Passages and homosexuality

[Mastermind]

Dude you're basing your statistics on lies.

Well, that's why I said "at the very least". Every time the 10% thing get's brought up, people always say it's more like 3%, but I don't know if that's true or not.

You're right I misread it. Sorry.

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.

Unfortunately, we need to rely on the Church's tradition to figure out where they stand on issues. The church had no profit to make from banning homosexual relationships (in which the Romans engaged quite liberally) but they did anyway. They wouldn't have done it if it wasn't against canon.

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!

Slavery in ancient times does not equal slavery today. Read some more of JP's stuff, slavery back then was a good thing. The bible is neutral on the issue anyway.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Slavery in Biblical times was the result of things as spoils of war and the consequence of going into debt. It wasn't a lifelong thing either, you could buy your way out. Also, your children did not end up being enslaved for life either.

[Shirtless]

Slavery in ancient times does not equal slavery today. Read some more of JP's stuff, slavery back then was a good thing. The bible is neutral on the issue anyway.

Slavery in Biblical times was the result of things as spoils of war and the consequence of going into debt. It wasn't a lifelong thing either, you could buy your way out. Also, your children did not end up being enslaved for life either.

I know! I know all about that. That's my point: they thought that slavery was okay 'cause they looked at the biblical passages at face value. Good, decent people would look at these passages and say "Look, God says we can have slaves. It says it right there. Besides, Pastor John says it's okay to have slaves, I'd trust him more than those crazy abolitionists."

Little does this woman know that New World Slavery, and the slavery that the Romans participated in (outright condemned by Paul) was completely different than biblical slavery.

If you told that to Lucy in 1834, she'd say. "Well, that's different. Those slaves were different than the Negroes. The Negroes are decendants of Ham, who Noah cursed. God says the the decendants of Ham can be our slaves. Pastor John said so."

[Felgar]

The argument that further social reforms are warranted just because some have been in the past is by no means a persuasive argument.

Besides, there's a fundamental difference between sexuality and the rest of them (race, gender, and age): Homosexuality is an act of volition whereas the others aren't.

[Shirtless]

I know. That wan't my intent. Mastermind told me that the gay issue never interested him much, but he said he believes that homosexuality is wrong, and that some of that is based on traditionalism.

This thread was originally meant to address specific Biblical passages. I'd like to think that my original post is a persuasive argument. I was going to address Romans tommorrow, but Mastermind provided me with internet essays that make me want to address Leviticus.

[ochotseat]

They "tolerated" it so much that they considered it the "more intelligent" of relationships, and a homoerotic friendship was considered the most sophisticated, whereas hetero relationships were to them more about lust and procreation. This was to such a degree that in heterosexual marriages, the wife would dress up like a man on their wedding night (!). The Romans were a little more into the ladies , and they considered the female figure to be the standard of beauty, as opposed to all the Greek statues of men.

Yes, because women were considered inferior. Women dressing up as men on wedding nights? Source?

You mean before the introduction of the Byzantine Empire.

Don't you know that the Byzantine Empire coincided with Christianity becoming the official religion of both sides of the Roman Empire?

Well, yeah. So would I! That's 'cause Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans and they were forced out. When you have no choice but to live in anti-polygamy cultures (as the Mormons did after much persecution) like the Roman Empire for hundreds of years, you have no choice but to bend a little. This is emphasized by Saint Augustine in the 4th century:

It can't be attributed to just that. Societies progress or regress naturally.

Well, we'll see. And as far as blue states go, I've never been interested in political parties--they both feed from the same trough.

Why would you say that?

You and I sure are different! I'm more of a loner.

Why am I not surprised...

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, i

Is that why almost 90% of America's Christian, Christianity is the largest religion, and Christianity's growing rapidly in all parts of the world (especially the developing world)?

t's because the Christian establishment won't under any circumstances meet them half-way.

Elaborate. There are different Protestant denominations for people from all walks of life.

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.

Not all Christians supported slavery. Ever heard of abolitionists? You can't slander the Bible just because a few people exploit it for selfish needs.

