Passages and homosexuality

[Prodigal Son]

shirtless,

apparently you don't know what a pedophile is. but you might be kind of right. i walked in on my father having sex with my sister once. when i asked what they were doing he said, "having fun." maybe it is just a game.

[jerickson314]

Examination of "The Clobber Passages" by Bruce Gerig Part 2: Leviticus

CULTIC PROSTITUTION IN ISRAEL

Was that all? This we will see.

One law in Leviticus relates to homosexuality, the prohibition given in 18:22 with the punishment added in 20:13. Lev 20:13 reads: "If a man [ish] … lie with mankind [zakhar, NASB: 'a male'], as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination [to'ebhah, NASB: 'detestable act']; they shall surely be put to death…"

OK...

The death penalty was widely used as a deterrent in ancient times (prisons being rare) and was applied even to cursing a parent (Lev 20:9), adultery (20:10) and blasphemy (24:16).

All those are certainly sins. This is consistent with the interpretation that homosexuality is like other sins.

Since Lev 18:22/20:13 is the only place in the KJV where zakhar is (peculiarly) translated as "mankind," the term "male" used elsewhere (e.g. Lev 6:29, 22:19) is clearer and preferable. The fact that we find two different Hebrew words used here for a male (ish and zakhar) suggests that this may not be simply about an ordinary man (ish) having sex with another ordinary man.

It suggests that it might not. It does not prove that it is not.

But what is meant here? A study of all of the (rare) uses of the word zakhar ("male") in the OT reveals that in 90% of the cases it apparently was applied to a man or male animal specially dedicated to a deity for some sacred function (see my other articles on “Homosexuality and the Bible” on http://www.epistle.us). Zakhar was applied, for example, to Israelite priests, sacrificial animals, circumcised men, Israelite men given various sacred duties, and (in some cases) to persons who were dedicated to pagan gods.

WHAT?!? I looked up this word in my Sword Bible software. Zakhar is used all over the place when distinguishing "male" from "female". In many of the random verses I looked at, there was no implication of religious activity at all! And in those that did mention religious activity, it seemed that the writers would have simply needed a word for "male" rather than a word implying "religious".

It seems that zakhar is used whenever "male" needs to be clearly distinguished from "female" - not what Gerig is saying at all.

But I am not a Hebrew scholar.

Zakhar was applied, for example, to Israelite priests, sacrificial animals, circumcised men, Israelite men given various sacred duties, and (in some cases) to persons who were dedicated to pagan gods.

So what? It was also used (multiple times) to distinguish Adam's sex from Eve's and to specify that both genders were present on the ark.

In fact, could Lev 18:22/20:13 fall into this last category, forbidding Israelite men to visit the male prostitutes dedicated to serving the Canaanite deities?

About a 0.001% chance, it would seem. In all the cases I ran across where the reference was to ritual, the context clearly indicated this. Not so in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

One might also note that "abomination" (to'ebhah) frequently was applied to things that related to idolatry (cf. Deut 7:25-26), which, of course, would be most offensive to the Lord God. That idolatry was of concern in Leviticus 18-20 is shown in 19:4, where the Lord says, "Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the Lord [Yahweh] your God."

Naturally. Idolatry was the big thing that God was fighting then. It isn't surprising to see Him using words like "abomination" against that. He would naturally also use it in other contexts.

This interpretation becomes even more plausible when we turn to Deuteronomy, Moses' review of the Law at the end of his life and before the Israelites entered the Promised Land. Not unexpectedly, there are many parallel passages, on common themes. However, when we look through Deuteronomy for something related to Lev 18:22/20:13, the only comparable passage that can be found is Deut 23:17-18, which reads: [17] "There shall be no whore [NRSV: 'temple prostitute'] of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite [NRSV: 'temple prostitute'] of the sons of Israel. [18] Thou shalt not bring the hire [NRSV: 'fee'] of a whore [NRSV: female 'prostitute'], or the price of a dog [NRSV: 'male prostitute'], into the house of the Lord [Yahweh] thy God for any vow: for even both of these are abomination unto the Lord [Yahweh] thy God." Surprise! Here the male cult prostitute is specifically mentioned! It is important to note in 23:17 that both Hebrew words translated in the KJV as "whore" and "sodomite" derive from a root meaning "holy" (qadosh) and so point to persons consecrated in service to a deity. "Temple prostitute" is therefore an accurate translation in both cases (see NRSV, NIV, REB, GNB) – while "sodomite" in the KJV (here and elsewhere where it appears) is a distorted translation of the Hebrew, which nowhere refers to Sodom. In 23:17, the Hebrew word for "female sacred prostitute" is qedheshah, and for "male sacred prostitute" is qadhesh. Then, 23:18 refers to a secular "female prostitute" (using zonah, a common word for "harlot") and to a "secular male prostitute", using the word for "dog" (kaleb) in a derogatory way. Money from none of these classes of prostitution was to be offered to the Lord, even though foreign cult prostitutes commonly supported their shrines through fees obtained by offering their passive sexual services to worshippers (to seek fertility and health in family and field).

He's begging the question by assuming that the passages are parallel. I would expect to find many laws in Leviticus not in Deuteronomy and vice versa.

