Homosexuality

[junobet]

[SIZE=medium]Hi there Wormwood,[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]you’re right: this would derail the other thread, so here’s a new one. [/SIZE]

Junobet said:


It seems you and I are pretty much in the same boat when it comes to how we view the relationship between faith and works.
Just one little comment on a trifle we disagree on:
If your Bible has the term “homosexual” in it, it must be a really bad translation. The term was first used in 1869 and describes something different than what Paul had beef with in the 1th century. What I agree on is that you can’t be a Christian and continue engaging in temple prostitution and sexual exploitation, which are the contexts in which same sex intercourse were publicly known of in antiquity.
I acknowledge that for many Christians, especially in the US, this is more than just a trifle, but a highly emotional topic. But IMHO the church should concentrate on proclaiming the Gospel, and the Gospel is not about sex, it is about love.

​

If you would like to start a thread on homosexuality, I'd be happy to comment on it. I know Koine Greek and you are getting bad information from bad sources. The words Paul uses are very specific about the behavior...he even creates a new word to describe the act of homosexuality in one instance. A recent trend among liberal Biblical scholars has been to try to convey that Paul was only speaking of the specific types of homosexuality that were related to the worship of false gods. 1) This is simply not true. 2) The argument is based on cultural context, not word meanings. On multiple occasions, Paul speaks only of the act of homosexuality and makes no reference to the temple services in which some of those homosexual acts may have taken place. In fact, Paul speaks of homosexuality as a perversion of God's created order in Romans 1. This context has nothing to do with temple practices of the day or any specific act of homosexuality related to idolatrous worship.

The fact is, these words have always been translated "homosexuality" for nearly 2000 years. The only reason the meanings of these words is starting to be called into question is because our culture has deemed homosexuality an acceptable practice and is now seeking to create legitimacy for that practice from the Bible. Neither the Jews or Christians ever interpreted their Scriptures as justifying homosexual acts...in any context.

Again, this is not the thread for this discussion, but if you want to use these comments as a catalyst for creating a new thread, I'd be happy to contribute my views on it.

​

[SIZE=medium]Let me start with something I’m sure you and I agree on: the first and furthermost commands a Christian ought to follow is to love God neighbour. And even though on this topic we happen to disagree on how to best love God and neighbour, I won’t think of you as a lesser Christian for it and I can but hope that you won’t think of me as a lesser Christian either.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Now, while I happen to have passed my exams in Ancient Greek, it’s more than twenty years ago that I last had to translate a Greek text. So it’s very likely that your Greek is much better than what is still left of mine. It’s unlikely though that your Greek is much better than the Greek of my church’s highly educated theologians (Evangelical Church of Westfalia), who recently decided to allow for the public blessing of homosexual couples. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Knowledge of Koine Greek is beyond the point though. My point was that you won’t find the term “homosexual” anywhere in your “Novum Testamentum Graece”, nor in any translation done before [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]1886[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]. What is fact is that the term “homosexuality” was first used in in the late 19[/SIZE][SIZE=small]th[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] century and was popularized by a guy called [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]Richard von Krafft-Ebing, widely thought to be the founder of a science called “sexology”. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]One thing that sexologists have since found out, is that our sexual orientation is hugely determined by biological factors. It is most likely something that we are born with and that we can no more change than we can change the colour of our eyes. Think of it as an impairment if you must, but being born homosexual is certainly no more sinful than being born intersexual (people with no definite gender: female genitalia, but male DNA etc.) [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Paul could not have known any of this back in the 1th century, but we do know now. To Paul homosexual behaviour was connected to pagan promiscuity (where it must indeed also have been practiced by People Born heterosexual) and it was as much against what he perceived to be the natural order as slavery was part of the social order he saw as established by God. This comes as no surprise. What does come as a surprise is that we hear this 1th century patriarchal Jewish Roman citizen saying things like this:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]“[/SIZE][SIZE=small]28 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]Because all of you are one in the Messiah[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Jesus, a person is no longer a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, a male or a female.” (Gal. 3:28)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]This is the kind of deep spiritual insight, paired with an ever deeper love for neighbour, that eventually led Christians to spearhead the abolition movement even though slave-owners could point to very many Biblical verses supporting slavery. It led many of us to support women’s rights including the right to be ordained as Pastors and Bishops. And imho it should lead us to accept homosexuals the way God created them rather than continue to cause pain, grief and self-loathing. [/SIZE]

 

[heretoeternity]

Your logic is flawed in your eager request to try and justify homosexuality/sodomy...God condemned it in Leviticus 18 and 20 as an "ABOMINATION TO HIM"...and He destroyed the homosexual cities and inhabitants of Sodom and Gommorah because of the filthy perverted practice of sodomy...
God gave them a choice, to live straight when He created Man and woman, male and female to populate the earth...if they chose to live their perverted disease producing lifestyles, it will be interesting to see how God deals with them, in view of what He did to this conduct in the past.

 

[Wormwood]

Let me start with something I’m sure you and I agree on: the first and furthermost commands a Christian ought to follow is to love God neighbour. And even though on this topic we happen to disagree on how to best love God and neighbour, I won’t think of you as a lesser Christian for it and I can but hope that you won’t think of me as a lesser Christian either.

I appreciate your approach to this topic. While I remain very concerned about those who would seek to justify acts that God explicitly condemns on multiple occasions in the Scriptures, I assure you that I will treat you with utmost respect and strive to speak in a gracious and loving manner. So please read my words in that tone, even though my views may sharply disagree with your own.

Now, while I happen to have passed my exams in Ancient Greek, it’s more than twenty years ago that I last had to translate a Greek text. So it’s very likely that your Greek is much better than what is still left of mine. It’s unlikely though that your Greek is much better than the Greek of my church’s highly educated theologians (Evangelical Church of Westfalia), who recently decided to allow for the public blessing of homosexual couples.

Well, I dont claim to be a Greek scholar, but I have taken multiple classes on Koine Greek and feel capable to discuss the finer details of the language. I also consult a number of scholars on the language as well, so we both have other sources we draw from. However, I think our discussion will ultimately show that the word meanings themselves is not predominately the jumping point for most liberal scholars. Rather, it is the context they associate with those words that seek to limit the scope of the words or suggest that Paul has particular practices in mind. I think Greek literature shows very clearly that these words mean exactly what they are translated as in pretty much every English Bible. The question becomes, "Was Paul only considering specific homosexual acts based on the temple practices of his day or the act of homosexuality in general?" The liberal scholars generally argue that while the words mean homosexuality, it was only the homosexuality that was prevalent in temple worship in Paul's context that is being specifically addressed in his letters. I find this to be an argument based on a lot of conjecture about Paul's context and Paul's unwritten contemplation as a means of approving what is specifically condemned.

Knowledge of Koine Greek is beyond the point though. My point was that you won’t find the term “homosexual” anywhere in your “Novum Testamentum Graece”, nor in any translation done before1886. What is fact is that the term “homosexuality” was first used in in the late 19[SIZE=small]th[/SIZE] century and was popularized by a guy called Richard von Krafft-Ebing, widely thought to be the founder of a science called “sexology”.