[ochotseat]

Unfortunately, we need to rely on the Church's tradition to figure out where they stand on issues. The church had no profit to make from banning homosexual relationships (in which the Romans engaged quite liberally) but they did anyway. .

Only some older Roman males engaged in homoerotic relations with younger males, and it wasn't as extensive as it was in ancient Greece, particularly because Roman men tended to marry earlier than Greek men. Obviously, homosexuality was banned once Christianity became official.

Slavery in ancient times does not equal slavery today.

Slavery was accepted as a part of life in ancient times. Also, many slaves lived better lives as slaves than they did as freemen in the old country. I read a passage by a German slave who said she'd much rather live in Rome than in her old former hut.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

It can't be attributed to just that. Societies progress or regress naturally.

It is not a natural process, but the result of individual choice, and a lack of people standing up for good. I don't remember who said it, but for evil to win, all the good side has to do is nothing.

[Shirtless]

Romans 1:18-31
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

------------------------------
Romans 1:26-28 is used often to condemn homosexuality. Romans is a letter that focuses much on idolatry, and vs. 23-26 seems to be focused on just that ("images made to look like mortal man and birds..."). But vs. 26-28 give the impression of being general homosexual behavior. Obviously this is a subject where a quick reading of an English translation must be elaborated on.

Paul is using a type of writing style which was popular in Ancient Times known as Chiasmus which is basically making the same point several times to provide emphasis. He is using this style to show how these people "exchange/substitute" God for something else, and God likewise "giving them over" as a result (much like the hardening of Pharaoh's heart in Exodus).

Here are some outlines of this format using these passages:

Outline 1 (v 23-24)
They exchanged God's glory...
which led to making images of animals and men to worship...
which led God to give them over to sinful desires/sexual impurity/degrading their bodies.

Outline 2 (v 25-26)
They exchanged God's truth for a lie...
which led to worship created things...
which led God to give them over to shameful lusts

Outline 3 (v 26-31)
They exchanged natural relations for unnatural...
which led to stop believing in God...
which led God to give them over to a depraved mind, to do evil things...

Most agree that the cult he is referring to is the group that worships the God Attis and his mother/lover, Cybele. The priests/priestesses were called the Galli.

But this does show that Paul disapproved of their unnatural relations, right?
If you looked at the history of the cults he was referring to, you'd know just how bad, and unnatural it was. The Galli had one primary goal: to remove gender differences--often by cutting off one's genitals or cross-dressing. They would then serve as "female" temple prostitutes. The woman would cut off their breasts and pretend to be men. All this was done so they could be over-sexed devotees to Pagan gods. Is any of this natural?

There are things that one could determine by these passages:

*The people Paul is referring to are people who have turned away from God. No mention is given to those who are currently followers of Christ.

*The unnatural relations are NOT the cause of God turning them to a depraved mind. They A) are former Christians who B) turned to gender blurring temple prostitution in a form of Syncretism, which ultimately caused them to C) stop believing in Yahweh which D) after a while, caused God to turn them over to their own wants.

*There is no indication that these lusts are outside the context of idolatry, which is what Romans 1 is mainly about anyway.

Okay, what if he WAS talking about secular homosexuality?
Well, the word used for "inflamed with lust" is exekauthysan . This word, which literally means "utterly consumed by fire". So Paul is referring to people who have sex a lot, without bond or friendship but merely filling an empty void.

What about gay people who are in a loving relationship?
Paul doesn't say, based on the descriptions of these lost souls, they hardly sound like people who are in any beneficial relationship. They sound more like a very serious problem known as sex addiction, which often happens to the self-centered and carnal. This is why acknowledgment of a higher power is one of the steps to recovery in Alcoholics Anonymous.

But what if they're in a homosexual relationship, and haven't turned from God?
As long as it isn't abusive, I guess any loving relationship is relatively neutral in Paul's eyes as long as you follow Christ and live like him.

Conclusion:
If Paul wanted to condemn homosexual relationships, he would have been quite able to, and the Romans would know exactly what he was talking about. He would have been more clear about it, and spoke of it in it's own context, as opposed to burying it in a passage about cults and idolatry.