When we turn to Israel's history, we find no case where any man (or woman) was tried, condemned and put to death for simple same-sex activity.

Appeal to ignorance, as I said before.

In Judges 19, we do have a story similar to Sodom, where certain "sons of Belial [NASB: 'worthless fellows']" in Gibeah tried to get their hands on a Levite priest (whom an old man in that city had taken in, with his party, as guests for the night), so that the mob might "know him [rape him]" (19:22). To save himself, the priest handed over his beloved concubine, whom the scoundrels then raped so viciously that she died (vv. 23-28). The other tribes then gathered to punish Gibeah and the tribe of Benjamin (ch. 20) – but the crime here was heterosexual murder (20:5).

Not of real significance.

The only later OT references to negative homosexuality that we have in Israel's history are sad, reoccurring passages that speak of the male cultic prostitutes operating in Judah (1 Kings 14:23-24; 15:12; 22:46), even within the precincts of the Jerusalem Temple itself (2 Kings 23:7).

Appeal to ignorance, again.

As it turned out, God's warnings in Lev 18:22/20:13 and Deut 23:17-18 were apropos, even though the Israelites later allowed the male cultic prostitutes to ply their trade.

He never established a true connection between the Leviticus and Deuteronomy passages. He also never proved that the 18:22 and 20:13 had anything to do with cultic ritual.

CONCLUSION: Gerig has failed miserably in his attempt to discredit the use of Leviticus 18:22/20:13 against homosexuality. Coupled with the thoughts of J.P. Holding here, I have concluded that Leviticus 18:22/20:13 does provide a strong case against homosexuality. It doesn't take a Hebrew scholar to discredit the silly claims Gerig makes here!

Frankly, this junk makes me seriously doubt Gerig's credibility.

[Kurieuo]

apparently you don't know what a pedophile is. but you might be kind of right. i walked in on my father having sex with my sister once. when i asked what they were doing he said, "having fun." maybe it is just a game.

I bet noone saw that coming I pray his wrongs caught up with him, and that your sister got counselled and worked through it?

Kurieuo.

[jerickson314]

Whoa! See this article - I didn't even need to analyze the "zakhar" passages myself! It looks like his definition of sacred significance is so incredibly broad that one would in fact expect near 100% of the references to be considered "sacred", especially in a book such as the Bible.

This looks like just plain stretching the truth to prove his point.

[ochotseat]

If you say so. I read that a pedophile's mind is more like that of a child in nature (eg. sex is more like a form of play with no real goals). I can only guess that the people your thinking of are child rapists, but not necessarily authentic pedophiles.

Another stupid comment from you. So their childlike innocence pushes them to molest children, yet they're mature enough to pay bills and watch child pornography? They should be tortured and locked up or something.

[jerickson314]

Examination of "The Clobber Passages" by Bruce Gerig Part 3: 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy

SECULAR PROSTITUTION IN CORINTH

Whether this assertion is true is for us to determine.

Virtue and vice lists were common in ancient Jewish and Greek writing and are also found in Paul's letters, including two with words that might relate to homosexuality. The more familiar list, in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, names ten types of persons who "shall [not] inherit the kingdom of God," including (as translated in the KJV): fornicators (NIV: sexually immoral), idolaters, adulterers, effeminate (malakoi), abusers of themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai), thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners (NIV: swindlers).

OK...

Words that appear only in word lists, not applied to a specific situation, can be notoriously hard to define – and such is the case with malakoi and arsenokoitai here.

We'll see...

Malakoi basically meant "soft, delicate," but was also used to describe moral weakness or male effeminacy.

Could be effeminacy, many translations translate it as such.

Yet, Boswell noted that Church tradition held unanimously through the Reformation (16th century) and in Catholicism well into the 20th century that malakoi here referred to masturbation – although after the Kinsey sex reports (1948, 1953) showed that masturbation was widespread and not harmful, this view was largely abandoned.

Who the heck is Boswell? Assuming he's credible, though, I would still hold that the Catholic church can be wrong. I have been told they believed in anti-Semitism for a while due to a distortion of scripture, and I know they have believed in selling indulgences and such. The idea that anyone would trust Kinsey is surprising, though.

It should thus be noted how erroneous a longstanding tradition of interpretation of Scripture can be, and without any real support for it in Scripture.

It can be, though we will see if there is any support for this being the case here.

Arsenokoitai is a compound noun, joining arsen ("male") and koite ("bed," inferring sex). Paul may have coined this word, deriving it from a Hebrew phrase like mishkab zakur based on "lie with a male" in Lev 20:13 (which refers to a male penetrator) or arsenos koiten in the Septuagint translation of Lev 20:13 (which refers, in the Greek syntax, to a male being penetrated). Looking at the word itself, arsenokoitai could refer to "males" either as subject or object.

Looks like a condemnation of homosexuality pretty clearly, then! (He even forgets what he concluded about "zakur" earlier and doesn't create any connection. Maybe he knew how bad the argument was and doesn't want to base more than one argument on the same blatant falsehood.)