Well, I recognize there will be a lot of semantics in a discussion of this nature. I think it is important to remember that words have meaning. While the English word "homosexual" may not have existed, the concept behind the word is that of someone given to same gender intercourse. I think we will find in our discussion that the words Paul uses most certainly carry this connotation.

One thing that sexologists have since found out, is that our sexual orientation is hugely determined by biological factors. It is most likely something that we are born with and that we can no more change than we can change the colour of our eyes. Think of it as an impairment if you must, but being born homosexual is certainly no more sinful than being born intersexual (people with no definite gender: female genitalia, but male DNA etc.)

I think this is a separate discussion, that we can tackle maybe later since it is not specifically about what the Bible teaches on the subject. Suffice it to say that, from what I have read, there have been no conclusive links to homosexuality and genetic dispositions. Rather, most of what I have read suggest that homosexual tendencies tend to be highly influenced by early sexual encounters, regardless of geneology. In any event, even if DNA does indicate a predisposition toward this behavior, it doesnt make it right/wrong. Some have a predisposition towards alcoholism or an explosive temper. It doesnt mean that their personality or genetic predispositions excuse the behavior. What if science proves that someone's DNA leads them to be attracted to small children? Will this make pedophilia an acceptable practice? I would think not.

Paul could not have known any of this back in the 1th century, but we do know now. To Paul homosexual behaviour was connected to pagan promiscuity (where it must indeed also have been practiced by People Born heterosexual) and it was as much against what he perceived to be the natural order as slavery was part of the social order he saw as established by God. This comes as no surprise. What does come as a surprise is that we hear this 1th century patriarchal Jewish Roman citizen saying things like this:

1. I believe Paul was an inspired author of Scripture and his writings are the words of God. I do not accept the idea that he was just a flawed man writing out the ignorance of his cultural context.
2. I think this is mere speculation that suggests that Paul was referring to heterosexuals who were unnaturally practicing homosexuality. The texts say nothing of the sort and this is all simply an argument from imagination.
3. The issue of slavery and homosexuality are very different issues. There is nothing that suggests homosexuality was imposed on society by Roman government. Approximately 1/3 of Roman society were slaves. This is not true of the practice of homosexuality.
4. Paul's words in Romans 1 speak of men being inflamed in lust toward other men (and women toward women). Thus, this is not referring to someone with no homosexual desire doing something imposed on them by society. Rather, it is clearly describing someone with a lustful desire toward a person of the same sex that is coming from withing...not imposed as a social order.

This is the kind of deep spiritual insight, paired with an ever deeper love for neighbour, that eventually led Christians to spearhead the abolition movement even though slave-owners could point to very many Biblical verses supporting slavery. It led many of us to support women’s rights including the right to be ordained as Pastors and Bishops. And imho it should lead us to accept homosexuals the way God created them rather than continue to cause pain, grief and self-loathing.

Galatians 3 has nothing to do with homosexuality or women's rights. The verse simply indicates that people of various genders and backgrounds share a common salvation and that there is an equal value to each of these individuals in Christ. To suggest that this verse has anything to do with challenging local government or approving homosexual acts and unions is a great misuse of this verse and its context.

 

[FHII]

I must be a sadist to even enter into this discussion....

Folks, i know nothing about the greek language and don't plan on learning. I have esword which has Strong's and Thayer's. Other than that, i simply rely on the KVJ.

I want to clear up one misconception: Sodom was not destroyed because of homosexuality. Yes, it was there and a problem but it wasn't the reason. See Eze 16.

Paul does not condemn homosexuality in Romans 1. Not exactly. Paul explains God turned them over to their vile affections for their dishonouring of God. Homosexuality wasn't the problem; it was what God let take over their life.

Let me illustrate this.... Can an alcoholic be saved? Of course. Does she have to give up drinking? It would help, but no. Alcoholics can still be Christians. However if they are so deep into it that they aren't doing the good works of learning of him, assembling with other Christians (going to Church), giving and caring for the brethren.... God's going to leave her in her bottle!

Thats whay Romans 1 is getting at.

Now, if you are a homosexual you have a problem. In the OT it is a sin. And its just as big a sin as murder and false worship. The NT says so also.... In fact the book of James validates this notion in saying if you are guilty of one sin you are guilty of all sins.

On the other hand... If you eat shrimp, bacon or catfish you are guilty of homosexuality AND every other sin. If you take a pen home from work.... That's stealing and you are guilty of homosexuality.

No, not really but God sees you as just ad big a sinner!

Matt 5. Jesus explained that if you so much as look on a woman to lust (even if you don't act on the lust) you are guilty. I think the same applies to all sins you think about.

I won't go deeper into that.... But you folks who are anti-gay know what I'm getting at. Don't make me embarrass you and make you a liar.

So.... What about grace? Does it cover homosexuality? Well, if it covers you eating pork or wearing polyester.... It covers that too.

To summarize:

Homosexuality is a sin. Without grace through faith in Jesus Christ and the sacrifice HE AND HE ALONE made, you are going to hell and will be surrounded by shrimp eaters who wear polyester. But if you accept the Blood attonement, you don't have to quit anymore than i have to give up shrimp.

 

[Wormwood]

On the other hand... If you eat shrimp, bacon or catfish you are guilty of homosexuality

Jesus declared all foods clean. Some of the OT laws were shadows to point to the coming of the New Covenant. Just as we do not need to continually offer sacrifice (Christ fulfilled that) so also the NT makes it clear we are not under dietary restrictions. They served a different purpose and Christ fulfilled those. That is far different from saying that someone should not murder. Eating bacon is not murder. Eating bacon is not a sin. Murder is. I agree that grace can and does cover all sins. However, I disagree that a person can actively indulge in a lifestyle of homosexuality, murder, or drunkenness and claim the name "Christian." We are not saved by what we do, but neither are we Christ-followers if we indulge in the things that grieve his heart without conscience. It would be like an Israelite saying, "I worship the true God, Yahweh" while offering sacrifices and joining orgies dedicated to Baal. Something doesnt add up. God isnt concerned with our lip service, but what our lives actually display. Jesus said, you can either serve God or Mammon. You cant do both. The same is true, I believe, with relation to this issue. Its not to say a person will not sin or stumble, but it is to say that if they joyfully and unrepentant indulge in sexual perversions and have no desire to change their behaviors, then certainly the Spirit of Christ does not dwell in that individual. You know tree by a fruit. The Christian tree does not produce the fruit of unashamed sexual perversions.

 

[FHII]

Jesus declared all foods clean. Some of the OT laws were shadows to point to the coming of the New Covenant. Just as we do not need to continually offer sacrifice (Christ fulfilled that) so also the NT makes it clear we are not under dietary restrictions. They served a different purpose and Christ fulfilled those. That is far different from saying that someone should not murder. Eating bacon is not murder. Eating bacon is not a sin. Murder is. I agree that grace can and does cover all sins. However, I disagree that a person can actively indulge in a lifestyle of homosexuality, murder, or drunkenness and claim the name "Christian." We are not saved by what we do, but neither are we Christ-followers if we indulge in the things that grieve his heart without conscience. It would be like an Israelite saying, "I worship the true God, Yahweh" while offering sacrifices and joining orgies dedicated to Baal. Something doesnt add up. God isnt concerned with our lip service, but what our lives actually display. Jesus said, you can either serve God or Mammon. You cant do both. The same is true, I believe, with relation to this issue. Its not to say a person will not sin or stumble, but it is to say that if they joyfully and unrepentant indulge in sexual perversions and have no desire to change their behaviors, then certainly the Spirit of Christ does not dwell in that individual. You know tree by a fruit. The Christian tree does not produce the fruit of unashamed sexual perversions.

