that's not so in Paul's writings. Paul does talk about women.

You're right, there is no proscription against lesbianism in the OT.

If I hadn't known better, I'd've thought you're suggesting that Holy Spirit inspiration for these things isn't enough.

So, for you quoting Paul to back up your personal reading of Paul is sufficient? Sorry, but that's not enough for me.

Once more, it's pretty straight forward. Paul is talking about things that are wrong, thing that are ungodly. Some of the things I bolded were the introduction to that and that's where people who read that passage and interpret that Paul is saying homosexual sex is morally wrong get that part from.

I was hoping the bolding of certain parts would be enough for you to understand it....

Sorry, no. What you are saying is not what Paul meant.

Responding to this will be fruitless...so I won't.

 

[dnich163]

So that brings me to the question that I still haven't received a good answer to. Is homosexuality a sin? A particular weakness to temptation, or is it a form of (for want of a better word) deformity? such as blindness or genetically fat, skinny, tall, small.

Hello there Andy,

From the perspective of the Catholic church , homosexual acts are seen as intrinsically evil.
While the homosexual person is not responsible for his/her essentially flawed condition,they are called; as we all are, to a "chaste life"...this means total abstinence from genital expressions even in those relationships which are potentially life and love giving.
God's plan is that sexual geniutal expressions must be open to their life (pro-creative) and love (unitive) giving potentials.

Because of this homosexual acts will always be seen as "intrinsically disordered".

The good news is that the inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin.........it is more of a disorder.

Isn't terminolgy sometimes very hard and cold?

David

 

[PastorFreud]

Wow. There are official positions that describe homosexuality as "intrinsically disordered" and yet we wonder why homosexuals feel attacked?

 

[Fideist]

I was commenting on your claim that talking about women, generally, was unheard of in those times. I was showing that no, that's not so in Paul's writings. Paul does talk about women.

Yes, I knew that Perceivence. Despite the way I must appear to you, I'm well educated. I agree that Paul speaks much more about women than most of the people of his day. I think Paul held women in high regard.

You're right, there is no proscription against lesbianism in the OT.

If I hadn't known better, I'd've thought you're suggesting that Holy Spirit inspiration for these things isn't enough.

Your claim that Paul was using the Holy Spirit was what, speculation? If all the claims that conservatives make about the Holy Spirit were true, don't you think there'd be unanimity in Biblical exegesis? Wouldn't you have been led instantly to a passage that suited your need to bolster your argument?

So, for you quoting Paul to back up your personal reading of Paul is sufficient? Sorry, but that's not enough for me.

Once more, it's pretty straight forward.

That is just it, Perceivence. It is anything but straightforward. Paul exegeted the Tanach and other Jewish scripture as a Pharisee would exegete it. Are you schooled in Pharisaic Jewish exegesis? If not, is it possible you are missing a point or two when Paul refers to the OT? How many times does Paul refer the OT or other scripture in Romans? Almost 50 times, most of those being in chapters 9 through 11.

Paul is talking about things that are wrong, thing that are ungodly. Some of the things I bolded were the introduction to that and that's where people who read that passage and interpret that Paul is saying homosexual sex is morally wrong get that part from.

I was hoping the bolding of certain parts would be enough for you to understand it....

Believe me; I understand where (and why) you think that the "homosexuality is a sin" issue is clearly covered in Romans. Christians make the same claim about Leviticus, yet if you ask a Conservative Jewish rabbi for an exegesis of the passages in question, you'll not get what you're expecting.

Sorry, no. What you are saying is not what Paul meant.

Responding to this will be fruitless...so I won't.

It is important to understand that in Paul's theology, most of the Jews have not held up their end of the bargain with God (been righteous). Too many were unfaithful and only a very few (remnant) would be saved. That would happen along with faithful Christians when Jesus returned. Moreover, Paul expected Jesus to return within his (Paul's) lifetime. Most importantly, those gentiles who had once been disobedient would now get a chance to be saved because of the disobedience of the Jews. Former gentiles would take the place of the Jews, at least temporarily.



So, pretty much, the major thrust of the epistle in on the once faithless, disobedient gentiles trading places with the once chosen Jews. The imagery that you are so concerned about, in the beginning of Romans, is all about the faithless, disobedient, idolatrous gentiles who now stand to inherit.



The upshot of this, whether you look at it from the bottom up using word study, etc. or you look at it from the top down using the overall idea of Paul’s theology, the imagery has to do with idolatry. That in spite of the clarity of Evangelical Christians using English translations of the Bible and employing an excruciating sort of projection of their own beliefs onto those of first century Palestinians.

]

 

[dnich163]

Wow. There are official positions that describe homosexuality as "intrinsically disordered" and yet we wonder why homosexuals feel attacked?

Hi Pastor,
It's always a problem with short answers.
This wording actually comes from a document about Care for the homosexual person in our community...it's basically about treating them with the respect that every person is due.

Thats why I said at the end of my post that terminology can be so cold and hard at times.

David