What is important here, in context, is that all of the terms in this list, except for the first and last, appear to have been intentionally paired together: (1) idolatry was often associated with adultery in the OT, (2) malakoi and arsenokoitai, (3) thieves and coveters both passionately want what belongs to others), and (4) drunkenness often leads to reviling (NIV: slander). Therefore the meanings of malakoi (effeminacy of some kind) and arsenokoitai (male same-sex of some kind) seem linked.

He even points out that there are two exceptions. I see no reason to believe that this must be the case, although it seems possible.

Modern scholars have interpreted malakoi and arsenokoitai generally along four lines – as referring to: (1) "catamites" and "sodomites" – passive and active partners in same-sex activity (Bailey 1955, De Young 2000, Gagnon 2001) – although Bailey stressed that "homosexual" as a modern noun referring to same-sex orientation should not be read back into ancient Scripture;

A condemnation of homosexuality. And "homosexual" as a modern noun often does refer to activity rather than orientation. I would think a homosexual by both definitions, of all people, would realize that. He might be trying to sneak some equivocation, I can't really tell.

(2) "morally weak persons" and "catamites, corrupters of boys, or male prostitutes" (McNeill 1976/1988, Scanzoni & Mollenkott 1978/1994, Boswell 1980, Countryman 1988) – although Boswell and Countryman held that the second word probably referred to "male prostitutes" (who often serviced both sexes in ancient times);

Looks like a potential condemnation of homosexuality again. But Gerig's friend Boswell again holds that the passage doesn't condemn homosexuality. A pattern seems to be emerging!

(3) "effeminate call-boys" and the "men who visit or keep them" (Scroggs 1983, Furnish 1985/1994, Coleman 1995);

Not sure what he means here. Might be a reference to homosexuality.

or (4) "effeminate males" in some sense and "males who go to bed" in some way, related to economic sexual exploitation" – but the Greek terms here defy any more specific definition (Martin 1996, Nissinen 1998).

Looks like a condemnation of homosexuality, until they add the "related to economic sexual exploitation".

He's missing two views:

"Effeminate males" and "homosexuals" as well as "Male prostitutes" and "homosexuals".

The two most common interpretations in recent English translations of the Bible, in other words. It seems he has examined all the obscure scholarship and forgotten the less obscure. What sound practice!

Such uncertainty explains why these Greek words have been translated so differently in various English Bibles.

Actually, in the various Bible translations I have seen, the two he omitted are about all I have seen. Not so much difference. (The KJV does vary from the others, but that is to be expected due to its age).

Yet, clearly any use of "homsoexual" here (RSV, LB, NIV, CEV) is an inaccurate translation for two words that had more narrow, specific meanings in a very different cultural context.

In other words, several of the more common ones. I would think the people who created those translations would be able to hire the finest scholars! Plus, he hasn't proven that they had more narrow, specific meanings. He has just shown that certain obscure scholars (including his favorite, Boswell) think so.

The ancient Greeks (and their ideas were absorbed by the Romans) never divided people up into "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals," but rather assumed that everybody could and might want to do both.

Here Gerig is using equivocation. He is claiming that the word "homosexual" is a mistranslation because it doesn't fit one particular definition of the word. But the fact is, even in most English Bibles the context clearly indicates a different definition of "homosexual" than he is using. We don't classify people into "adulterers" and "non-adulterers", "thieves" and "non-thieves", "drunkards" and "non-drunkards", etc. either, at least not in the same sense as "homosexual" and "heterosexual" if we are talking orientation. "Homosexual" as a term about behavior rather than attraction already fits the context of the verse more naturally. In fact, the NIV uses "homosexual offenders" which eliminates any potential doubt (a fact Gerig conveniently overlooks).

The second word list, in 1 Timothy 1:9-10 names fourteen types of law-violators, including (as translated in the KJV): the lawless and disobedient; ungodly, sinners, unholy and profane (NIV: irreligious); murderers of fathers, murderers of mothers, and murderers of others; whoremongers (pornoi), them that defile themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai), and menstealers (andrapodostai); and liars and perjured persons (NIV: perjurers).

OK. Paul using the same word for homosexuality as in the previous passage, which Gerig only discredited by using scholarship that seems to be in the minority.

As Scroggs noted, there seem to be five word groups here (relating to civil law, religious purity, murder, prostitution, and falsehood). He proposed that the fourth group – including pornoi, arsenokoitai and andrapodostai – refer to boy prostitutes, the male customers who used them, and the slave dealers who procured them and sold them into prostitution. Although pornos in the NT generally took on the broader meaning of "fornicator," there is no reason why the older meaning of "male prostitute" might not be intended here. In ancient times, andropodistai ("kidnappers, slave dealers") sought out and bought or stole beautiful boys and girls to sell as slaves to the brothels throughout the Roman Empire.

Wow, Gerig isn't the only one who can beg the question! Scroggs can, too!

Boswell's study of the early church fathers found that none connected arsenokoitai or 1 Cor 6:9-10 with homosexuality until Hincmar of Reims (9th century), and even he then seems to have understood the term, as did the Vulgate (Latin) Bible, as a reference to prostitution.

Ah, Boswell again! This is an appeal to tradition, anyway. Gerig is advocating the interpretation of the passage as homosexual prostitution, and notes that this very view doesn't show up until the 9th century. A new view can be correct. (Of course this assumes that the original view was that it was homosexuality, but that writings revealing this interpretation didn't show up until later.)