You attaked dietary practices.... What about wearing polyester? What about stealing or lying? What about not having a battlement on your house?

See Wormwood, you are missing the point. Why did God even institute the law? Answer: that the offense might abound. He brought the law so he would have something to free us from! Amen, and praise God!

I would like to think differently, but I suspect you suffer from homophobia and frankly, I don't see any evidence that suggests you believe in grace at all.

 

[Deborah_]

Nature or nurture?

This debate has been raging for decades, if not longer. The interesting thing is that you can usually guess which side people are going to be on: it doesn’t depend so much on the scientific evidence (which is conflicting) but on their underlying beliefs and vested interests. The gay lobbyists will usually insist that homosexuality is something that people are invariably born with, and it’s easy to understand why: if something is genetic, that usually implies that you have no choice in the matter, that nothing can be done about it and that it should therefore be accepted as ‘normal for you’. But if it’s not determined before birth, then the situation can be interpreted very differently. It implies either that it’s your personal choice or that it’s the result of something that happened to you during childhood. And two consequences follow. Firstly, you can look around for someone to blame – either the gay person themselves (for making the ‘wrong’ choice) or maybe their parents (for not doing their job properly). Secondly, if sexual orientation is not genetically fixed, then what can be changed in one direction can (potentially at least) be changed back. So this is the viewpoint usually taken by those people who believe that homosexuality is either a disease or a sin.

But the fact is, we don’t actually know what causes someone to be homosexual. Despite a lot of research, nobody has yet discovered a ‘gay gene’; it isn’t as simple as that, and there are probably many different factors involved. Nor are all gay people the same; for a significant proportion, childhood experiences (such as sexual abuse) may well have played a part in determining their sexual orientation, but we shouldn’t assume that it must therefore be the same for all. The most important thing for the rest of us to realise is that for the vast majority, homosexuality is not a choice. Whether it’s inborn, or the result of something happening in childhood, or a combination of both, makes no difference: they are what they are, they have always felt that way, and they can’t (of themselves) do anything to change it.

Now Christians would say that all such things, whether caused by nature or nurture, are in some way a consequence of the Fall – the human race’s initial rebellion against God. God’s original intention, which we find in the early chapters of Genesis, was for human beings to form permanent, exclusive, heterosexual partnerships – what we now call marriage. This passage was the basis for Jesus’ tough teaching on marriage and divorce (Matthew 19:3-12). Any other kind of sexual relationship – casual, extramarital, or homosexual – is outside of God’s blueprint. But because the human race alienated itself from God, we now all find it difficult to live according to His blueprint, and some of us find it very difficult indeed. In our current culture, lifelong monogamy is out of fashion, while natural self-expression in sexual matters is not only very much encouraged but even claimed to be an essential need! There is thus a major culture clash between Christian teaching and the rest of society.

So what is the Church meant to do? Should we re-assess our ethics in the light of the modern understanding of human sexuality, and adopt the values of the world around us? Actually, this is not a new question, and the Bible is quite clear on the subject: Christians are meant to be different from the rest of the world, and sexual behaviour is one area in which the differences should be (and have always been) very obvious. So the most important thing for us to remember is that it’s not how we came to have our sexual orientation that matters, but what we do with it – and that applies to heterosexuals as much as to homosexuals. Adultery gets many more mentions in Scripture than homosexual sex.

[removed]

 

[Wormwood]

You attaked dietary practices.... What about wearing polyester? What about stealing or lying? What about not having a battlement on your house?

See Wormwood, you are missing the point. Why did God even institute the law? Answer: that the offense might abound. He brought the law so he would have something to free us from! Amen, and praise God!

I would like to think differently, but I suspect you suffer from homophobia and frankly, I don't see any evidence that suggests you believe in grace at all.

FHII, lets stick to the actual comments made in the thread and not go about questioning someone's morality. I do believe in grace and that we are saved by it alone. If you dont believe I do, then Im not going to wrestle with you about it. I wasnt attacking dietary practices. Just saying that the command not to murder is different than the command to offer sacrifices. Clearly God still does not want us to murder, but it doesnt mean he does want us to continue to offer sacrifices...Jesus was the sacrifice to which all others pointed. I understand we are not under law. However, as people redeemed from the law, we offer our bodies as living sacrifices to God. Does that mean we offer our bodies to indulge in sin and immorality becasue we are free from law? No, you and I both know Paul says such teaching deserves condemnation. We are saved by grace, but grace is not license to sin. A person cannot claim grace and go on indulging in homosexuality, murder, or child abuse. You think someone who sexually abuses children on a regular basis but says, "Its okay, I believe God will be gracious to me because Jesus died on a cross" that such a person will receive grace? God calls those who seek renewal to repent and turn to Christ. Repentance is not a pledge to perfection, but it is a turning away from the old to embrace the new. Homosexuality is part of the old life of sin and should not be seen as compatible with the new life of holiness in Christ to which we are called. If that makes me someone who does nto believe in grace in your mind, so be it. I do believe in grace, I just dont believe grace is an excuse to act wickedly and think such a person will be immune from judgement.

 

[junobet]

I appreciate your approach to this topic. While I remain very concerned about those who would seek to justify acts that God explicitly condemns on multiple occasions in the Scriptures, I assure you that I will treat you with utmost respect and strive to speak in a gracious and loving manner. So please read my words in that tone, even though my views may sharply disagree with your own.

[SIZE=12pt]Will do. While I myself am deeply convinced that God created and loves my homosexual friends just the way they are. and it while it saddens me how the church has sinned/is sinning against them, I still break bread with my old Pastor, who still is more inclined towards your position. So I have good hope that you and I, too, will still be on good terms after this discussion. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]All it takes is to acknowledge that we each must follow our own Christian conscience in this. [/SIZE]

Well, I dont claim to be a Greek scholar, but I have taken multiple classes on Koine Greek and feel capable to discuss the finer details of the language. I also consult a number of scholars on the language as well, so we both have other sources we draw from. However, I think our discussion will ultimately show that the word meanings themselves is not predominately the jumping point for most liberal scholars. Rather, it is the context they associate with those words that seek to limit the scope of the words or suggest that Paul has particular practices in mind. I think Greek literature shows very clearly that these words mean exactly what they are translated as in pretty much every English Bible. The question becomes, "Was Paul only considering specific homosexual acts based on the temple practices of his day or the act of homosexuality in general?" The liberal scholars generally argue that while the words mean homosexuality, it was only the homosexuality that was prevalent in temple worship in Paul's context that is being specifically addressed in his letters. I find this to be an argument based on a lot of conjecture about Paul's context and Paul's unwritten contemplation as a means of approving what is specifically condemned.


Well, I recognize there will be a lot of semantics in a discussion of this nature. I think it is important to remember that words have meaning. While the English word "homosexual" may not have existed, the concept behind the word is that of someone given to same gender intercourse. I think we will find in our discussion that the words Paul uses most certainly carry this connotation.

