"So you still think homosexuality is sinful?"

[Stygian]

So, this popped up on Facebook earlier today.



What do you all think? I'm not quite sure what to make of it.

[Ivellious]

I've seen it on facebook as well. Not like it's anything new, and I don't think any of it is technically wrong. If anything it simply seems to take the facts and word them in a way that appeals to those who are pro-gay marriage and takes somewhat pulled punches at those who disagree. Again, it's not groundbreaking or making any sort or progress for either side.

[cheezerrox]

Yeah, like Ivellious said, nothing new. It has bad theology (saying mainstream Christian theology sees some OT laws as no longer relevant, therefore all are irrelevant; misinterprets Paul; says that Jesus said nothing about what a marriage should be, disregarding Matthew 19:3-12), resorts to immature name-calling and insults, and just will reinforce the opinions of those who already agree, and rile up those who disagree.

[Stygian]

I was a little put-off by the claim that Paul's values were so horrible. Any idea what passages they were likely referring to? Even all the marriage being between man and many women, man and rape victim, etc... is something I'm not too familiar with. Any sources there?

[narnia4]

I'm a little disturbed by the idea that it was just "Paul's values" that were shining through in Scripture. That doesn't mean that everything Paul said to a specific church holds true today, but that's something that has to be determined through examination of the Scriptures, not assumed. Case in point, their bit about "women being silent" is taken completely out of context and is a lazy example.

To be honest, if God specifically said homosexuality were not a sin I wouldn't be sorry. I don't like conflict. But you have to follow Scripture in the end, not your personal feelings. I'd be ok with no hell too.

[PaulSacramento]

Paul was critical of immoral sexual behaviour of all types and viewed them as unnatural.
It was His view based on his understanding of the Torah and His understanding of what Christ deemed correct.
We do NOT follow Paul's teachings because "Paul said so", we follow (some) of them because they are in line with the rest of the NT and the OT.
It has always been a question of personal conscience for a believer.
Doing something because "Paul" ( or any other apostle) said so is NOT correct, we do because the HS giuds as to such and because our conscience agrees.
That chart misrepresents a lot and doesn't do any favours to Gay people.
A person should accept or reject homosexuality because THEY CHOOSE to, not because they are intimidated into doing so.
Period.

[PaulSacramento]

That whole "civilized society" comment is ridiculous.
Is that what defines "civilized", the acceptance of homosexuality?
Because the ancient greeks accepted it and they also accepted many a horrible thing that WE would hardly call civilized, yet they viewed themselves as the epitomize of civilization.

[Stygian]

It sure would have been handy if they cited their sources on where they got these ideas, lol

[RickD]

the title says: SO DO YOU STILL THINK HOMOSEXUALITY IS SINFUL? AND THEREFORE GAYS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO MARRY?

Nobody prohibits gays from marrying. Marriage is between one man and one woman. There's no distinction made, saying the man and woman have to be heterosexual. There's no discrimination involved. Gays are allowed by law, to marry.

[cheezerrox]

I was a little put-off by the claim that Paul's values were so horrible. Any idea what passages they were likely referring to? Even all the marriage being between man and many women, man and rape victim, etc... is something I'm not too familiar with. Any sources there?

The passage about Paul they were referring to was 1 Timothy 2:11-12.
"A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."

Granted, this verse out of context (especially out of context with the rest of Scripture) certainly seems a little chauvinistic. But, there are some things that need to be realized. For example, Greek manthaneto doesn't mean "receive instruction" in general, like learning in the sense of acquiring information. It's related to the word mathetes, which means "disciple." So the verse isn't talking about "learning" or being taught in general, but of specifically being discipled, which is the same relationship that Jesus had with His disciples. One who disciples has responsibility for his disciples spiritual life and growth, and according to Paul, women aren't supposed to have that kind of responsibility over men. Women are still allowed a great deal of responsibility in congregations, such as the discipling of other women and the teaching of all, including men. There are examples of this in Paul's own life and letters, such as Lydia, who's home he stayed in (Acts 16:14, 40), Priscilla, who taught Apollos (Acts 18:26), and Phoebe, who was herself in a leadership position (Romans 16:1).