As Scroggs noted, this association is backed up by Paul's use of the term in 1 Tim 1:10.

Yes, once Scroggs begs the question. And Gerig is still assuming that the 9th century view is correct.

Although malakoi never became a technical word for any sexual category, on occasion the charge of effeminacy was leveled by ancient writers against both the willing youth who consented to pederastic intercourse (anal intercourse was forbidden in Greek pederasty) and the male prostitute. Although some have suggested that malakoi in 6:9 refers to Greek pederasty, this hardly seems likely because the participation of Greek teenagers from citizen households in athletics was highly prized while effeminacy was widely criticized.

Takes one view I don't agree with and discredits it. Not of significance.

However, sacred and secular prostitution surely flourished in Corinth in Paul's day, the largest and most prosperous city in Greece, a key port for moving merchandise and filled with pilgrims, sailors, merchants, soldiers, slave traders, and others in town for the games. It is difficult for us to imagine the number of prostitutes in major cities throughout the Roman Empire, who not only operated out of brothels, taverns, inns and eating houses, but openly advertised their wares on the streets, intersections, and bridges; at the city gates, public buildings, and places of entertainment; and in the temples, baths, and marketplaces.

Not surprising.

That Paul has prostitution on his mind is shown by his discussion of it at some length (1 Cor 6:12-20) following the vice list (6:9-11) – so that he condemns both homosexual and heterosexual prostitution.

This doesn't prove anything. Does the fact that "adultery" is on the list before prostitution mean that adultery is only wrong when done with a prostitute?

Plus, I imagine heterosexual prostitution would be more prevalent than homosexual prostitution. Why would he only mention homosexual prostitution on the vice list, and do it first? This seems a bit odd.

Scroggs is right on target when he suggests that malakoi refers to effeminate call-boys that Paul must have frequently passed on the streets (who Philo, a contemporary of Paul, said were very obvious in public places). Arsenokoitai, then, refers to the male patrons who bought their sexual services.

"Scroggs is right on target" - yes, one of his two favorite scholars again! And the one whose only proof was an excercise in begging the question. I didn't see any convincing proof for this assertion.

CONCLUSION: Gerig has derived nearly his entire case from two scholars whose interpretation varies from that of most Bible translators, and who thus might be somewhat obscure. He has also exhibited several fallacies. Even though this section makes claims in areas I am not educated in and that I therefore cannot evaluate, Gerig's case falls far short of being convincing.

[jerickson314]

Examination of "The Clobber Passages" by Bruce Gerig Part 4: Romans

BISEXUALITY AS A NORM IN ROME

Wow, something I can refute just in the title. This section is going to be bad.

Gerig constantly says that he could not choose his orientation, and statistics show that bisexuality is somewhat rare. How, then, would bisexuality become a norm? I suppose only if the right conditions existed, although this could really only happen if homosexuality isn't genetic (something I would agree with but most homosexuals seem to disagree with).

The final major passage is Romans 1:26-27, where Paul writes, "even [the pagan] women did change [NIV: 'exchange'] the natural use into that which is against nature [para phusin]: [27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another [doing unseemly things and] receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." (The "recompense" here may refer to the pagans' general downward slide, to venereal disease, or [as Philo suggested] to sterility.)

OK. But "recompense" has always struck me as guilt and shame, especially with the "in themselves" phrase in the verse. I could be wrong, though.

Right from the start, three important observations should be noted : (1) This passage is about heterosexuals – and therefore has nothing to do with those with a homosexual orientation. These persons were fully able to enjoy heterosexual passion and pleasure, but then they turned to indulge also in same-sex activities. As John Chrysostom noted in a 4th century sermon on this passage, "Only those possessing something can change it."

UMM... NO!

If we assume they mean "heterosexuals" instead of "bisexuals" - and all over epistle.us a distinction is made - then he seems to be saying that some completely straight people just randomly decided to have gay sex. And people have trouble believing the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection! Hopefully I'm not making a straw man here, though.

Anyway, the passage seems to say that they exchanged behavior rather than passion. Nowhere does it say anything that would require that they had any heterosexual attraction.

Plus, if you accept the interpretation as bisexuality, the Epistle needs to change their subtitle. They need to remove the word "bisexuals", because here they say that Paul is condemning bisexuals. I've always wondered how one can be an active monogamous bisexual, anyway.

Plus, to claim that something may be right for one person but wrong for another, based simply on feelings, is pure moral relativism.

(2) This passage, in its larger context, is about God-rejecters – and therefore has nothing to do with GLBTs who have been Christian their whole lives but still also have always known that they are "different."

Um, no again. Most descriptions of sin are about God-rejecters, but this does not mean that the sin is OK when done by Christians. And it does apply to these very GBLTs, in that if they act on their desires they are disobeying the will of God.

(3) This passage is about lust (brothel pickups, back-alley sex, and the like) – and therefore has nothing to do with homosexual love, devotion, and commitment or to GLBT people who would like to find a companion and a long-term relationship.

Lust is always a precursor to sexual activity, and is wrong when not directed towards a spouse. I don't have any personal experience here (with the sexual activity part), but nonetheless this would seem natural. Plus, the fact that lust is a detail doesn't mean that lust is what made it wrong.

And his definition of "lust" is rather strange and is not in any way supported by the passage.

Does the fact that David saw Bathsheba while he was on a rooftop mean that adultery is only wrong when preceded by a walk on the rooftop?

The focus of this passage, then, is narrowly fixed on certain negative aspects of sex, that can, in some cases, characterize both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

No, not at all. Gerig has provided 0.0000000000000% of the evidence needed to reach this conclusion.

This is the first (and only) mention of “lesbians” in the Bible

Wow, Gerig is admitting that the focus is on homosexuality.

(although in ancient times everyone was married or was expected to marry),

This explains like everything! In nearly all contexts, homosexuality would automatically be adultery. This would be especially true after polygamy was abolished, and before then the Levitical law clearly applied. No wonder there are so few direct condemnations of homosexuality!

probably introduced because Paul wishes to show that both genders need to experience God's grace (just as do the pagans and the Jews).

One of the first true things he has said this entire section!

Paul's letter to the Romans presents his most systematic treatment of the Gospel; and in chs. 1-3 he shows how "all [both Gentiles and Jews] have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" and need "the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" to be received "through faith in his blood [atonement]" (3:23-25). In the section on the Gentiles (1:18-32), Paul describes how the Greco-Roman world rejected the true witness in nature of the living God (of his power and greatness) – and so the "wrath [judicial judgment] of God" has fallen upon them (vv. 18-20), meaning he has left them to drift ever further into darkened thinking (vv. 21-23) and destructive practice, both polysexual (vv. 24-27) and antisocial (vv. 28-32).

One word of caution: He is taking the verses completely out of order. This doesn't disprove his case but does weaken the argument.

As God "gave them up [over]" (vv. 24,26,28), the pagans "exchanged" (vv. 23,25,26-27) the true Creator to worship dumb man-made images, the truth about God for a lie (their own fanciful myths), and "natural [sexual] use for unnatural."

Yes, though Gerig is glossing over how the "unnatural" sexual use is homosexuality. He seems he might be trying to imply that women changed from sexual use to a different use; his wording is unclear. This latter interpretation isn't supported by the passage and might not be what he was trying to say anyway.

What Paul means by “against nature” (1:26) is debated, because he does not recall the Creation story here (where, in any case, sex was created for companionship [Gen 2:18,20] as much as for conception [2:24]).

Heterosexual sex was created for companionship. Homosexuality was never condoned as a creation of God's and was declared an "abomination", and thus it is hard to argue that it too was created for companionship.

And there is more to "nature" than the creation story. "Natural" can simply mean what God intended.

Also, except for his reference to sinners who are sinful "by nature" (Eph 2:3), Paul's references to what is "natural" apply to group or individual (not universal) characteristics – e.g. the Gentiles are Gentiles "by nature" (Rom 2:27), the Jews are Jews "by nature" (Gal 2:15), idols are not gods "by nature" (Gal 4:8), and plants may be "by [their] nature" either wild or cultivated (Rom 11:24).

So what? There is at least one exception, there could be another. And he could mean that males are males and females are females "by nature", which would be consistent with the other uses anyway.

Applying Paul's usual concept of "natural", one could argue that gay people should respect (and do not need to change) their true, fundamental sexual orientation, which is natural for them.

100% relativism, and previously refuted.

Also, the fact that homosexual activity has been documented among 450 different species of animals, birds and other creatures shows that it is a "natural" part of sexual diversity.

So we should model our behavior after ANIMALS? RIGHT...

Clearly, Paul drew from the Wisdom of Solomon (an intertestamental Jewish text) for his view in Romans 1 that "the worship of idols … is the beginning, the cause, and the end of every evil" (14:27, REB), bringing a breakdown of civil order (murder, theft, riot, etc., vv. 25-26) and a "change of kind" (v. 26, Authorized Version). Bailey noted that this “change of kind” could refer to a changing of race (Greek influences on the Jews), of gender (cross-dressing that was a common feature of many fertility cults), or of one's genitalia (self-castration such as marked the worship of Cybele in Asia Minor).

I don't see what he is getting at here.

(Of course, cross-dressing condemned in the context of the castrated devotees who served pagan deities cannot be used to condemn transgender orientation.)

Overemphasis on context again. And it seems he has been presupposing from the start that no passage in the Bible can be used to condemn gay, bisexual, lesbian, or trangender behavior. This may not be the right passage to use when condemning transgender behavior anyway, and I wouldn't try to condemn orientation as I have said time and again.

Secular (as well as Jewish) thinkers of the time – including Seneca, Plutarch, and the Stoic philosophers – viewed homosexual behavior as (1) freely chosen by the individual; (2) forcing a man to take a woman's role which they considered against nature; (3) always linked with insatiable lust; and (4) leading to sterility and extinction of the race (Furnish).

What does it matter what certain philosophers thought?

Today we question the accuracy or absolutism of all of these assumptions. Numerous scientific studies suggest that homosexual orientation is probably, in most cases, prenatal (including genetic and hormonal factors) and permanent, while environmental factors may also play a role.

So what? If you assume that Paul based his case on those assumptions, you are assuming that the Bible (or at least the book of Romans) is nothing more than a fallen human book.

Today we consider the ancient patriarchal view as outdated, as modern women show themselves to be every bit as capable, educated and gifted as men – and for men to assume “feminine” traits (e.g. nurturing) or roles (e.g. child-rearing) is inconsequential. Science has recognized that gender roles and identity are innately more fluid and varied than earlier recognized.

So what, again?

Many gay singles live balanced, successful and decent lives and many gay couples live long, happy and full lives together that vary little from their heterosexual counterparts, save for their sexual orientation. Homosexual activity does not cause sterility, and the percentage of people who turn out homosexual is always so small that it never threatens extinction.

This doesn't matter. What matters is whether it is a sin. Plus, these assumptions have been questioned. Idolatry doesn't necessarily shorten life, does this mean that it was wrong to condemn it? Plus, I have no problem with "gay singles", if by that he means celibate people.

Since sexual practices can vary so greatly from culture to culture and age to age, we need to ask, what forms of homosexual activity did Paul see predominately as he traveled around the Roman Empire?

OK, so we can start on a red herring expedition? (Plus he seems to be advocating relativism with his opening clause.)

Boswell notes that if rights over property, spouses, and children were in place, the ancient Roman male felt free to do pretty much whatever he wanted to do on the side sexually. Moreover, it didn't matter too much with whom he did it, or with which gender.

Ahh, Boswell again. Nonetheless, this time it doesn't matter if his conclusions are true.

Furnish describes how the pederastic tradition of ancient Greece had evolved by Paul's day into two different forms: (1) the use of brothel prostitutes (starting before marriage), which fostered a large slave-trade of youth and supported the castration of boys to fill a special market demand, and (2) the sexual abuse of slaves, as affluent males bought and utilized household slaves for sexual release whenever and however they wished (sometimes even loaning them out to friends for sex).

And why does this matter? It seems Gerig is saying that Paul saw no other homosexual behavior, and thus nothing he could possibly say would convince Gerig that homosexuality was wrong.

It should be noted that one-third of the inhabitants of the large cities in the Roman Empire were slaves – and it is even more interesting to note that a number of the Christian believers in Rome were slaves in such households (Rom 16:10-11). One wonders whether any of them had ever been abused or if this possibility influenced Paul’s introduction of homosexuality as a topic earlier in his letter.

Genetic fallacy.

In any case, what Paul condemned in Romans 1 was a pagan polysexual world where people were led by social custom to indulge in same-sex acts along with heterosexuality, throwing aside any interest in fostering true love and faithfulness within a committed relationship. At the same time, this sexual world supported many kinds of exploitative, demeaning, and destructive forms of behavior.

And yet he is saying that that was where homosexuality was, so Paul would have had no chance to flat-out condemn homosexuality on its own. This doesn't look like an intellecually honest look at the true issue. Plus, Paul didn't directly condemn any part but the homosexuality.

CONCLUSION: This is the worst I've seen Gerig at since he tried to analyze Leviticus. More garbage. Romans 1 looks like another strong anti-homsexual (behaviorally speaking, of course) passage.

[jerickson314]

Examination of "The Clobber Passages" by Bruce Gerig Part 5: His Conclusion

In conclusion, the formulation of Christian ethics for any age requires both a careful, literal reading of Scripture (as with any ancient text), along with an informed, caring knowledge of the specific problems that real people face in modern culture.

Never seen a better definition of "moral relativism". I suspected the whole way through he would only accept homosexuality as wrong in certain contexts no matter what was said.

The commonly held assumption that the Bible presents a single, straightforward sexual ethic that can be universally applied is not true.

The presupposition of moral relativism applied to sexuality.

Throughout the OT, for example, men could take multiple wives and concubines (slave partners), women were looked upon as chattel for male disposal (e.g. Lot’s daughters), and nowhere did Moses forbid Israelite men to visit secular prostitutes.

One of the most common mistalkes ever made when interpreting scripture! Assuming that God approves of everything the Bible records Jews doing.

In Jesus’ day, prostitution continued openly, as did the fact that a wife had no legal recourse against her husband, although he could abuse her and easily divorce her for even minor reasons.

Right, more things God never said "yes" to.

No wonder, Jesus stressed loving others (Matt 22:37-40), in the face of such unfair legalism. Paul likewise declared that for followers of Christ the “entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Gal 5:14, NIV).

Yes, loving is important. But the "legalism" was never really Biblical ethics.

If Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) shows us anything, it is that the righteous standard of God is very high – which is why we all need God’s precious grace and why we also need to bring compassion to applying Christian ethics in this fallen, imperfect world.

Right. Now remember, he said "applying", not "throwing away".

Shall we simply quote Jesus’ rule on divorce (only for adultery and then you can never remarry, Matt 5:31-32) to a teenage girl who marries only to discover that her husband is a wife-beater who refuses any counseling or treatment? No, I believe we should follow Jesus’ supreme rule of love, even if it bends the ideal rule on divorce.

DUH! We should report her husband to the police. No need to bend the rule on divorce, which isn't simply an "ideal" anyway. And some consider that even a divorce here might be allowed under the rule, as certain reasons for divorce are allowed (infidelity, abandonment, etc.)