​

[SIZE=12pt]Yes, as you are painfully experiencing in the faith thread, semantics are important. Getting them wrong can lead to utter confusion.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]In this case the words Paul used can’t have meant exactly what “homosexuality” means, because Paul did not live in the world of thought of modernity, in which the terms “homosexual/heterosexual” were first coined and filled with meaning. Sexual identity is not a concept that a first century Jew, however educated, could have had within his scope. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]What Paul did have within his scope was the Tanach, which makes the link to both temple prostitution ([/SIZE]2 Kings 23:7) [SIZE=12pt]and rape (Gen 19:5). He himself links sexual activity between people of the same gender to idol worship in Rom 1:22-27. Now, none of the homosexuals I’m friends with has ever been into idol-worshipping (and in saying this I graciously include the Catholics among them ;-)). So I deem it unlikely that that is why God “gave them up to” lusting for people of the same gender. And I may mingle with an exceptionally politically correct crowd, but none of my homosexual friends would recognize their own homosexual relationships in the dominance-based sexual practices and views of ancient Rome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]


.... to be continued ...​

 

[junobet]

I think this is a separate discussion, that we can tackle maybe later since it is not specifically about what the Bible teaches on the subject. Suffice it to say that, from what I have read, there have been no conclusive links to homosexuality and genetic dispositions. Rather, most of what I have read suggest that homosexual tendencies tend to be highly influenced by early sexual encounters, regardless of geneology. In any event, even if DNA does indicate a predisposition toward this behavior, it doesnt make it right/wrong. Some have a predisposition towards alcoholism or an explosive temper. It doesnt mean that their personality or genetic predispositions excuse the behavior. What if science proves that someone's DNA leads them to be attracted to small children? Will this make pedophilia an acceptable practice? I would think not.

[SIZE=12pt]Actually I think this is a very vital part of this discussion. So sorry to lazily use wikipedia again, but here’s a summary of what 21th century scientists tell us about homosexuality: [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]“[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]Along with [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]bisexuality[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] and [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]heterosexuality[/SIZE][SIZE=medium], homosexuality is one of the three main categories of sexual orientation within the [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]heterosexual–homosexual continuum[/SIZE][SIZE=medium].[/SIZE][SIZE=9.5pt][1][/SIZE][SIZE=medium] Scientists do not know the exact cause of sexual orientation, but they believe that it is caused by a complex interplay of [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]genetic[/SIZE][SIZE=medium], [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]hormonal[/SIZE][SIZE=medium], and [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]environmental influences[/SIZE][SIZE=medium],[/SIZE][SIZE=9.5pt][3][/SIZE][4][5][SIZE=medium] and do not view it as a choice.[/SIZE][SIZE=9.5pt][3][/SIZE][4][6][SIZE=medium] They favor [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]biologically-based theories[/SIZE][SIZE=medium],[/SIZE][SIZE=9.5pt][3][/SIZE][SIZE=medium] which point to genetic factors, the early uterine environment, both, or the inclusion of genetic and social factors.[/SIZE][SIZE=9.5pt][7][/SIZE][8][SIZE=medium] There is no substantive evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role when it comes to sexual orientation.[/SIZE][SIZE=9.5pt][7][/SIZE][SIZE=medium] While some people believe that homosexual activity is unnatural,[/SIZE][SIZE=9.5pt][9][/SIZE][SIZE=medium] scientific research has shown that homosexuality is a normal and natural variation in [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]human sexuality[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects.[/SIZE][1][10][SIZE=medium] There is insufficient evidence to support the use of [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]psychological interventions to change sexual orientation[/SIZE].[11]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

[SIZE=12pt]The Bible can no more give us concrete advice on how to view homosexuality as it can give us concrete advice on how to decide in 21th century questions of bioethics. These are discussions that the Biblical authors were not involved in and that presupposes modern information that they did not have. What the Bible does give us is the binding overarching principle we should follow in our modern day questions as well as in future discussions, that aren’t even on our radar yet: the double commandment of love. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Using this golden rule as espoused in Luke 6:31 I think the differences between a predisposition to alcoholism, aggression, pedophilia etc. and homosexuality are rather obvious:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Homosexuality, lived in loving stable relationships between consenting adults, does not hurt anybody. Homosexuals no more suffer under their sexual orientation than you and I suffer under being heterosexual. What they suffer from is a society that up until very recently told them that their sexuality is sinful and either criminalized or pathologized them in so horrible ways that even the Pope has seen the need for an apology by now.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]As for myself: Bound by the commandment to love my neighbour as I love myself I can no more disrespect the love and sexual intimacy homosexuals couples share, than I want the love and sexual intimacy between me and my husband to be disrespected. [/SIZE]

to be continued ...
​

 

[junobet]

1. I believe Paul was an inspired author of Scripture and his writings are the words of God. I do not accept the idea that he was just a flawed man writing out the ignorance of his cultural context.

[SIZE=12pt]Well, the question that springs to mind is whether you insist on women covering their hair in Church, just as Paul demands`, and if not, why not. ;-)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]As for my beliefs: The Gospel of John tells me that the Word of God is not a book, but a Person: Jesus Christ. I also believe Paul was an inspired author of Scripture giving witness of that Word. What I certainly don’t believe in is verbal inspiration. Quite obviously God did not choose to give the Biblical authors all-knowing superpowers, but chose to let them be children of their time, just as we are children of ours. Which is why historical-critical exegesis is so important if we don’t want to run the danger to mistake our questions for theirs. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]

2. I think this is mere speculation that suggests that Paul was referring to heterosexuals who were unnaturally practicing homosexuality. The texts say nothing of the sort and this is all simply an argument from Imagination.

[SIZE=12pt]Actually it’s an argument from deduction. I think we can be pretty certain that just like many other thinkers of his time Paul, regarded all forms of same sex behaviour as unnatural and all forms of sexual passion, even heterosexual passion, as something that ought to best be avoided and contained. And seeing that it is highly unlikely that the rate of children being born homosexual was significantly higher in Ancient Greek and Rome than it is now, I would indeed assume that a good deal of the behaviour Paul witnessed in his time was indeed ‘unnatural’ from a biological point of view.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]

3. The issue of slavery and homosexuality are very different issues. There is nothing that suggests homosexuality was imposed on society by Roman government. Approximately 1/3 of Roman society were slaves. This is not true of the practice of homosexuality.
4. Paul's words in Romans 1 speak of men being inflamed in lust toward other men (and women toward women). Thus, this is not referring to someone with no homosexual desire doing something imposed on them by society. Rather, it is clearly describing someone with a lustful desire toward a person of the same sex that is coming from withing...not imposed as a social order.


Galatians 3 has nothing to do with homosexuality or women's rights. The verse simply indicates that people of various genders and backgrounds share a common salvation and that there is an equal value to each of these individuals in Christ. To suggest that this verse has anything to do with challenging local government or approving homosexual acts and unions is a great misuse of this verse and its context.