The other problem with the normal translation of this verse is the "quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness" part. As you can see in what the OP posted from fb, they take that as meaning that women must keep their mouths shut. But, again, the word is esuchia, which means silence, or restfulness, and not "quietly." The word is also used at Acts 22:2 and 2 Thessalonians 3:12, where the sense is to "settle down." The verse is saying that women should be allowed to learn in peace, and at rest. On the other hand, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 does discourage disturbing chatter or disruptions by wives during congregational meetings.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 says,
"The wives are to keep silent in the congregations; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Torah also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in the congregation."

If Paul's saying that women, in general, are not permitted to "speak," then it seems that he's saying all women cannot preach, teach, speak in tongues, pray, or prophesy in congregational meetings. But there are female prophets in both the Old Testament (Exodus 15:20) and in the New Testament (Acts 21:9), and in this same letter Paul permits women to pray and prophesy in congregational meetings (1 Corinthians 11:5). Also, not all women have husbands who they can ask at home, obviously. The word for women is the same as that for wives (gune), just like in Hebrew (ishah), and from context we can see that this passage is clearly about wives in particular and not women in general. I think this makes it pretty obvious that Paul's answering a specific question he's been asked by the Corinthian congregation, as at 1 Corinthians 7:1, about wives' discussing with their husbands what is being said while it's being said. This would upset the orderliness of the meetings even if the wives were sitting next to their husbands, and even more so if the universal Jewish practice of the time (which is still followed by Orthodox Jews today), of having men and women sit separately in the synagogues on opposite sides, where both husbands and wives would be yelling at each other across the m'chitzah, or dividing wall. Early beleivers in Biblical times still mainly met in synagogues and the Temple, worshipping among non-Christian Jews.

Paul places this instruction here in the letter because it's here in the letter that he's discussing decorum and order in congregational meetings, and his advice is short and to the point, because he's already discussed the applicable general principles and his questioners are already familiar with the context of the problem, since they brought it up in the first place.

And as far as referencing the Torah, he was probably thinking of Genesis 3:16.

Then as far as the comments about marriage between a man and many women, and a rapist and his victim, this is a twisting of the Torah/OT. Polygamy was common in Old Testament times, but has no endorsement in Torah, and was certainly not what was intended when G-d created humans (Matthew 19:3-9). As far as a rapist being married to his victim, that's simply a misunderstanding of Scripture. The passage is Deuteronomy 22:23-29.

"If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor's wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days."

The verses specifically being references are 28-29, about a "girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged." The passage is not talking about rape in these verses, though, and the misunderstanding is based on the context and the words "seizes her." The word in Hebrew, however, is tabas, doesn't necessarily indicate the use of force. It can refer to anything from the capture of a city (Deuteronomy 20:19), to "handling" a harp or flute (Genesis 4:21), a sword (Ezekiel 21:11, 30:21), taking G-d's Name in vain (Proverbs 30:9), and dealing with the Torah (Jeremiah 2:8). The word means to "take hold of" something, or to "grasp it in hand." Also, if Moses had meant to talk about rape, he would have a perfect word to use, chazak, which carries the connotations of using force, unlike tabas. In fact, three verses earlier at verse 25, he DOES use it to refer to rape, where it says, "But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her.." Immediately after, at verse 28, he changes the verb to one not indicating the use of force.

Also, Deuteronomy is the book containing Moses' last 3 speeches before the end of his life. He covers the history of the Isra'elite people, and repeats many of the laws given in the previous books of the Torah, such as the 10 Commandments, originally found at Exodus 20, which are repeated at Deuteronomy 5. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is a repeat of a law found in Exodus, specifically Exodus 22:16-17. It says,

"If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to giver her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins."

No one argues that this passage is about rape. It simply states that if you sleep with a girl who's not engaged or married, you're gonna have to follow-up with marriage. Promiscuity and casual sex weren't allowed. The dowry that had to paid was security money that the bridegroom payed to the bride's father, and it was held on to for the woman in case the groom later chose to abandon her or divorce her for no good reason. It protected woman from the poverty that came from losing the income of the only worker in her family and being left to be a single mother.


So, in the end, it's pretty obvious that the people who made that didn't know the Bible, and simply had an agenda.