[Shirtless]

Women dressing up as men on wedding nights? Source?

You give me all your sources, especially the one about (chuckle) 90% of America being Christian, and I'll give you mine.

Don't you know that the Byzantine Empire coincided with Christianity becoming the official religion of both sides of the Roman Empire?

Yes. I know a lot about Byzantium and though I don't think any Government organization is 100% good or even 80% good (with the exception of King Arthur' Camelot ), I've found that the more powerful the Empire became, the less Christianity there was. A lot of the corruption survived even the Protestant Reformation. I've learned that dogma isn't just the name of a Jay and Silent Bob movie.

Well, we'll see. And as far as blue states go, I've never been interested in political parties--they both feed from the same trough.

Why would you say that?

Well, all my family and all of their family are Republicans. All they talk about is the Democrats. There is nothing more sad than seeing people talk about party lines this vigorously, as if there was really a difference. Kerry was just as bad as Bush, and Kerry wasn't going to make the country any better.

Christianity is the largest religion, and Christianity's growing rapidly in all parts of the world (especially the developing world)?

I'm glad that some people take the time and effort to fly around the world and preach the Gospel, but the countries that have increasing numbers of converts are countries that are already religious. The west is not. That's what apologetics are for; I think all churches should have an apologetic mindset.

t's because the Christian establishment won't under any circumstances meet them half-way.

Elaborate. There are different Protestant denominations for people from all walks of life.

Yes, but sadly, majority rules--and it's not a tolerant majority, let me tell you. Now I know how Martin Luther felt. But if you really believe what you believe, why not check out ministries like this one: http://epistle.us/

You know, just to keep yourself well rounded.

Not all Christians supported slavery. Ever heard of abolitionists? You can't slander the Bible just because a few people exploit it for selfish needs.

I guess you missed this one:

I know! I know all about that. That's my point: they thought that slavery was okay 'cause they looked at the biblical passages at face value. Good, decent people would look at these passages and say "Look, God says we can have slaves. It says it right there. Besides, Pastor John says it's okay to have slaves, I'd trust him more than those crazy abolitionists."

Little does this woman know that New World Slavery, and the slavery that the Romans participated in (outright condemned by Paul) was completely different than biblical slavery.

If you told that to Lucy in 1834, she'd say. "Well, that's different. Those slaves were different than the Negroes. The Negroes are descendants of Ham, who Noah cursed. God says the descendants of Ham can be our slaves. Pastor John said so."

It's okay. Happens to me all the time.

[Felgar]

That argument is quite a stretch. For starters, even assuming Paul IS talking about a cult to which he makes no mention (seems strange to me right off) then it still serves to demonstrate the perverse nature of homosexuality as a result of God giving them over to depravity. Paul could not have been any more clear that the homosexuality of the relationships is one of the very things that makes it perverse, regardless if it's not the only thing.

And then you still have the Corinthians passage that takes yet another stretch to explain away. Then after that there's Soddom and Gomorrah - again homosexuality a clear demonstration of wickedness.

And if ALL that's not enough, there's still Leviticus where God explicitly states, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable."

There's siimply NO ambiguity here, as much as you'd like there to be. You'd have a better chance arguing that Jesus was sleeping for 3 days instead of being dead, than you do arguing that the Bible is not clear on homosexuality.

And that's to say nothing of Jesus always talking of a man and his wife, and also of the fact that God made from scratch a woman to be man's companion. It's not like homosexuality was new 2000 years ago, yet we have not a single example of a moral homosexual relationship from Jesus, the OT, or any of the apostles.

[ochotseat]

You give me all your sources, especially the one about (chuckle) 90% of America being Christian, and I'll give you mine.:

Are you blind? I did in my post about America being a Christian nation.

Yes. I know a lot about Byzantium and though I don't think any Government organization is 100% good or even 80% good (with the exception of King Arthur' Camelot ), I've found that the more powerful the Empire became, the less Christianity there was. A lot of the corruption survived even the Protestant Reformation. I've learned that dogma isn't just the name of a Jay and Silent Bob movie..:

Christianity increased as the Western Roman Empire neared collapse, so you're wrong.