[SIZE=12pt]You may have gathered by now that it’s far from me to put Judith Butler’s thoughts into Paul’s head when reading Gal 3:28. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Under Roman Government people were utterly entitled to free their slaves. Nowhere in his letters does Paul asked Christian slave-holders to do so and he certainly does not come across as a feminist either. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Yet, there is a subversive seed in Paul’s message that we are all one in Christ. When people believe that God loves and saves people of lower social status as much as He loves and saves them, in the long run they will find it difficult to continue regarding and treating their brothers and sisters in Christ as their inferiors. And when we believe with Gal 3:28 that Christ does not define us by gender, we'll be less inclined to be bothered about traditional gender roles. As they say: God’s mills grind slowly, but eventually living Christian faith has changed minds, hearts and society and I believe that it still does. [/SIZE]

 

[Wormwood]

junobet,

There is a lot to cover here. Sorry for the slow reply, but I have not had much time. I till try to cover just a little of this and maybe come back to the rest on Monday....

Will do. While I myself am deeply convinced that God created and loves my homosexual friends just the way they are. and it while it saddens me how the church has sinned/is sinning against them, I still break bread with my old Pastor, who still is more inclined towards your position.

Well, I don't think that holding the convictions about what the Bible teaches and what Jews and Christians have always believed is sinful.

All it takes is to acknowledge that we each must follow our own Christian conscience in this.

Christian leaders have an obligation to speak out against issues in the life of the Church that they believe are sinful or are damaging against the body of Christ. Clearly, Paul had no problem speaking out against sexual sins and even having people removed from local fellowship over these issues. They are that serious. The Church is not an individualistic enterprise. We are called to teach, correct, rebuke and elders are expected to turn the congregation away from false ideas that lead to corrupt behaviors. Although certainly, if you want to believe certain churches are wrong who reject this behavior, you have every right to do so. Yet, I think Christian leaders have a moral obligation due to their position in the body to speak out and exercise church discipline on such matters.

Yes, as you are painfully experiencing in the faith thread, semantics are important. Getting them wrong can lead to utter confusion.

Well, it helps when the other person is gracious and takes time to explain their understanding in a Christ-like way .

In this case the words Paul used can’t have meant exactly what “homosexuality” means, because Paul did not live in the world of thought of modernity, in which the terms “homosexual/heterosexual” were first coined and filled with meaning. Sexual identity is not a concept that a first century Jew, however educated, could have had within his scope.

I'm sorry, but this seems like fanciful thinking. You are the one arguing that homosexuals are born that way. Now you are suggesting no one had these genes in the first century? How do you know any of this? Your argument is basically that the only type of homosexuality in the first century was related to idol worship and in these cases it was practiced by heterosexuals who were unnaturally doing something they didnt really want to do. This argument is entirely baseless. Moreover, you are assuming that the actions surrounding idolatry are innocent and are only deemed corrupt due to their connection with idolatrous practices. This is also a false assumption. This would be like me arguing that it really is okay to kill babies. The only reason it was wrong to kill babies in the ancient world was that the killings were done in worship to the false god Molech. No, you see, the false, demonic worship in the ancient world led to all kinds of "detestable practices." Detestable worship was connected with detestable practices. Evil begets evil. Your entire argument is based on two very huge assumptions (1. No homosexual acts in the first century were based in a true attraction to a same-sex partner and 2. the only reason such acts were deemed inappropriate was because they were combined with idol worship. Paul would have had no problem with the practice otherwise). There is no shred of biblical or historical evidence to support these assumptions. In fact, all the information we have points the opposite direction.

Your quote only substantiated my position....

Scientists do not know the exact cause of sexual orientation

There is speculation about the causes of this attraction. However, to say that we know it comes from genetics is overstating the case. And, as I said previously, even if it were genetic...genetic predispsitions dont mean 1) The natural desire cannot be resisted or 2) that the natural desire is not sinful. I may have a natural desire to lust after a woman that is not my wife. That doesnt mean it is therefore okay for me to engage in intimacy with that woman. Natural desires have nothing to do with whether or not something is acceptable to God. I find all of this discussion about nature and genes to be very far from the point. I thought we were discussing what God thinks about the behavior. And, it is a behavior. Its not the same as skin or eye color. Even heterosexuals sometimes choose to be celibate in order to devote themselves to ministry (such as Paul).

The Bible can no more give us concrete advice on how to view homosexuality as it can give us concrete advice on how to decide in 21th century questions of bioethics.

I think you are wrong on both accounts. I dont have time now, but I will do a word study on these words in question for you. Also, Paul is very clear in Romans 1 that men lusting after other men is "unnatural." Yes, Paul speaks of this after talking about idolatry, but he is going through a list of sins and is not merely speaking about temple practices. In the same context he says,

“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.” (Romans 1:28–31, ESV)

So, based on your rationale, its okay to be evil, unrighteous, covetous, or have malice. Its okay to gossip, slander, hate God, etc. These particular behaviors are only specifically related to the temple practices of the day and has nothing to do with 21st century gossip, slander, insolence, etc. I think this argument holds absolutely no water.

Sorry, out of time. Have a blessed Lord's Day.

 

[junobet]

junobet,

There is a lot to cover here. Sorry for the slow reply, but I have not had much time. I till try to cover just a little of this and maybe come back to the rest on Monday....

[SIZE=medium]Don’t worry, of course we’ve all got our daily duties and I appreciate you take the time to discuss this at all. Quite frankly I’m quite happy to take this at a slow pace myself. With English not being my first language it probably takes me twice as long to formulate my thoughts as it would do in German. My garbled English may also be partly responsible for some misunderstandings I spotted in your reply. I’ll try to make myself clearer after you’ve gotten around to fully reply. [/SIZE]
​

 

[Wormwood]

Lets just take a minute to look at Romans 1:26-27 for now...

“Διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας, αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν, ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες.” (Romans 1:26–27, NA27)

So lets take a look at some of these phrases to see exactly what they mean:

πάθη ἀτιμίας - This phrase is pathe atimias. Pathe has to do with ones passion or lusts. It is used also in 1 Thess. 4:5 which speaks of the "passion of your lusts." Atimias is the negative form of tima or honor, respect. Thus it means "dishonor, disprespectful, or disgraceful." The phrase itself means "dishonorable lusts/passions." So, this phrase referring to both men and women speaks of their inner passions and lusts that bring them great dishonor or disgrace. So, this is not referring to an act of worship in a temple that someone is compelled to do against their own desires. Rather this refers to dishonorable passions or desires a person has. This is even made more clear with the following word...

ἐξεκαύθησαν - this word is an intensive form of kaio which means to light or burn. It means to be inflamed, burn or be consumed with something. This word has been used in reference to anger in some contexts and lust with others. When someone burns with anger, they arent being compelled to do something, rather it describes someone who is overwhelmed with the feeling. The same is described here. These individuals are consumed and inflamed with this dishonorable lust.

παρὰ φύσιν - This lust that they are consumed with is describe as para physin. Para means "against" and physis refers to what is natural. Thus these lusts that consume these people are contrary to what is natural, according to Paul. He isnt saying it isnt natural "for them" because no attraction is involved. No, the lust itself is against nature and these people burn with it. Paul describes this as women lusting after "one another" and likewise men.

ἀσχημοσύνην - Not only does Paul describe these acts as "against nature" and "disgraceful" but also that they are aschemosyne. This word means "shameless, obscene, or unbecoming." The word is used in Deuteronomy 14 in reference to human excrement.