What Gerig is proposing here is just more moral relativism.

Shall we condemn the gay or transgendered person? No, there should be room for all of God’s children in the Church.

We shouldn't condemn the person, just the sin. There is room for sinners in the Church, but this does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to the sin.

And 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 could get really interesting here, someone want to comment?

Demanding arbitrarily (as ex-gay ministries do) that all gay people must live celibate lives – even while Paul said that this is not possible for most, who should instead try to find a partner (1 Cor 7:7-9) – or that they “change into heterosexuals” is cruel, self-deceptive, and self-destructive, a path that produces neither whole nor healthy people.

Whoa, lots of errors at once! First of all, it isn't arbitrary. It is based on Biblical law. Sex is either heterosexual or it is sinful (or both, of course). And Paul never said that anyone should instead "try to find a partner". He said that they should "marry". That's right, "marry". And it is very, very clear from reading the rest of his letter that he defines marriage as heterosexual. He contrasted heterosexual marriage with "sexual immorality" (1 Corinthians 7:2), a category which includes homosexual behavior. He repeats his description of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7:36-37, using clear heterosexual terminology.

Oh, and "cruel"? I wonder what Gerig would have to say about a guy telling a bunch of fishermen to "take up your cross and follow me".

There is nothing self-deceptive about celibacy. It is repeatedly described as the best option for anyone who can handle it.

And self-destructive? I think not. Compare to here.

Homosexuality is actually the path that leads to people who are neither whole nor healthy.

Moreover, Paul struggled in a time of great religious change, when he was unable to realize all of his goals.

So what?

Some conservative interpreters claim that no matter how 1 Cor 6:9-10 and Rom 1:26-27 are interpreted, Paul would never have approved of any homosexual activity – an assertion that is far from certain.

As an assertion, it might be "far from certain". But it is well supported.

One must remember that Paul was a "radical" in many ways, standing sometimes alone against the whole body of Jewish Christians (Gal 2:11-14), so that his Gentile converts would not have to be "in bondage" to the Law of Moses, but fully redeemed and "free" in Christ (Gal 5:1-2), led by Christ's Spirit within (4:6).

He wasn't making them free to sin, duh! Actually read the Bible, Mr. Gerig.

Paul envisioned a world where all Christians (Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female) are one and equal in Christ (Gal 3:28), but he cannot achieve such a lofty goal – and so, many of his social stipulations, which condone slavery (Col 3:22, Tit 2:9), exclude women from ministry (1 Tim 3), and dictate certain hair and head-covering styles (1 Cor 11:4-15) are better read as temporary rather than universal guidelines.

I don't see what this has to do with whether homsexuality is OK, referring to the "equal in Christ" part. Equal in Christ is a laudible goal, and those with same-sex attractions deserve to be equal in Christ with everyone else. However, everyone should strive for moral perfection, even though we will never achieve it in this life. Equal in Christ does not mean that everyone is free to sin as they feel tempted.

And we should not be too quick to judge a particular passage as a social stipulation. Nonetheless, the particular passages he mentions here have been discussed elsewhere, and discussing them here would be outside the scope of my analysis.

Also, Paul sometimes changes his mind as he tries to find God-honoring but practical solutions for perplexing problems in his churches. For example, he commands (perhaps a bit overexcitedly) that women in all of his churches "keep silence" because of disruptive problems in the church at Corinth (1 Cor 14:33-35); and yet several years later he will write to the Roman churches, commending Phoebe, who is head (so hardly silent) of the church at Cenchrea, the eastern port city of Corinth, instructing everyone to help her with whatever she needs (Rom 16:1-2).

Looks like some of those alleged contradictions again, someone care to discuss these? Or perhaps he is giving direct advice to each church rather than general guidelines. I don't have time to examine the passages directly, and they are out of scope again.

And who were Andronicus and Junias in Rom 16:7 (both male names in the Greek, see RSV2, LB, NIV, NASB), who had lived together for some 25 years, moved around the Empire together, were imprisoned together with Paul for the faith (which means that neither was an invalid), and now are even called "apostles" by Paul? Could Paul have condemned homosexual abuses on the one hand (Rom 1), while at the same time accepting without fanfare a gay couple who had faithfully served the Lord and supported his ministry? We cannot know for sure, for the reference is brief.

I'd say it's highly unlikely they were a gay couple. They could have been single people living together, who probably weren't attracted to each other sexually.

Although Scripture is divinely inspired as Jesus and the apostles held (Matt 5:18, 2 Tim 3:15-17, 2 Pet 1:20-21),

Not what he's been implying! Probably trying not to let himself get blown out of the water.

certainly there remains room for advancement on certain social issues – like slavery, women, cultural diversity, and gays – to move forward toward one day fulfilling Paul's great vision of all believers being one and equal in Christ (Gal 3:26-29).

"Room for advancement" - he seems to be implying that some of the Bible is no longer true, more relativism. But examining the particular issues:

Slavery - I don't think Paul ever "condones" slavery, he merely acknowledges it and tells masters and slaves to behave in a godly manner. There is no moral problem with a lack of slavery. So a most literal interpretation allows advancement here.