Well, all my family and all of their family are Republicans. All they talk about is the Democrats. There is nothing more sad than seeing people talk about party lines this vigorously, as if there was really a difference. Kerry was just as bad as Bush, and Kerry wasn't going to make the country any better...:

There's a difference, and the stats show it.

I'm glad that some people take the time and effort to fly around the world and preach the Gospel, but the countries that have increasing numbers of converts are countries that are already religious. The west is not. That's what apologetics are for; I think all churches should have an apologetic mindset....:

These countries used to have pagan majorities, dim sum.

Yes, but sadly, majority rules--and it's not a tolerant majority, let me tell you. Now I know how Martin Luther felt. But if you really believe what you believe, why not check out ministries like this one: http://epistle.us/

You know, just to keep yourself well rounded. ....:

No, because the majority is the basis for a republic.
You ignored my comment about different denominations existing for different views. Typical.

It's okay. Happens to me all the time.

Not surprised.

[ochotseat]

It is not a natural process, but the result of individual choice, and a lack of people standing up for good. I don't remember who said it, but for evil to win, all the good side has to do is nothing.

Do you know what you're replying to? I was replying to some guy's comment that polygamy's only ended due to social pressure and not due to internal change.

[Shirtless]

That argument is quite a stretch. For starters, even assuming Paul IS talking about a cult to which he makes no mention (seems strange to me right off)

I suppose I haven't established that Paul is talking about specific cults as much as I should have, and I should invest more time in it. But for now, keep in mind the safety nets I had put up, emphasizing what the passages don't say.

then it still serves to demonstrate the perverse nature of homosexuality as a result of God giving them over to depravity.

Wait! It wasn't the lusts that made God turn them over; look:

Romans 1:28 (KJV)
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind,

Here again, amplified for your pleasure:

Romans 1:28 (AB)
And so, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or approve of Him or consider Him worth the knowing, God gave them over to a base and condemned mind

And then you still have the Corinthians passage that takes yet another stretch to explain away.

Could you elaborate on it further.

Then after that there's Soddom and Gomorrah - again homosexuality a clear demonstration of wickedness.

Felgar, I don't mean this as a slam or anything, but not many use Sodom and Gomorrah as having anything to do with homosexuality. It's about rape, yes, but it being "gay" rape isn't relevent. Mastermind sees the futility of it as well:

I'm against homosexuality and I agree that Sodom and Gomorrah are completely worthless as far as this issue is concerned.

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

And if ALL that's not enough, there's still Leviticus where God explicitly states, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable."

There's siimply NO ambiguity here, as much as you'd like there to be.

Felgar, I'm going to write a paper tomorrow on Leviticus. I'm going to illustrate that there are reasons why Leviticus should not be followed today. It will also elaborate on some essays that Mastermind was kind enough to show me.

It's not like homosexuality was new 2000 years ago, yet we have not a single example of a moral homosexual relationship from Jesus, the OT, or any of the apostles.

Actually, there's a bunch of them!...it just depends on whether you want to take it seriously. I personally don't get into that stuff since I think it's irrelevant anyway.

[Shirtless]

Are you blind? I did in my post about America being a Christian nation.

My apologies . I never saw that post...where is it? I'm not blind BTW, I'm just not all-seeing.

Christianity increased as the Western Roman Empire neared collapse, so you're wrong.

You misunderstand; I meant in terms of less quality as opposed to quantity. Yes Christianity did spread thanks to the Church, but I just think it caused a lot of harm as well.

Well, all my family and all of their family are Republicans. All they talk about is the Democrats. There is nothing more sad than seeing people talk about party lines this vigorously, as if there was really a difference. Kerry was just as bad as Bush, and Kerry wasn't going to make the country any better...:

There's a difference, and the stats show it.

Though I have no idea what you mean, I agree with you 100%!

You ignored my comment about different denominations existing for different views. Typical.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. I didn't ignore anything; I even gave a link to one of the denominations you were referring to.

Look, how 'bout this: just give me a website that supports your view and I'll read everything in it within reason, as long as you read material from the link I gave you. Would that be good?