πλάνης - Finally, these acts are described as plane. This word means to err or wander. It essentially means to wander away from the right path.

In sum, it is entirely evident that Paul is speaking of the act of women lusting passionately for other women and men lusting after other men. The sexual act itself isnt even specifically mentioned but is clearly implied. The focus here is on the lust and the desire that causes acts which are contrary to nature, obscene, dishonorable and errant. So, there is NOTHING here that suggests that Paul is only speaking against temple worship practices or homosexuality that is void of feelings or attraction. Rather, these words indicate that the attraction itself is errant and contrary to God's intentions. This type of errant lust is derived from a refusal to honor God...just as later Paul will show that disobedience to parents, evil, envy, gossip and all manners of other sins also sprout from the root of a refusal to honor and worship God.

So, Paul's point in Romans 1:18-32 is that all the wickedness that plagues people (specifically the Gentiles) sprouts from a refusal to recognize God which leads to worshiping animals, statues, homosexual desires, hate, gossip, insolence and every other despicable act. There is nothing in the wording here that suggests Paul is implying only homosexual acts in pagan temples or same sex acts that are void of feeling and passion are being denounced. Rather, it is the homosexual passion and lust itself that Paul describes in such negative and condemning terms.

junobet, I really appreciate your kind attitude in this discussion and, again, I hope you do not read anger in my very direct comments. Yet I do want you to know that I am very concerned for you. Anyone who reads the words of God and finds a way to actually approve of something that is specifically condemned is quite alarming. I dont know how anyone can honestly read such a text (and others) and conclude that not only does God not condemn such acts, but actually applauds them and sees Christians as "sinning" who refuse to applaud such behaviors!

 

[junobet]

junobet,

There is a lot to cover here. Sorry for the slow reply, but I have not had much time. I till try to cover just a little of this and maybe come back to the rest on Monday....


Well, I don't think that holding the convictions about what the Bible teaches and what Jews and Christians have always believed is sinful.

.
[SIZE=medium]It’s not sinful to hold convictions but convictions may be wrong. Christians may be in error and often have been. Paul himself admitted he wasn’t perfect (Phil 3:12-15). Hence me bringing up slavery: I’m very certain that you are not a member of the KKK and that you despise slavery just as much as I do. Yet, by all appearances the Bible seems to support it (for example Paul in Eph. 6:5) and for a very very long time Christians believed slavery to be totally OK and part of the natural order, amongst them Christianity’s most influential theologians, Augustine and Aquinas, both of whom I deeply admire. Then came guys like John Wesley and convinced virtually all of Christianity that slavery is very much against the natural order:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]"Give liberty to whom liberty is due, that is, to every child of man, to every partaker of human nature. Let none serve you but by his own act and deed, by his own voluntary action. Away with all whips, all chains, all compulsion. Be gentle toward all men; and see that you invariably do with every one as you would he should do unto you."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]With all due respect for Christian tradition I call that a growth of living faith! [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]What is most definitely sinful - and you see that I agree very much with Aquinas’ concept of “primacy of conscience” - is not to follow one’s conscience, however ill it may be informed. ([/SIZE][SIZE=medium]http://www.aquinasonline.com/Questions/conscience.htm[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]) So while I appreciate your concern for me, I hope you see why I can do no other but to support my homosexual brothers and sisters in their fight for acceptance and equal rights. [/SIZE]

Christian leaders have an obligation to speak out against issues in the life of the Church that they believe are sinful or are damaging against the body of Christ. Clearly, Paul had no problem speaking out against sexual sins and even having people removed from local fellowship over these issues. They are that serious. The Church is not an individualistic enterprise. We are called to teach, correct, rebuke and elders are expected to turn the congregation away from false ideas that lead to corrupt behaviors. Although certainly, if you want to believe certain churches are wrong who reject this behavior, you have every right to do so. Yet, I think Christian leaders have a moral obligation due to their position in the body to speak out and exercise church discipline on such matters.

​
[SIZE=medium]I agree. The question is what we define as being sinful. I would much rather have a homosexual pastor, who lives in a loving and caring relationship with a permanent partner (IMHO not sinful), than a heterosexual pastor, who beats his wife and is a regular customer in the local brothel (IMHO sinful). [/SIZE]

Well, it helps when the other person is gracious and takes time to explain their understanding in a Christ-like way .


​

[SIZE=medium]​[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]I tip my hat to you for being able to do just that. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium][/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]I'm sorry, but this seems like fanciful thinking. You are the one arguing that homosexuals are born that way. Now you are suggesting no one had these genes in the first century?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]​No, I suggested that the apparent frequency of homosexual acts in first century Rome is higher than what you’d expect given the average percentage of the population being born homosexual. Just like the frequency of people performing homosexual acts in prison is likely to be much higher than the number of people who are actually homosexual. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]How do you know any of this? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]A-levels in history and Latin at school and a rough knowledge on how statistics work. ;-)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium][/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]Your argument is basically that the only type of homosexuality in the first century was related to idol worship and in these cases it was practiced by heterosexuals who were unnaturally doing something they didnt really want to do. This argument is entirely baseless. Moreover, you are assuming that the actions surrounding idolatry are innocent and are only deemed corrupt due to their connection with idolatrous practices. This is also a false assumption. This would be like me arguing that it really is okay to kill babies. The only reason it was wrong to kill babies in the ancient world was that the killings were done in worship to the false god Molech. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Let’s not forget that the authors of the OT claim that JAHWE Himself absolutely commanded to kill babies! They also had a very deep need to affirm themselves of their identity as a people via their God vs. other Gods. I have no idea what came first: neighbouring groups practicing same sex acts as part of their cult, may have led to the ancient Israelites’ dislike for homosexuality. Or the ancient Israelite’s dislike for same sex behaviour may have led to them smearing other cults with it. Why is it easy to have a dislike for homosexuality? Because human beings have an uncanny tendency to turn a statistical norm into a normative one. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]​[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]​... to be continued[/SIZE]

 

[junobet]

No, you see, the false, demonic worship in the ancient world led to all kinds of "detestable practices." Detestable worship was connected with detestable practices. Evil begets evil. Your entire argument is based on two very huge assumptions (1. No homosexual acts in the first century were based in a true attraction to a same-sex partner and 2. the only reason such acts were deemed inappropriate was because they were combined with idol worship. Paul would have had no problem with the practice otherwise). There is no shred of biblical or historical evidence to support these assumptions. In fact, all the information we have points the opposite direction.

[SIZE=12pt] I already said that it is quite likely that Paul would also have had a problem with it otherwise. He did not like any kind of sexual passion and even advised married couples to refrain from it as much as possible. His ideal was asceticism – very probably also due to having grown up in Tarsus, one of the epi-centers of 1th century Stoicism. So I guess the Song of Solomon was not his favourite bed-time reading. ;-). The question is, whether 21th century Christians must stick to Paul’s 1th century ‘family values’, that most of us - conservative Christians included - would probably be utterly appalled by. [/SIZE]

Your quote only substantiated my position....