Paul was critical of immoral sexual behaviour of all types and viewed them as unnatural.
It was His view based on his understanding of the Torah and His understanding of what Christ deemed correct.
We do NOT follow Paul's teachings because "Paul said so", we follow (some) of them because they are in line with the rest of the NT and the OT.
It has always been a question of personal conscience for a believer.
Doing something because "Paul" ( or any other apostle) said so is NOT correct, we do because the HS giuds as to such and because our conscience agrees.
That chart misrepresents a lot and doesn't do any favours to Gay people.
A person should accept or reject homosexuality because THEY CHOOSE to, not because they are intimidated into doing so.
Period.

Very well said. Agree with you completely.

[PaulSacramento]

The issues with those passages attributed to Paul and why some scholars do NOT accept them as his is is because they are not in continuuity with the rest of Paul's teachings.
We KNOW that Paul exalts quite a few women and their positions in the Church, speaking of some of them by name and calling them deaconesses.

[Jac3510]

There are actually (what I take to be strong) arguments that Paul did not write 1 Cor 14:34-35. More likely an interpolation.

[cheezerrox]

The issues with those passages attributed to Paul and why some scholars do NOT accept them as his is is because they are not in continuuity with the rest of Paul's teachings.
We KNOW that Paul exalts quite a few women and their positions in the Church, speaking of some of them by name and calling them deaconesses.

There are actually (what I take to be strong) arguments that Paul did not write 1 Cor 14:34-35. More likely an interpolation.

Wow, I never even heard of this. That's very interesting, I'll have to look into it. Thanks for pointing that out, guys.

[Ivellious]

Forgive me, but I'm confused...If Paul did not write the sexist remarks in the Bible, is that really relevant at all? I mean, I presume it is still biblical law regardless? Most scholars don't think Moses actually wrote the entire Old Testament, despite the OT being "officially" credited to him. But it all still counts. So why would it matter if Paul only wrote damning things about homosexuality and not the bits about women being quiet and obedient to their husbands and all that?

[Jac3510]

Forgive me, but I'm confused...If Paul did not write the sexist remarks in the Bible, is that really relevant at all? I mean, I presume it is still biblical law regardless? Most scholars don't think Moses actually wrote the entire Old Testament, despite the OT being "officially" credited to him. But it all still counts. So why would it matter if Paul only wrote damning things about homosexuality and not the bits about women being quiet and obedient to their husbands and all that?

Depends on who you ask. A Catholic will just ask the magisterium if the passage in question is canonical. A Protestant obviously has no such authoritative body. But I don't think we are lost in a sea of subjectivity.

The important thing here is that the processes of canonization for the OT and NT were different. Frankly, the OT admits quite a bit of editing. It was written over a much longer period of time and put a much heavier emphasis on tradition. It is important, I think, that later OT books (particularly the writing prophets) admit much less editing; that is, the historical books admit much more editing than do the writing prophets.

That is not the case, however, with the NT. None of the books admit the kind of editing we see in the OT historical books. All were written under apostolic authority. As such, later edits are considered non-inspired additions to what were previously fully accepted inspired texts.

All that is rather clear when you look at the three basic texts of canonicity applied to NT texts: apostolic authority, doctrinal consistency, and universal acceptance. Later additions would have violated the first of those; passages like 1 Cor 14:34-35 even appear to violate the second (for instance, where in the Law does it state that women are to remain silent? No such law exists in the OT text! Such a "law" does exist, however, in the rabbinic oral law, something Paul never quotes; moreover, Paul never appeals to the OT Law anyway as prescriptive for moral or ecclesiastical behavior . . . the arguments go on and on). So there is a rather clear difference in OT additions and NT additions.

The bottom line is that OT additions were part of the composition of the text. Only the final version is considered inspired and canonical, and many of those edits are part of the final version, since they were part of the compilation process of the final editor/redactor. Likewise, only the final version of the NT texts is considered inspired and canonical, but unlike the OT texts, all of the NT texts were written and completed by their original authors. Those, later edits to them are additions to the final form, not additions of a draft that became part of the final form.

edit:

There are other NT interpolations as well. Here's a decent article you can read that helps explain some of this:
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/ency ... iii.xi.htm