Women - A lot has been said by different people on this issue, and I think I would be going outside my scope if I did it justice here.

Cultural diversity - I don't see a conflict with this and the Bible at all, unless religious practices or false philosophies are meant by "cultural".

Gays - Here there isn't any "room for advancement", unless you mean replacement of homophobia with a more biblical view. Homosexuality is condemned, as Gerig has failed to refute.

And with gays the "equal in Christ" terminology is being misconstrued again. "Equal" does not mean "free to sin as temptation leads". But it does mean that same-sex attracted people need equality and oneness with the body of Christ.

We have seen how these "clobber passages" condemn only various kinds of sexual abuse and misuse – including rape, sex in pagan worship and also in church, prostitution in all its forms (cultic, secular, including the enslavement and castration of children) and those who support it, and the creation of a society where everyone is encouraged to live a promiscuous, polysexual life.

No, we have seen how Mr. Bruce L. Gerig can use selective reporting and manipulation to make things appear that way.

Nowhere in the Bible is there expressed any awareness of homosexual or transgender orientation.

So?

But also, clues scattered throughout the Bible suggest that same-sex love and commitment not only existed and were openly written about

Unless the reference is to sexual love, I would agree with this statement. If it is about sexual love, I would say it is silly.

and also that God clearly has a place in His kingdom for those who are sexually different and often scorned for it.

Yes, he wants to forgive them for their sins and see them truly live.

And if he just means people with different attractions I would completely agree.

Ruth's love for the older Naomi and her desire to be her lifelong companion were expressed in words so beautiful (Ruth 1:16-17) that they are still often repeated today at weddings.

So what? They were family. Is love within a family surprising?

Prince Jonathan's love for young David is described in the most passionate of terms – he "loved him as his own soul [GNB: 'was deeply attracted to David']" (1 Sam 18:1), he "delighted much in David" (19:2), and his love "was wonderful, [sur]passing the love of women" (2 Sam 1:26).

They were close friends, yeah.

That this was an erotic love is made clear when King Saul rebukes his son for "choosing" David to his "own shame [bosheth] and to the shame of your mother's nakedness [erwah = genitals]" (1 Sam 20:30, NASB) – an insult that had clear sexual undertones.

Refuted elsewhere.

Although Moses banned eunuchs (men were commonly castrated in the ancient Near East for temple and royal service) from Israel's assembly (Deut 23:1), God promised Isaiah that such sexual "outcasts" would one day be welcomed into God's house (Isa 56:3-8) – and remarkably the first Gentile brought into the Church, through the Holy Spirit's initiative and baptized by Phillip was the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-39), who truly rejoiced in God's grace. And did not Jesus say that there are truths that not all can understand or accept, while expressing his full acceptance of all kinds of "eunuchs," including those that are born that way (and so will not procreate) or who turn out that way from other circumstances beyond their control (Matt 19:11-12)?

Well, yeah! Eunuchs were CELIBATE. It wasn't so much that they didn't procreate as that they didn't have sex at all. And Jesus would have even accepted sinners, just not sin.

I hope these thoughts are helpful to you!

Well, they exposed me to someone else's false beliefs so that I can understand them better.

May Christ’s precious love fill your heart abundantly …

At least he ends on a good note.

CONCLUSION: Gerig's conclusion is little more than a relativistic, liberal, postmodernistic appeal to emotion. Wow, that's a mouthful!

CONCLUSION TO THE OVERALL ARTICLE: Not convincing at all. Too many gaping errors.

[jerickson314]

Two more articles discussing "gay theology":

http://www.summit.org/resource/essay/sh ... ssay_id=84

http://www.becomingreal.org/faith/theology.htm

[jerickson314]

Ahh, that's who Boswell was:

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

He was gay, not surprising. I noticed the Becoming Real article also mentioned him in the description of A Strong Delusion. NOT a mainstream scholar.

[jerickson314]

Yet another article on "gay theology":

http://www.narth.com/docs/dallas.html

[jerickson314]

And yet another:

http://www.oneby1.org/resources/same_se ... ships.html

You really can't claim "article singular" any more.

To find more, just look at the web site of any ex-gay ministry and follow the links to other ministries. It's not hard.

[SnowDrops]

You and I sure are different! I'm more of a loner. Don't think for a minute that I'm not flexable, I've just been secular for most of my life, and I've seen what Christianity looks like to the secular world. People IMHO are not turning away from God because they're stupid, it's because the Christian establishment won't under any circumstances meet them half-way. I couldn't imagine saying this stuff on a non-apologetic website! I've learned that Christ is a whole lot different than Christ's Church.

Just remember, churches have believed a lot of things throughout history, including slavery, and they wouldn't be entirely off-base by using biblical passages to justify it. If the majority of Christians today believe in something as silly as Young Earth Creationism, all bets are off![/quote]

As a wise buddhist once said: "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ!".
:sigh: The sad truth. Don't believe everything you hear in Church, just 'cause you heard it in Church.

[SnowDrops]

Shirtless wrote:
Also, one begs the question, if the gang at Lot's house was gay, why would Lot offer up his daughters?

Maybe they would change their mind...

[Proinsias]

As a wise buddhist once said: "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ!".

Pretty sure that was Ghandi, he was a Hindu.