Homosexuals and Christians....

I feel like I've received a friendly nod!

 

It seems to me that in a diverse and heterogeneous society where citizens include more than sola-scriptura protestants, arguments for and against civil policy should be based on evidence and logic that are comprehensible to the broader public.

The problem with basing policy on religious revelation is that the question of what is and isn't true divine revelation seems to have no real answer. It always seems to return to the often angry protestation: 'it's my faith'.

But that's an awfully weak basis for civil polity, unless government is to be based on raw power.

That's a real problem for the Biblical literalists, I think. Some Bible passages portray God as a monster.

I think that many theologians (at least non-evangelical theologians) read the Bible, especially what Christians call the Old Testament, as the story of man's (or at least the Jewish portion of mankind's) gradually evolving understanding of and relationship with their God. The savage passages can be read as reflecting primitive concepts of the divine (and perhaps as attempts to provide divine sanction for man's own excesses).

But I want to emphasize that this question of how the Bible might best be read is a separate issue from the one I mentioned above, that of the role of purported divine revelation in making civil policy.

Perhaps the Bible could be read less as a set of inerrant propositions, then as a signpost indicating the direction in which God (arguably) has been guiding man. Perhaps that's a path that God wants man to continue to follow.

To my eyes it isn't entirely unlike the Islamic fundamentalism that reads 7'th century Islamic revelation as the interrant and eternal governor of human life at all times and in all ways.

 

==

You did! If I call your Bible the OLD Testament, then I might offend you ; I don't want to offend you.

 

But isn't the Christian view of homosexual behavior founded on the Greek NT more than on a rather dusty Hebrew law?

What I mean is, for the Christian there's always the claim that Jews are bound by the Law of the OT but Christians are not (whatever that may mean; I still don't see how one can be free of the rules governing the relationships between employers and employees, for example) but the prohibitions against homosexual behavior are also found in the NT and therefore inescapable?

I mean (I am explaining myself badly) almost ANY approach by a sincere Christian seems to run up against the NT, doesn't it?

 

It's hard to discuss the NT passages about homosexuality because, like I said before, they simply do not present a clear condemnation of homosexuality. In order to get at what they really mean, I think (as Bill Grover posted) you have to work on a higher level of scholarship and get down to the Greek terms.

However, here is a relatively plan-language analysis arguing that those NT passages don't condemn homosexuality at ALL:

http://www.whosoever.org/bible/index.html

Christians that have a knee-jerk reaction against homosexuality seem to be using their own social predjudices as basis, not the Bible itself. Or else, why not equally speak out against divorced people? Why not say that divorced people shouldn't be allowed to raise children? Why not have the same reaction to people who have heterosexual oral sex (see the same Romans passage)? Well, those people don't look or act or dress differently, that's why, it seems.

 

Well, I could easily be mistaken but I think that the Roman Catholic Church DOES condemn divorce and those who divorce.

 

Exactly! I don't agree with their position in the slightest, but they're at least more consistent in that respect than fundamentalist Protestants.

 

ok: To make my position clearer,

1) IMO the NT is intended by the NT writers to be an authoritative guide ,when properly understood, for Christian behavior.

2) I think the NT in many cases is intended to supercede, for Christians, principles in the "OT."

3) Further, IMO, I could , though I've never tried, by exegesis of the Greek text of that guide provide strong evidence that the NT condemns homosexual behavior.

4) I have absolutely no urge to do that exegesis and probably it would convince no one here.

5) IMO few Christian heterosexual men do not in their lifetimes commit sexual sins by fantasies , pornography, adultery, or fornication. Jesus included even lustful looks and that which can happen ONLY in the mind as adultery. (Matthew 5:28).

 

Two divergent views

1. http://ssmu.mcgill.ca/queer/info/bible.html

2. http://www.probe.org/docs/homotheo.html

 

re:

I so appreciate the thoughtful posts by Jimmy and both Bills. Thanks. It's good food for thought

Peace,
Daniel

 

I agree with many parts of your post, but I wonder about the guidance value of a book that is an "evolving understanding of " God. Granted, if I were still a Christian, this is the view (the only logical one) I would take. The reason I chose not to be Christian is because even this logical view of Scripture gives no sure foundation for life (and, lest anyone ask, I do not think any sure foundation exists). If the Bible is simply an evolving understanding of God, then that understanding is still evolving presently, and will continue to evolve until it is eventually unrecognizable from anything in Scripture. That is, unless you view Christ as the cap-stone of revelation. But it's hard to distinguish what Christ actually said and what his disciples put in his mouth.

I agree wholeheartedly with you, Bill, that it's dangerous to use Scripture in the development of civil policy.

Peace,
Daniel

 

re:

I think, for the Christian, when reading the NT, it's important to distinguish between "homosexual behavior" and "homosexual orientation." One cannot get around passages in Corinthians and Timothy which clearly oppose homosexual acts, but to think that the biblical writers had any idea of sexual orientation (something only the most open minds on this board will be interested in anyway) is ridiculous. It's my opinion, and only that, the biblical writer was recording a knee-jerk reaction to (1) a behavior he did not understand, or (2) a behavior he understood all too well and was ashamed of.