There is speculation about the causes of this attraction.
​

[SIZE=12pt]Isn’t it funny, how two people with different focus can read the same text and come to utterly different conclusions. Here’s my focus: “[/SIZE][SIZE=13.5pt]scientific research has shown that homosexuality is a normal and natural variation in [/SIZE][SIZE=13.5pt]human sexuality[/SIZE][SIZE=13.5pt] and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects”.[/SIZE]

However, to say that we know it comes from genetics is overstating the case. And, as I said previously, even if it were genetic...genetic predispsitions dont mean 1) The natural desire cannot be resisted or 2) that the natural desire is not sinful. I may have a natural desire to lust after a woman that is not my wife. That doesnt mean it is therefore okay for me to engage in intimacy with that woman. Natural desires have nothing to do with whether or not something is acceptable to God. I find all of this discussion about nature and genes to be very far from the point. I thought we were discussing what God thinks about the behavior. And, it is a behavior. Its not the same as skin or eye color. Even heterosexuals sometimes choose to be celibate in order to devote themselves to ministry (such as Paul).

[SIZE=13.5pt]​[/SIZE]
[SIZE=13.5pt]The question about nature enters the discussion in the old Adam and Eve/not Adam and Steve joke or when you say things like “ Paul is very clear in Romans 1 that men lusting after other men is "unnatural."”. The fact aside that unlike us Paul probably thought in stoic rather than biological terms when speaking about nature: Surely God found His creation to be “very good” (Gen. 1:31) and by now – not in Paul’s time - it’s obvious that He chooses to create us with various genders and sexual orientations, one being as natural or unnatural as the other. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=13.5pt] As for behaviour: yes, as stated above Paul was rather proud of his celibacy. He also knew he could not expect many others to live like him. As for adultery: the tough bit starts when Jesus teaches us that lusting in our thoughts is very much the same as acting on these thoughts (Mt 5:28). And if I understand Mt 15:1-20 and Rom 14:14 correctly, then it is our thoughts and intends that make a human act clean or unclean. We can have sex with the intent to hurt, dominate, objectify … and we can have sex with the intent to express love and experience intimacy. So IMHO one and the same sexual act can have two very different states of sin. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=13.5pt] [/SIZE]

I think you are wrong on both accounts. I dont have time now, but I will do a word study on these words in question for you. Also, Paul is very clear in Romans 1 that men lusting after other men is "unnatural." Yes, Paul speaks of this after talking about idolatry, but he is going through a list of sins and is not merely speaking about temple practices. In the same context he says,

“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.” (Romans 1:28–31, ESV)

​

[SIZE=13.5pt]The keyword is “[/SIZE]Διὸ[SIZE=12pt]”=“therefore” in Romans 1:24, which establishes a direct causal relationship and the vices listed. Your translation emphasizes this causal relationship even more by translating “[/SIZE]καθὼς[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]“ (“as much as”) as “since”. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=13.5pt]It’s because they did not know God and turned to idolatry that God turned them over to these vices. Well, and I know many homosexuals who are probably closer to God than me, who are just oozing love and grace and faith …[/SIZE]

So, based on your rationale, its okay to be evil, unrighteous, covetous, or have malice. Its okay to gossip, slander, hate God, etc. These particular behaviors are only specifically related to the temple practices of the day and has nothing to do with 21st century gossip, slander, insolence, etc. I think this argument holds absolutely no water.

[SIZE=13.5pt]No, based on my rationale Paul - and as far as I can tell you and I both follow him in that – thinks that vices derive from being far from God. The further you are from God, the bigger your vices. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=13.5pt]The question you and I disagree on, is whether homosexuality as such is a vice. I say that history-of-idea-wise Paul did not take part in a 21th century discussion. His idea of what “[/SIZE]ἄρσενες[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]ἐν[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]ἄρσεσιν[SIZE=12pt]” [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]entails was completely different to the understanding of homosexuality that we have today, and yes, it is quite possible that what he had in mind would be vile even from my point of view. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=13.5pt]So where do I get my ideas from for what is a vile vice and what isn’t? Probably a good deal from the society I live in, just like Paul, Augustine, Aquinas and everybody else I am a child of my time and upbringing. But I hope mainly from the very same criterion that Christ extracts as essence of the entire Tanach: to love my neighbour as myself. So I always ought to ask myself: how would I feel if I was in my neighbour’s position and how would I want to be treated. With that in mind it’s clear that malice, gossip, slander etc. are bad. Two people of the same sex loving each other and expressing that love sexually harm nobody. So I can no more believe that homosexuality is intrinsically bad than I can believe that God ever condoned murdering babies.[/SIZE]

 

[junobet]

Lets just take a minute to look at Romans 1:26-27 for now...

“Διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας, αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν, ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες.” (Romans 1:26–27, NA27)

So lets take a look at some of these phrases to see exactly what they mean:

πάθη ἀτιμίας - This phrase is pathe atimias. Pathe has to do with ones passion or lusts. It is used also in 1 Thess. 4:5 which speaks of the "passion of your lusts." Atimias is the negative form of tima or honor, respect. Thus it means "dishonor, disprespectful, or disgraceful." The phrase itself means "dishonorable lusts/passions." So, this phrase referring to both men and women speaks of their inner passions and lusts that bring them great dishonor or disgrace. So, this is not referring to an act of worship in a temple that someone is compelled to do against their own desires. Rather this refers to dishonorable passions or desires a person has. This is even made more clear with the following word...

ἐξεκαύθησαν - this word is an intensive form of kaio which means to light or burn. It means to be inflamed, burn or be consumed with something. This word has been used in reference to anger in some contexts and lust with others. When someone burns with anger, they arent being compelled to do something, rather it describes someone who is overwhelmed with the feeling. The same is described here. These individuals are consumed and inflamed with this dishonorable lust.

παρὰ φύσιν - This lust that they are consumed with is describe as para physin. Para means "against" and physis refers to what is natural. Thus these lusts that consume these people are contrary to what is natural, according to Paul. He isnt saying it isnt natural "for them" because no attraction is involved. No, the lust itself is against nature and these people burn with it. Paul describes this as women lusting after "one another" and likewise men.

ἀσχημοσύνην - Not only does Paul describe these acts as "against nature" and "disgraceful" but also that they are aschemosyne. This word means "shameless, obscene, or unbecoming." The word is used in Deuteronomy 14 in reference to human excrement.

πλάνης - Finally, these acts are described as plane. This word means to err or wander. It essentially means to wander away from the right path.

In sum, it is entirely evident that Paul is speaking of the act of women lusting passionately for other women and men lusting after other men. The sexual act itself isnt even specifically mentioned but is clearly implied. The focus here is on the lust and the desire that causes acts which are contrary to nature, obscene, dishonorable and errant. So, there is NOTHING here that suggests that Paul is only speaking against temple worship practices or homosexuality that is void of feelings or attraction. Rather, these words indicate that the attraction itself is errant and contrary to God's intentions. This type of errant lust is derived from a refusal to honor God...just as later Paul will show that disobedience to parents, evil, envy, gossip and all manners of other sins also sprout from the root of a refusal to honor and worship God.

So, Paul's point in Romans 1:18-32 is that all the wickedness that plagues people (specifically the Gentiles) sprouts from a refusal to recognize God which leads to worshiping animals, statues, homosexual desires, hate, gossip, insolence and every other despicable act. There is nothing in the wording here that suggests Paul is implying only homosexual acts in pagan temples or same sex acts that are void of feeling and passion are being denounced. Rather, it is the homosexual passion and lust itself that Paul describes in such negative and condemning terms.

junobet, I really appreciate your kind attitude in this discussion and, again, I hope you do not read anger in my very direct comments. Yet I do want you to know that I am very concerned for you. Anyone who reads the words of God and finds a way to actually approve of something that is specifically condemned is quite alarming. I dont know how anyone can honestly read such a text (and others) and conclude that not only does God not condemn such acts, but actually applauds them and sees Christians as "sinning" who refuse to applaud such behaviors!

I appreciate you went through all that trouble, but I’m afraid you somehow missed the Point (see my answers to you above). So let me stop you right here: ἀτιμία. The exact same word is used in 1 Cor. 11, where Paul devotes almost an entire chapter on why he thinks that women should cover their hair. Yet, I have seen women in your church who did not cover their hair (watched some of the sermons you linked and by the way quite liked them).
So about three side remarks of Paul lead you to condemn homosexuality while you ignore 1 Cor. 11 completely? That is measuring with very unequal measures, don’t you think?
Of course you need to follow your conscience as much as I need to follow mine. But I implore you – however convinced you are of the contrary - to search your heart whether it is really just your belief in Biblical inerrancy (that I don’t share in that same way) that makes you condemn homosexuality or whether it is maybe mainly the religious culture you grew up with. And I implore you to summon your empathy and consider the devastating consequences this kind of culture has for vulnerable young homosexuals: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2014/05/an-empirical-study-of-the-link-between-suicidal-lgbt-youth-and-religious-upbringing/​

 

[Wormwood]

It’s not sinful to hold convictions but convictions may be wrong. Christians may be in error and often have been. Paul himself admitted he wasn’t perfect (Phil 3:12-15). Hence me bringing up slavery: I’m very certain that you are not a member of the KKK and that you despise slavery just as much as I do. Yet, by all appearances the Bible seems to support it (for example Paul in Eph. 6:5) and for a very very long time Christians believed slavery to be totally OK and part of the natural order, amongst them Christianity’s most influential theologians, Augustine and Aquinas, both of whom I deeply admire.

junobet,

You are in error on a few counts. First, the slavery that was permitted among Israelites and Romans and the slavery that took Africans from their homes were two very different forms of slavery. Roman and Israelite slavery was much more like having an indentured servant. They were paid for their work and often were slaves because of outstanding debts that could be paid off over time. This was a very different form of slavery than that which took place among Africans where they were stolen from their homes and treated like animals. Second, Paul's comments about slavery in no way validate that way of life. Paul's simple point is that Christians should be outstanding examples of love and truthfulness no matter what position in life they are in when they come to Christ. The Holy Spirit's work was not so much about creating social upheaval as it was to display the love and grace of Christ through the people of God who exist throughout the social spectrum. Paul's basic point is, whether you are a wife, slave, master, child or whatever position you find yourself in, conduct yourself in such a way as to display Christ. Paul's focus in these social examples is primarily roles of submission (wives, children, slaves, citizens). It is through acts of submission that Christ is most profoundly displayed. It seems modern Christians have sought to flip Paul's emphasis and use his words as a catalyst to throw off any forms of submission or service to others and fight for personal rights. This is the opposite of Paul's focus in these passages and is an unfortunate twisting of both Scripture and the Holy Spirit's intent.

With all due respect for Christian tradition I call that a growth of living faith!

Well, I think you have horribly misunderstood early Christianity. Yes, there have been those who claim to be Christians who use the Bible to validate all kinds of perversions and abuse...such as the mistreatment of Africans and (in my very strong opinion) homosexuality. Yet the problem has always been a lack of Scriptural understanding rather than the Scriptures needing to be altered by the "growth of living faith." If its not based in the teaching of God, then its not faith, its simply a growth of personal desires away from the truth.

I would much rather have a homosexual pastor, who lives in a loving and caring relationship with a permanent partner (IMHO not sinful), than a heterosexual pastor, who beats his wife and is a regular customer in the local brothel (IMHO sinful).

Well this is a false dichotomy. Neither should be a pastor. Both exhibit characteristics that are condemned in Scripture and are specifically rejected as suitable for a Christian leader.

No, I suggested that the apparent frequency of homosexual acts in first century Rome is higher than what you’d expect given the average percentage of the population being born homosexual. Just like the frequency of people performing homosexual acts in prison is likely to be much higher than the number of people who are actually homosexual.

Do you have any scholarly documentation to support these claims? I think comparing homosexual acts in Rome and homosexual acts among incarcerated criminals who are cut off from female companionship incredibly off base.

A-levels in history and Latin at school and a rough knowledge on how statistics work. ;-)

Well I was in school a long time and took a lot of classes that focused specifically on ancient Rome and I have never come across any such information. So you are going to have to provide some documentation for me if I am to rethink all those years of education.

Let’s not forget that the authors of the OT claim that JAHWE Himself absolutely commanded to kill babies! They also had a very deep need to affirm themselves of their identity as a people via their God vs. other Gods. I have no idea what came first: neighbouring groups practicing same sex acts as part of their cult, may have led to the ancient Israelites’ dislike for homosexuality. Or the ancient Israelite’s dislike for same sex behaviour may have led to them smearing other cults with it. Why is it easy to have a dislike for homosexuality? Because human beings have an uncanny tendency to turn a statistical norm into a normative one.

Ok, so basically your argument is that the OT is unreliable and gives an improper picture of God. That helps in the discussion. As I explained at the beginning of this discussion, the rationle behind the acceptance of homosexuality usually has nothing to do with the Biblical text or word meanings and usually devolves into imagined early cultural practices and a dismissal of the Bible as a reliable means of knowing who God is or what He desires. If your view is that the Bible is unreliable, then I think we have really lost all common ground for a meaningful discussion. If you are unwilling to accept the idea that the Bible is reliable, then what hope is there to convince you that my ideas are of any value...especially when they are based on a book you dismiss as containing reliable information about God and his will?

Well, I have some work to do! Will try to respond to the rest at a later time. Be blessed.

 

[mjrhealth]

ts nice to be born perfect, without having to try and figure out if you are male or female or both. its amazing how learned people cant understand what "corruption" is. I guess it is a bit like Adam and Eve when thye discovered there nacedness and hid from God, christians now days know they cant hide from God so they tell Him , "dont look at us , look at them, they are worse than us", Well i can say for sure God would say it is the other way round.

 

[Wormwood]

ts nice to be born perfect, without having to try and figure out if you are male or female or both. its amazing how learned people cant understand what "corruption" is. I guess it is a bit like Adam and Eve when thye discovered there nacedness and hid from God, christians now days know they cant hide from God so they tell Him , "dont look at us , look at them, they are worse than us", Well i can say for sure God would say it is the other way round.

mjhealth,

I take offense at this comment. This has nothing to do with who is "worse." The discussion is related to whether or not homosexuality is an acceptable behavior for a Christian. If you would like to add to the discussion, please do. If you just want to make pot-shots at people and insinuate that they are self-righteous hypocrites who think they are better than others, then I'd appreciate it if you kept those kinds of comments to yourself. I assure you that neither I nor junobet are approaching this subject in that manner.