Peace,
Daniel

 

Jimmy,

Thanks for posting these links. The following is not a critique of you, but Probe Ministries

I. The Sodom Story: Probe Ministries states that the Sodom story in Genesis clearly condemns homosexual behavior because of the two words "to know" used in connection with the angels and the men of the city. I think the words "to know" clearly connote sexual activity - the question is what kind? The men of the city (a large group) wanted to have sex with two angels. At best, this is an orgy; at worst, gang rape. We're not talking about a committed gay relationship here. Certainly the story is condemning a type of sexual behavior, but is it condemning two life partners or group sex?

II. Leviticus: At face value, the verse seems pretty clearly to condemn homosexual sex between two men (I've always wondered about lesbians here ). When reading something that was written in a culture we currently cannot understand without serious study, we should do some research on ideas the writers had about sexual functions. Just a little bit of research shows the importance placed on semen in ancient Hebrew culture. Semen was the equivalent of life. Perhaps that accounts for the absence of a lesbian condemnation in Leviticus.

III. Romans 1: Maybe it's because I'm gay, but this passage just seems to obviously have nothing to do with committed gay relationships. The passage speaks of men and women giving up something natural for them (heterosexual orientation) and participating in pagan prostitution rituals which required they do something unnatural for them (homosexuals acts). This passage doesn't even address people who are naturally inclined toward homosexual behavior.

IV. I Corinthians 6:9-10: "male prostitutes" & "homosexual offenders" - if there ever were two English phrases which were hard to interpret, these are it. So Greek knowledge is necessary here, and I don't really have it It seems that we can just throw out "homosexual prostitutes in the context of the discussion on this board. "Homosexual offenders" is a phrase with more intricate meaning, but which at first glance, doesn't strike me as a condemnation of committed relationships.

Peace,
Daniel

 

===

I hope this is not seen as a knee-jerk reaction

While I have no inner motivation to particularly argue whether or not the NT condemns homosexuality or, if it does, whether that should control society's norms, I do have considerable inner motivation, since I've given my life to that, to engage in the discussion and exposition of the meaning of New Testament texts-- even including times when that opportunity arises by someone on DI choosing to interpret them for us.

So, what is your evidence that Romans 1:26,27 refers to "pagan prostitution rituals" and why is it that "homosexual offenders" in 1 Cor 6 does not strike you as a condemnation of committed relationships?

I look forward to the discussion.

Thanks,

 

Right on Bill...

Well, I have certainly learned the "hard way" that you have tremendous academic command of this subject material, so when you have something to say regarding interpretation of Biblical texts, I shut up and listen - I would advise others to do the same.

Bill, you know what you're talking about and though we may disagree on interpretation in a modern world setting sometimes, it is obvious that your ability to truly comprehend the source languages and the nuances therein is flawless.

 

Re: Right on Bill...

===


Well...I think "flawless" is exaggerated. But thanks. Perhaps "bordering on flawless" might be more accurate.

Besides, as I said, I've never studied the meaning of those texts. For all I know, they may not mean what I've supposed they do. But unless someone really wants to talk about them, I'll just be about my other studies... I've lots to do and little time.

 

Re: Re: Re: re:

To Rich Douglas, greetings,

I was not trying impose anything on anyone, but if people didnot want to know what I or what other people thought or believed concerning this matter or any other matter, then they should post it on an open forum like this!

I never, nor will I ever say that anybody has to agree with me!

Rich Hartel
A.A. in Theological Studies, Trinity College of the Bible (present)

 

This has turned out to be an interesting thread....

When I started this thread a few days back, someone accused me of trying to insert "divisiveness" into the degreeinfo crowd. Of course I was careful to put the discussion topic in the "off topic discussions" where, essentially, anything goes - so long as it does not violate TOS.

I can't tell you how pleased I am that, rather than introduce divisiveness (which was NOT my intent, despite the accusation), we've seen an intelligent and for the most part courteous discussion of this dilemma of our modern times - how to reconcile a growing social acceptance of "gayness" with traditional beliefs and religious teachings.

Keep it coming.... unless we've about burned this one out!

 

re:

Hi Bill,

This is short but concsie I think, from the United Church of Canada website (http://www.affirmunited.ca/goodnews.htm):

This Rom. 1:26-27) is the only passage in Scripture which, apparently, talks about homosexual behaviour among women as well as men. The dangerous, traditional interpretation come from failure to relate it to the whole chapter. Paul talks about idolatrous people who put things or concerns before their devotion to God. As an example, he refers to fertility cult worship prevalent in Rome. The homosexual activity to which he refers is idolatrous. He implies that all of the cult worshippers engaged in it. (The interpretation that he is writing about homosexual behaviour in general would force this to say that all idolatrous people become homosexual--an obviously spurious interpretation.) The final sentence referring to their just reward is a reference to the venereal disease which was epidemic among such cults. This specific reference to fertility cult worship cannot be construed to condemn homosexual behaviour in general.

I Cor 6:9 - (again from the UCC site): At issue are two words: malakee (found only in 1Corinthians) and arsenokeeteh, which is in both verses. Tradition assumes a homosexual meaning of the words. Textual study reveals that in its use there, malakee means "morally weak" or, perhaps, "immoral persons". (The translation "effeminate" in the King James Version was an archaic one and, in any case, did not imply homosexuality in Greek--as it does not today.)

Peace,
Daniel

 

Re: re: