Here's my question: if you are anti-LGBT, what are your biblical justifications for it? What are the "clobber passages" that you use, and why?

On the other side: if you're pro-equality, how do you deal with those "clobber passages"? How do you read them?

Open season. I'd like to hear from as many viewpoints as possible.

Christianity is generally not "anti-gay" but teaches against extra-marital sexual relations. I am Catholic, and in order for sexual relations to be considered acceptable in my faith, the doctrine of the church teaches that such relations must be both for the purposes of bringing the two people together in unity, and must also be open to procreation (so no birth control is to be used, though avoiding sex during fertile times is permitted), and must be within the context of marriage between one man and one woman. Because the church defines marriage as being exclusively between one man and one woman, and sex is only to take place between married couples, gay couples would not qualify for marriage, and as they are not married, would be taught not to have sex. The church does not condemn people for being gay in their sexual orientation, but teaches not to have sex if one is gay. This is the same reasoning for priests having to remain chaste. They are required to remain celibate in the Roman Catholic rite, which means "unmarried", and given they are not married, they are taught that they do not meet the requirements for having sexual relations.

So that's the teaching and reasoning of the church. It is based upon the natural law - or how things work in nature - which is that one man and one woman can create a baby naturally, and then ideally should remain together to raise that child as a family. Adoption is permitted - even encouraged and until recent years, the church offered adoption services. People may marry in the church even if they know they are infertile if they otherwise meet the church criteria for marriage. However, one has to be physically able to consummate a marriage, so impotence would be a disqualifying factor (nobody checks, but if they report they are permanently impotent, the church cannot marry the couple).

So then we look at what people actually think of all of this. Most Catholics do not fully honor the church rules on sex. Many have premarital sex. Many gay Catholics have sex. Many people divorce and remarry (outside of the church) without getting their first marriages annulled. Nobody polices these things. There is no punishment - it's largely self-regulated. But devout Catholics honor the teachings, and most Catholics honor them to some degree. Even among the priesthood, chastity is a lot to ask and a great many are imperfect and have sexual relations whether straight or gay.

I personally think the church teaching should not change because it remains the ideal scenario that marriage remain for the purpose of forming a traditional family. That said, I am divorced with an adopted child, so I did not myself have the ideal Catholic family structure. Nothing in my family is considered unacceptable though. My marriage was annulled, my son was baptized in the church. I can remarry if I so desire in the future even though I am both unable to have children generally and too old to do so in any event.

Some consider Catholicism oppressive but nobody is forced to join the church, and even within the church, the priests don't monitor people or come to their homes or otherwise pay much attention to personal choices. The most they might do if they learned a person was living in a sinful manner would be to refuse to offer that person communion (the host and wine served at mass) but the person would still be welcome to attend mass and be a member of the church. I don't consider it oppressive at all given that everything is up to the free will of the individual Catholic.

The bible says nothing about homosexuality as an innate part of a person's personality. Sexual orientation was not understood in biblical times - the term "homosexuality" wasn't even invented until the late 1800's, so there is no way the Bible could have addressed the topic. Yes, there are passages regarding same-sex behavior that are quite negative, but what is condemned are the acts of violence, idolatry, orgiastic behavior, and exploitation being performed, not specifically the same-gender nature of it. In a similar way there are passages where negative behavior occurs in heterosexual relationships that are just as terrible, but it would be wrong to conclude that God condemns heterosexuality because of it. There are no passages regarding homosexuals in loving, committed, and nurturing relationships. And it is also obvious that there is nothing regarding transsexuals (the "T" in "LGBT").

Thanks for the replies so far, but I'm looking for specific comments on specific passages. Anybody got some?

To dontknownuthin ---

This is an excellent presentation of the position of the Catholic Church but it has nothing to do with the question.

Dave,

First of all I really resent the "clobber passages" remark. In NO way do I run around clobbering or even judging people who are gay. I have my own issues, my own pet sins. I believe fornication is a sin, but I don't tap someone in a relationship having sex on the shoulder and tell them that. However the bible teaches it is wrong. I also believe the bible condemns the practice of homosexuality and there are several passages in the NT that leads me to this conclusion. Having said that, it is the goodness of God that leads a man to repent. The Lord Jesus died for ALL of us, and instead of condemning people we need to show them the Lord Jesus and his love and grace. My biggest complaint with Christianity is we teach from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and not from the tree of life. Show people the Lord Jesus, His love, His grace, His mercy and let God be God in their lives. We are changed by beholding the glory of the Lord Jesus NOT by beholding our sin. OK? Now, I will answer your question.

Romans 1 18- 27 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God neither were thankful but became vain in their imagination and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds and four footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, through the lust of their own hearts to dishonor their own bodes between themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affection for even their woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

I know the argument, for gay people they are doing what is natural for them. But I don't believe that is what Paul is talking about. I believe he is saying that they exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural. In other words, he isn't talking about what someone naturally desires sexually but rather how our bodies our built to function naturally. On top of that, if all who have a desire for the same sex do so "naturally" then who is Paul talking about? Is he talking to people who are not aroused by their own gender but do it anyway? And how does that work for a man? If Paul was addressing only people who violated their personal sexual orientation wouldn't he also have said women burned unnaturally toward men and vise versa?

I know my view is unpopular and outdated. I still believe it is what the bible teaches. There are other passages as well. Having said what I believe, I wouldn't clobber anyone. 1 Timothy 1:15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners-of who I am the worst!

The verses I keep tripping over on Q&A sites are these:

Leviticus 18:22
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." (NLT)

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." (NLT)

Plus Paul's famous word, arsensokoites.

So must Christians take all passages from the Old Testament literally? And apply them to their lives today?

NeedKarma,

All scripture is written for our learning, but no we don't. According to the NT we are no longer under the law, Jesus fulfilled it.

Understood. So why are people using OT verses to guide them? And then pick only a few?

To dontknownuthin ---

This is an excellent presentation of the position of the Catholic Church but it has nothing to do with the question.

It actually does answer the question but answers aren't always exactly what we fished for. The Catholic church began all Chritianity and the teachings are based on doctrine. Doctrine are rules, not Bible passages but beliefs based on the Bible as a whole.

Dave,

First of all I really resent the "clobber passages" remark.

That's the common term for them in popular discussion these days. I didn't make it up.

The question isn't what any of us believe, it's about what the text says, and what it means in its linguistic, historical, and cultural context. The Romans 1 passage is one of the famous ones, but I don't see anybody on the anti- side trying to break it down and understand it by those criteria. Simply quoting it out of its wider context doesn't prove anything, we have to wrestle with it and understand that this is a completely different culture, a lot of things we don't understand were SOP and accepted, they knew nothing of actual sexual orientation (as opposed to behavior) - again, this isn't me. This is what better experts than me say, and I really don't see anybody from the other side trying to engage the text in such depth. It leaves me wondering why.

The verses I keep tripping over on Q&A sites are these:

Leviticus 18:22
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." (NLT)

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." (NLT)

Plus Paul's famous word, arsensokoites.

Yes, Leviticus says the same thing about wearing mixed fabrics - cotton/polyester blend, anyone? - and eating shellfish - no way in the world am I giving up shrimp - and boiling a goat in its mother's milk (huh? ). But we're supposed to take those two passages and no others as absolute commands for today, and not the others. Nobody has explained that to me yet.

And Paul's famous word is one of those things that the eggheads call a hapax legomenon, which means this the only place in the whole New Testament where it's found. Even worse, it's the only place in all of Greek literature where it appears. Best I have been able to find, it's a word that Paul made up himself. And we have no idea what it means. Our translations go with "homosexuals" because that's tradition. No other reason. There is no reason to translate it that way, especially since there was no such thing in Paul's time.

It seems to be a word that Paul created specifically to address something in Corinth. He told them what he meant by it; unfortunately, he didn't tell ​us.


It actually does answer the question but answers aren't always exactly what we fished for. The Catholic church began all Chritianity and the teachings are based on doctrine. Doctrine are rules, not Bible passages but beliefs based on the Bible as a whole.
I understand where you're coming from. The problem is that not everybody accepts the authority of Catholic Church tradition or doctrine. My goal here is to go more with the "common denominator" of the Bible that most all Christians acknowledge.

it's a word that Paul made up himself. And we have no idea what it means. Our translations go with "homosexuals" because that's tradition.
I read somewhere that it was first translated as "homosexuals" during the 1800s. Do you know more about that, Dave?

Also, I found this:

"Malakoi", (as used in 1 Cor 6:9 just prior to "arsenokoites") means literally "squishy." Linguists generally understand this word to be a form of showy effeminism; it may also indicate cowardice. Malakos is used in Matthew to describe the unnecessarily fine and showy clothing of the King. Unlike "arsenokoites," malakos is word is seen in other writers of the time, indeed as an indictment of cowardice, or sometimes vanity, or other "feminine" vices; the sexual sense of effeminate is typically referred to not by this word, but "kinaidia."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Arsenokoites

It actually does answer the question but answers aren't always exactly what we fished for. The Catholic church began all Chritianity and the teachings are based on doctrine. Doctrine are rules, not Bible passages but beliefs based on the Bible as a whole.

If I understand your reply, you are saying that your beliefs (Catholic/Christian beliefs) are based on the Bible as a whole and NOT on Bible passages. That is all well and good but that is NOT what the poster asked.

He asked about SPECIFIC Bible passages (“clobber” passages) that are used by supporters of LGBT and by those opposed. “How do you read them”, the poster asks. He really couldn’t have been more clear.

Yet, you chose to disregard his question and reply in a way not asked. Better not to reply at all than to reply with a non-reply.

I found dontknownuthin's first post to be an interesting read. I have no problems with it.

Best I have been able to find, it's a word that Paul made up himself. And we have no idea what it means. Our translations go with "homosexuals" because that's tradition. No other reason. There is no reason to translate it that way, especially since there was no such thing in Paul's time.



dwashbur is being a bit disingenuous here. Certainly scholars for centuries have associated the word (a portmanteau) with homosexuality or some other form of forbidden sexual activity. It's true there is not universal agreement on what it means since Paul seems to have coined the word, but it is more than mere tradition in translation - which implies a sort of mindless copying.

Furthermore, to say that "...there was no such thing in Paul's time" (referring to homosexuality) is misleading. Maybe the word itself is being referred to, not the activity.

There's much more on the word and its origins at Wondergirl's link which I will link again here.

Arsenokoites - RationalWiki (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Arsenokoites)


I found dontknownuthin's first post to be an interesting read. I have no problems with it.

So did I. In fact, I called it an excellent presentation. Please read my previous posts in this thread.

So did I. In fact, I called it an excellent presentation. Please read my previous posts in this thread.Well of course I read your posts :-)

This site has so few active users that I wouldn't like to see any others run off because the discussion gets stifled. I was trying to keep things positive.

dwashbur is being a bit disingenuous here. Certainly scholars for centuries have associated the word (a portmanteau) with homosexuality or some other form of forbidden sexual activity. It's true there is not universal agreement on what it means since Paul seems to have coined the word, but it is more than mere tradition in translation - which implies a sort of mindless copying.

Such an implication is not without precedent in the history of Bible translation. A good example in 1 Samuel 12:31. It reads, in the KJV:

"Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads."

Ignoring the archaic terms, our interest is in the word "file." The Hebrew word is PIM. Until recently, we had no clue what this word means. In early English translations, somebody speculated "file" and it stuck. Nobody questioned it.

Then archaeologists found a scale weight with the word inscribed on it. So now we know that it actually means "the charge was a pim to sharpen these items." Nothing at all about a file.

Another example: Micah 6:8. "Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God." Except that "humbly" is somebody's best guess. It's yet another hapax legomenon (don't you love $10 words? Use them to dazzle your friends!) that we have to try and sort out from the context. It sort of looks somewhat vaguely similar to a word that means "humble" but not really, so somebody came up with "humbly." But the Septuagint says "be prepared to walk..." a translation that seems to fit the context much better. And since those translators were much closer to the actual time than we are, it seems to me we should consider what they came up with. So, "mindless copying" isn't too far off, when we get right down to it.



Furthermore, to say that "...there was no such thing in Paul's time" (referring to homosexuality) is misleading. Maybe the word itself is being referred to, not the activity.

What I refer to is orientation, not activity. Nobody had a clue that people are born with certain orientations. That's all. In this sense, the translation "homosexual" is anachronistic.



There's much more on the word and its origins at Wondergirl's link which I will link again here.

Arsenokoites - RationalWiki (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Arsenokoites)



Agreed. It's a useful article, and serves to show how vague our understanding of the word is. Basing a doctrine on this is, as my dad used to call it, leaning on a broken reed.




So did I. In fact, I called it an excellent presentation. Please read my previous posts in this thread.

I quite agree. dontknownuthin's post about RC doctrine was very informative, well expressed, and thoroughly respectful. I had no problem with it other than, as you mentioned, it was a touch off the topic. I would really like to see them expand on it, perhaps describing how the RCC came to its conclusions and how the powers that be at the time understood the Bible on the subject.

Thanks, all. This is fascinating.

Generally, over the years I have participated in AMHD, People have used some latitude to the extent that we sometimes answer a little differently than expected. As a frequent example, a woman will provide countless dates and symptoms asking how probable it is that she might be pregnant. Most of us answer with what she must do to find out if she is pregnant, and give no probability and do not attempt analysis of her symptoms, because doing so is a better Answer.

and so with this question. The idea of "clobber passages" presumes a force, militance, and bullying pressure to toe the line which is absent from the church I was speaking of. So I presented what the actual position is. It is a better answer than to fish for some misleading alternative explanation meeting a "Clobber passage" definition.

Any rate, I will let it go at this point.

Again, that's the common Internet term. I invite anyone to check it out. They're called that because too many Christians - especially the ultra-conservative ones - think they have the right to throw these verses in strangers' faces and call them names based on it. I've watched it happen more than once. You're correct: there's force, bullying, intimidation, and all the rest, in the name of Jesus. If it doesn't happen in your church I rejoice. I've seen it happen too much in other churches.

Until that practice stops altogether, and because it's the commonly accepted phrase, I'll continue to use it.


Generally, over the years I have participated in AMHD, People have used some latitude to the extent that we sometimes answer a little differently than expected. As a frequent example, a woman will provide countless dates and symptoms asking how probable it is that she might be pregnant. Most of us answer with what she must do to find out if she is pregnant, and give no probability and do not attempt analysis of her symptoms, because doing so is a better Answer.

and so with this question. The idea of "clobber passages" presumes a force, militance, and bullying pressure to toe the line which is absent from the church I was speaking of. So I presented what the actual position is. It is a better answer than to fish for some misleading alternative explanation meeting a "Clobber passage" definition.

Any rate, I will let it go at this point.

Romans 1 18- 27 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God neither were thankful but became vain in their imagination and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds and four footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, through the lust of their own hearts to dishonor their own bodes between themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affection for even their woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

I know the argument, for gay people they are doing what is natural for them. But I don't believe that is what Paul is talking about. I believe he is saying that they exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural. In other words, he isn't talking about what someone naturally desires sexually but rather how our bodies our built to function naturally.

Can you please explain how you came to this conclusion?

Let's try again. You indicated that you are familiar with at least two views of this passage, and you chose the one over the other. What led you to that decision? That's all I'm asking.


Can you please explain how you came to this conclusion?

Dave, I know the argument, for gay people they are doing what is natural for them. But I don't believe that is what Paul is talking about. I believe he is saying that they exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural. In other words, he isn't talking about what someone naturally desires sexually but rather how our bodies our built to function naturally. On top of that, if all who have a desire for the same sex do so "naturally" then who is Paul talking about? Is he talking to people who are not aroused by their own gender but do it anyway? And how does that work for a man? If Paul was addressing only people who violated their personal sexual orientation wouldn't he also have said women burned unnaturally toward men and vise versa?

I agree with ClassyT that the famous anti-gay passages in the Bible are just that - anti-gay. I believe that because the language seems very clear so that any ordinary reader will easily come to that conclusion.

Having said that, let me add that I do NOT believe that the Bible is to be taken as absolute truth for present-day believers. It is quite possible - even probable - that homosexuality was condemned because any small tribe in the middle east always needed an increase in population for its survival and non-procreative sex was condemned for that reason. In the world of today, threatened by over-population, that particular reason is no longer valid.

Paul’s warning re “natural function” is more troubling. It does seem that evolutionary biology has designed the male and female genitalia of mammals to be complementary – i.e., they “fit” physically. Unless Paul’s words need to be re-translated due to more recent knowledge of the ancient languages, it’s hard to misread the obvious import of his meaning.

My guess is that re-examining the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality rises with homosexuality itself being re-examined in the wider society and its growing acceptance in that society beginning around 1960, give or take. If not, then there should be discussions/debates on these Bible passages prior to, say, the 18th century. Is there?

...the famous anti-gay passages in the Bible are just that - anti-gay. I believe that because the language seems very clear so that any ordinary reader will easily come to that conclusion.So are we to follow all passages in the Old testament or only pick the ones that we agree with?

So are we to follow all passages in the Old testament or only pick the ones that we agree with?
Unfortunately, that's what far too many people do. In a free country they have the right to do that; where it gets to be a problem is when they insist that their view is absolute, inviolate, ultimate Truth, and should be legislated onto everyone else. That's when they start making us all look like mindless bigots.

Needkarma - you are doing PRECISELY what you are complaining about. Cherry-picking without reading the context of my post. You seem to make a habit of doing this.

I didn't think I was, I agree with what you posted. I guess quoting your post wasn't the right was to go about it. I was using it as a starting point for a larger conversation which is: if people use are basing their lifestyle choices on passages from the old testament are they conforming to ALL passages from the same books?

I didn't think I was, I agree with what you posted. I guess quoting your post wasn't the right was to go about it. I was using it as a starting point for a larger conversation which is: if people use are basing their lifestyle choices on passages from the old testament are they conforming to ALL passages from the same books?
I believe that qualifies as an attempted change of subject. As the one who asked the question, I would appreciate not doing this.

Let's try again. You indicated that you are familiar with at least two views of this passage, and you chose the one over the other. What led you to that decision? That's all I'm asking.

Well I think I answered it to some degree. But think about it. The apostle Paul was a man living most of his life under the law, so he believed that homosexual behavior was wrong because like or not, the law taught it was. Now please don't misunderstand me, I know Paul was the apostle of grace and he was no longer under the law and was exceedingly against mixing it with grace. He even said that Christ becomes of no effect if one goes back to the law so I'm not suggesting he was under the law. However, I don't believe for one minute he changed his mind on sexual behavior and saw this as natural for some people. Plus as I stated in my earlier post, if Paul was addressing only people who violated their personal sexual orientation wouldn't he also have said women burned unnaturally toward men and vise versa? Moreover Paul was very clear about sex outside of marriage. If sex outside of marriage is a sin for heterosexuals, he isn't going to change the rules for homosexuals because they couldn't marry back in his day. I personally don't see any way I could come to any other conclusion.

Well I think I answered it to some degree. But think about it. The apostle Paul was a man living most of his life under the law, so he believed that homosexual behavior was wrong because like or not, the law taught it was. Now please don't misunderstand me, I know Paul was the apostle of grace and he was no longer under the law and was exceedingly against mixing it with grace. He even said that Christ becomes of no effect if one goes back to the law so I'm not suggesting he was under the law. However, I don't believe for one minute he changed his mind on sexual behavior and saw this as natural for some people. Plus as I stated in my earlier post, if Paul was addressing only people who violated their personal sexual orientation wouldn't he also have said women burned unnaturally toward men and vise versa? Moreover Paul was very clear about sex outside of marriage. If sex outside of marriage is a sin for heterosexuals, he isn't going to change the rules for homosexuals because they couldn't marry back in his day. I personally don't see any way I could come to any other conclusion.

Thank you. This is the sort of thing I'm looking for. I would like to ask you to expand on this:

"However, I don't believe for one minute he changed his mind on sexual behavior and saw this as natural for some people."

Why? If the words used and the grammar etc. of the statement, as well as the cultural context, appear to indicate that this is pretty much what he did in this passage, would it not change your view? I'm not saying that's what is happening here, hence the great big IF qualifier. Basically I'm asking how you arrived at this specific conclusion.

Thank you. This is the sort of thing I'm looking for. I would like to ask you to expand on this:

"However, I don't believe for one minute he changed his mind on sexual behavior and saw this as natural for some people."

Why? If the words used and the grammar etc. of the statement, as well as the cultural context, appear to indicate that this is pretty much what he did in this passage, would it not change your view? I'm not saying that's what is happening here, hence the great big IF qualifier. Basically I'm asking how you arrived at this specific conclusion.

Because of how strongly Paul wrote about sex outside of marriage. 1 Corinthians 6:19 Flee fornication! Every other sin a person commits is OUTSIDE the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 1 Cornithians 7:2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. Galatians 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are evident: fornication, impurity, sensuality, idolatry,. ect.
Hebrews 13:4 Let marriage be held in honor among all and let he marriage bed be undefiled for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterers God will judge.

The ONLY sexual relations that Paul approved was in marriage. PERIOD. He is very clear. Homosexuals did not marry back in Paul's day. He wouldn't have ever made an exception. Sex is sex! Paul said when we have sex outside marriage we sin against our own bodies! Therefore he isn't addressing what is natural for some people, he is speaking against about homosexual behavior in the passage.

He is very clear. Homosexuals did not marry back in Paul's day. He wouldn't have ever made an exception.
In Paul's day, homosexuality was a behavior (usually by straight males and often with younger males -- please read up on Greek culture), and was not known to be an orientation. Had Paul known that, I'm betting he would have approved of marriage between homosexuals who loved each other and promised fidelity. "It is better to marry than to burn [with passion]." I Cor. 7:9

And just for fun, I'll add that Bishop John Shelby Spong made an interesting case for Paul's being gay in Rescuing The Bible From Fundamentalism.

In Paul's day, homosexuality was a behavior (usually by straight males and often with younger males -- please read up on Greek culture), and was not known to be an orientation. Had Paul known that, I'm betting he would have approved of marriage between homosexuals who loved each other and promised fidelity. "It is better to marry than to burn [with passion]." I Cor. 7:9

And just for fun, I'll add that Bishop John Shelby Spong made an interesting case for Paul's being gay in Rescuing The Bible From Fundamentalism.

Well, I disagree... He was clear in Romans 1. Paul spoke against sex outside of marriage. He was clear. There is no way around it. Yes, I know. He could have been gay and I have heard that Jesus was too, after all John said he was the disciple whom Jesus loved. It's ridiculous.

Paul spoke against sex outside of marriage. He was clear. There is no way around it.
But if gays marry, there's no sex outside of marriage.

But if gays marry, there's no sex outside of marriage.


They didn't marry in his day. Therefore Paul was speaking about homosexuality in Romans 1. I know it is not popular but it is what it is, I didn't write it.

Because of how strongly Paul wrote about sex outside of marriage. 1 Corinthians 6:19 Flee fornication! Every other sin a person commits is OUTSIDE the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 1 Cornithians 7:2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. Galatians 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are evident: fornication, impurity, sensuality, idolatry,. ect.
Hebrews 13:4 Let marriage be held in honor among all and let he marriage bed be undefiled for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterers God will judge.

The ONLY sexual relations that Paul approved was in marriage. PERIOD. He is very clear. Homosexuals did not marry back in Paul's day. He wouldn't have ever made an exception. Sex is sex! Paul said when we have sex outside marriage we sin against our own bodies! Therefore he isn't addressing what is natural for some people, he is speaking against about homosexual behavior in the passage.

Why do you assume that there weren't same-sex marital-type relationships in Paul's day? (Hint: there were. It was pretty common.) As WG said, read up on Greek culture. And Paul only spoke about these things in the context of the church; he never addressed his wider culture. A lot of those same-sex relationships were the equivalent of a marriage-type relationship, so by your description, that wasn't sex "outside of marriage." The rules of marriage were very different, both within Judaic culture and in the broader Greek/Roman culture. So if we're going to discuss what constituted sex "outside of marriage" in that culture, first we have to define what marriage was in that culture. It had little or no relation to what we call it today.

Judging these things by the customs and mores of 21st century America is not a valid way of reading the Bible.

Add to that the fact that my question was about what "nature" etc. means in that passage. I didn't see you address the terminology at all. Please do.


They didn't marry in his day. Therefore Paul was speaking about homosexuality in Romans 1. I know it is not popular but it is what it is, I didn't write it.
No, if it was about sex being outside of marriage, then he was just speaking about homosexual acts outside of marriage. If we allow them to marry, then there's no problem as relates to this passage.

And you are still misusing the word "homosexuality." There was no known thing in Paul's time, so the word is anachronistic.

I've heard that Jesus was [gay] too, after all John said he was the disciple whom Jesus loved. It's ridiculous.
Why would that have been "ridiculous," a bad thing?

Why would that have been "ridiculous," a bad thing?

Because the Lord Jesus wasn't here to have those types of relationships. He was here to redeem mankind, to show the world what the Father is really like, to fulfill the law and bring in the age of grace. He was here healing all who were oppressed of the devil. He wasn't trying to find a love/sexual relationship. I feel the same way about him finding a wife, how cruel to marry knowing you are going to leave her and return to the Father. NO WAY! He was 100% man but he was also 100% God. He had a very big agenda, finding love with a partner wasn't on the radar. I also believe Romans 1 explains clearly same sex relationships are sinful in the eyes of the Lord.

Because the Lord Jesus wasn't here to have those types of relationships. He was here to redeem mankind, to show the world what the Father is really like, to fulfill the law and bring in the age of grace. He was here healing all who were oppressed of the devil. He wasn't trying to find a love/sexual relationship. I feel the same way about him finding a wife, how cruel to marry knowing you are going to leave her and return to the Father. NO WAY! He was 100% man but he was also 100% God. He had a very big agenda, finding love with a partner wasn't on the radar. I also believe Romans 1 explains clearly same sex relationships are sinful in the eyes of the Lord.
Every gay guy I know is 100% male. No, Jesus wasn't here to find a romantic partner, male or female. I didn't say he was. He could have been gay and still have redeemed mankind.

And now we're off topic....

Because the Lord Jesus wasn't here to have those types of relationships. He was here to redeem mankind, to show the world what the Father is really like, to fulfill the law and bring in the age of grace. He was here healing all who were oppressed of the devil. He wasn't trying to find a love/sexual relationship. I feel the same way about him finding a wife, how cruel to marry knowing you are going to leave her and return to the Father. NO WAY! He was 100% man but he was also 100% God. He had a very big agenda, finding love with a partner wasn't on the radar. I also believe Romans 1 explains clearly same sex relationships are sinful in the eyes of the Lord.
A good Rabbi was expected to be married. And it wasn't unusual for such a Rabbi to be gone for long periods, leaving his wife alone. You are projecting modern American ideas of marriage and relationships back into a culture that would have no idea what you're talking about. We have to evaluate the Bible based on its own culture, not ours.

You still have not done this with Romans 1, either. I have pointed out several ways that you are reading anachronistically. That's scholarese for "wrong."


Every gay guy I know is 100% male. No, Jesus wasn't here to find a romantic partner, male or female. I didn't say he was. He could have been gay and still have redeemed mankind.

And now we're off topic....
He could have also been married and still have redeemed mankind.

Why do you assume that there weren't same-sex marital-type relationships in Paul's day? (Hint: there were. It was pretty common.) As WG said, read up on Greek culture. And Paul only spoke about these things in the context of the church; he never addressed his wider culture. A lot of those same-sex relationships were the equivalent of a marriage-type relationship, so by your description, that wasn't sex "outside of marriage." The rules of marriage were very different, both within Judaic culture and in the broader Greek/Roman culture. So if we're going to discuss what constituted sex "outside of marriage" in that culture, first we have to define what marriage was in that culture. It had little or no relation to what we call it today.

Judging these things by the customs and mores of 21st century America is not a valid way of reading the Bible.


Add to that the fact that my question was about what "nature" etc. means in that passage. I didn't see you address the terminology at all. Please do.


No, if it was about sex being outside of marriage, then he was just speaking about homosexual acts outside of marriage. If we allow them to marry, then there's no problem as relates to this passage.

And you are still misusing the word "homosexuality." There was no known thing in Paul's time, so the word is anachronistic.

Romans 1 lays it out there. It isn't even a little gray. The only people who think there is some wiggle room are the people who want to believe same sex relations are not sin. I have read up on this, I am aware of the arguments. God is not the author of confusion, Paul is CLEAR in Romans 1. Engaging in same sex relations is wrong. Paul states men leaving the natural FUNCTION of the woman burned for men in their lust one toward another, men with men. He says the women did change the natural FUNCTION into that which is against nature. How can you get around that? I can't.

I will not address your last statement. For one thing, it is off topic and for another it is ludicrous!

Romans 1 lays it out there. It isn't even a little gray. The only people who think there is some wiggle room are the people who want to believe same sex relations are not sin. I have read up on this, I am aware of the arguments. God is not the author of confusion, Paul is CLEAR in Romans 1. Engaging in same sex relations is wrong. Paul states men leaving the natural FUNCTION of the woman burned for men in their lust one toward another, men with men. He says the women did change the natural FUNCTION into that which is against nature. How can you get around that? I can't.


You are just repeating the same things you've said earlier instead of answering my questions. I'm glad you've read up on it, the question is, what did you read? How accurate was it? How well do they know Greek? How deeply have they dug into the linguistic and cultural surroundings of the words? Anybody can "read upon this" but not all reads are equal. My questions to you still stand.


I will not address your last statement. For one thing, it is off topic and for another it is ludicrous!

Cop-out. It's not off-topic, because the topic is "homosexuality" and the Bible/Christian. It's also a fact, because there was no word for what we call homosexuality today. It's anachronistic and eisegesis to read it back into the text. This is what you insist on doing, therefore you are abusing the term. QED.

You are just repeating the same things you've said earlier instead of answering my questions. I'm glad you've read up on it, the question is, what did you read? How accurate was it? How well do they know Greek? How deeply have they dug into the linguistic and cultural surroundings of the words? Anybody can "read upon this" but not all reads are equal. My questions to you still stand.

Cop-out. It's not off-topic, because the topic is "homosexuality" and the Bible/Christian. It's also a fact, because there was no word for what we call homosexuality today. It's anachronistic and eisegesis to read it back into the text. This is what you insist on doing, therefore you are abusing the term. QED.


dwashbur - All due respect, I've been reading your posts here and I'm at a loss. What exactly is it you're trying to unravel? You keep charging classyT with repeating herself, but what else is she to do? There are only so many words in the Bible on the topic, and she has given them to you. When you keep asking the same questions, of course she gives the same answers.

May I suggest that if you have some other way of looking at the subject (culturally, linguistically, accuracy, etc.) lay it out here for all to see. I for one am genuinely interested in what you have to say, and I hope you will enlighten us.

As an added thought, I also asked a question that has not been answered. Namely, is the modern Biblical interpretation of homosexuality part of the growing acceptance of homosexuality in the wider world since the middle of the last century? Are the Biblical exegetes conforming to the secular understandings? Has your position been described before 1900 which would indicate it is not simply going along with the trend?

Last one - What are you getting at with your "anachronistic" use of the word "homosexuality"? I don't what they called it back then, but surely it existed.

Dave,

Sorry, I used the wrong quote when I said I wouldn't address your last statement. I meant to use the post where you said that the Lord could have married. That is the one I thought was ludicrous and off topic. However, I agree with Athos, the word may not have been used back in Paul's day, but certainly there were homosexuals at that time.

The article I read was by a gay Christian. He seemed very knowledgeable, he explained the culture and what he believed Paul was REALLY referring to in Romans 1 was cult prostitution and idolatry. Apparently there were shrine prostitutes that engaged in same sex practices while worshipping idols. I don't think Paul would have worded the epistle the way he did if that was ALL he was eluding too. The gay Christian also believes that the passage in Leviticus is also about the same thing. I am not saying it wasn't about idolatry, it very well could have been part of it, but God is not the author of confusion as I stated before. The wording is very clear. God sees it as sin and it doesn't matter if it is done in a loving relationship or in idol worship, it is sin.

Thanks for the clarification. That makes more sense.


Dave,

Sorry, I used the wrong quote when I said I wouldn't address your last statement. I meant to use the post where you said that the Lord could have married. That is the one I thought was ludicrous and off topic.

dwashbur - All due respect, I've been reading your posts here and I'm at a loss. What exactly is it you're trying to unravel? You keep charging classyT with repeating herself, but what else is she to do? There are only so many words in the Bible on the topic, and she has given them to you. When you keep asking the same questions, of course she gives the same answers.

May I suggest that if you have some other way of looking at the subject (culturally, linguistically, accuracy, etc.) lay it out here for all to see. I for one am genuinely interested in what you have to say, and I hope you will enlighten us.

As an added thought, I also asked a question that has not been answered. Namely, is the modern Biblical interpretation of homosexuality part of the growing acceptance of homosexuality in the wider world since the middle of the last century? Are the Biblical exegetes conforming to the secular understandings? Has your position been described before 1900 which would indicate it is not simply going along with the trend?

Last one - What are you getting at with your "anachronistic" use of the word "homosexuality"? I don't what they called it back then, but surely it existed.

Good questions all. In order:

What am I trying to unravel? She said this:


I know the argument, for gay people they are doing what is natural for them. But I don't believe that is what Paul is talking about. I believe he is saying that they exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural. In other words, he isn't talking about what someone naturally desires sexually but rather how our bodies our built to function naturally.

I can't seem to get this thing to un-italicize. I have asked her several times how and why she came to this conclusion, what she has found in the words themselves that led her to choose one interpretation over the other.


Lay it out: there is more than one way to see the whole "nature" and "natural" thing; T mentioned it herself. I'm just trying to find out what convinced her to choose one interpretation over the other.

Are we following the culture: Yes and no. As Bible scholars, we are constantly discovering new things about the language, the culture, the people, and all the rest. My particular corner of that world is language. As questions come up, they drive us back to the primary sources to seek the answer to the question: we've always understood it this way, but were we right? Why or why not, and what's the best answer we can come up with given the more expansive knowledge we have now? It requires a lot of mind changing, a lot of mind expansion, and sometimes it sucks. But if we're going to be honest with ourselves, we have to be like the CSI people and follow the evidence wherever it leads, whether we like where it's going or not.

Homosexuality: Nobody knew anything about orientation. Same-sex stuff was a thing people did, sometimes exclusively, sometimes not; some people would go either way depending on who was available. But here's the important part: There was nothing unusual or unorthodox about it. It was just the way the Greco-Roman Empire was. There were no categories: "he's homosexual. She's heterosexual." It was more like "everybody likes to bonk." The notion of a separate category of people "homosexuals" didn't develop until centuries later in response to the sexual repression that developed in Christianity. When sex became evil, thank you very much Augustine, it was time to pigeon-hole different "types" of sex and determine how evil they were. But if you had talked like that to Paul, he would have stared at you like you had two heads.

That's what I mean by "anachronistic."

I hope I answered all your questions adequately.





Dave,

The article I read was by a gay Christian. He seemed very knowledgeable, he explained the culture and what he believed Paul was REALLY referring to in Romans 1 was cult prostitution and idolatry. Apparently there were shrine prostitutes that engaged in same sex practices while worshipping idols. I don't think Paul would have worded the epistle the way he did if that was ALL he was eluding too. The gay Christian also believes that the passage in Leviticus is also about the same thing. I am not saying it wasn't about idolatry, it very well could have been part of it, but God is not the author of confusion as I stated before. The wording is very clear. God sees it as sin and it doesn't matter if it is done in a loving relationship or in idol worship, it is sin.

Please note the sentence I have bolded. I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. If Romans 1 and Leviticus 19 are about idolatry and temple prostitutes, well then they are. I don't get what confusion you mean.

Good questions all. In order:

What am I trying to unravel? She said this:



I can't seem to get this thing to un-italicize. I have asked her several times how and why she came to this conclusion, what she has found in the words themselves that led her to choose one interpretation over the other.


Lay it out: there is more than one way to see the whole "nature" and "natural" thing; T mentioned it herself. I'm just trying to find out what convinced her to choose one interpretation over the other.

Are we following the culture: Yes and no. As Bible scholars, we are constantly discovering new things about the language, the culture, the people, and all the rest. My particular corner of that world is language. As questions come up, they drive us back to the primary sources to seek the answer to the question: we've always understood it this way, but were we right? Why or why not, and what's the best answer we can come up with given the more expansive knowledge we have now? It requires a lot of mind changing, a lot of mind expansion, and sometimes it sucks. But if we're going to be honest with ourselves, we have to be like the CSI people and follow the evidence wherever it leads, whether we like where it's going or not.

Homosexuality: Nobody knew anything about orientation. Same-sex stuff was a thing people did, sometimes exclusively, sometimes not; some people would go either way depending on who was available. But here's the important part: There was nothing unusual or unorthodox about it. It was just the way the Greco-Roman Empire was. There were no categories: "he's homosexual. She's heterosexual." It was more like "everybody likes to bonk." The notion of a separate category of people "homosexuals" didn't develop until centuries later in response to the sexual repression that developed in Christianity. When sex became evil, thank you very much Augustine, it was time to pigeon-hole different "types" of sex and determine how evil they were. But if you had talked like that to Paul, he would have stared at you like you had two heads.

That's what I mean by "anachronistic."

I hope I answered all your questions adequately.


[/I]



Please note the sentence I have bolded. I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. If Romans 1 and Leviticus 19 are about idolatry and temple prostitutes, well then they are. I don't get what confusion you mean.

Because the Holy Spirit didn't feel the need to add that little tid bit to the text. Having said that, if the act itself is sin , then by stating it shouldn't be done covers everyone.. the ones doing it in idolatry, and the ones in the loving relationship. And the confusion comes by not understanding the text is about idolatry ( if in fact it IS), because most Christians have believed it to be sin based on these verses! So that is what I mean about God not being the author of confusion. If he wanted to stipulate, idolatry only, HE could have. He didn't.

Because the Holy Spirit didn't feel the need to add that little tid bit to the text. Having said that, if the act itself is sin , then by stating it shouldn't be done covers everyone.. the ones doing it in idolatry, and the ones in the loving relationship. And the confusion comes by not understanding the text is about idolatry ( if in fact it IS), because most Christians have believed it to be sin based on these verses! So that is what I mean about God not being the author of confusion. If he wanted to stipulate, idolatry only, HE could have. He didn't.
But that confusion doesn't come from God, it comes from people who didn't know or didn't understand the cultural meanings of the words. And if the terms themselves referred to idolatry with temple prostitutes and such, there would be no need for the Holy Spirit to add that little tidbit to the text, because readers would already know what it meant. Whether most Christians believed it meant a certain thing or not really has no bearing on the question, because we know they didn't have as much information as they needed to understand it properly. That's what scholarship does for us.

Here's a handy little treatise on the word that's usually translated "natural" in that passage, with a detailed analysis of how it was used in Greek culture and hence what it likely meant to Paul and his readers in Rome. The article covers some other passages too, but we're primarily interested in Romans 1.

Clobbering “Biblical” Gay Bashing (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thegodarticle/2011/10/clobbering-biblical-gay-bashing/)

To answer your question about natural... it is because of the word translated use or function after it. So even if the greek word was translated wrong and should have been normal... it wouldn't change my mind. Normal function/ natural function... or normal use/ natural use... means how God originally made us. This doesn't change my mind one bit, it only makes me even that much more convinced.

To answer your question about natural... it is because of the word translated use or function after it. So even if the greek word was translated wrong and should have been normal... it wouldn't change my mind. Normal function/ natural function... or normal use/ natural use... means how God originally made us. This doesn't change my mind one bit, it only makes me even that much more convinced.
You didn't read the article Dave gave a link to, did you. The article explains the Greek word Paul used and how he understood it.

WG

I did read the article. Sigh... I don't believe for one minute Paul was talking about how one was naturally born. Didn't Dave state over and over there were no homosexuals or at least they didn't recognize them . First of all, Paul was NEVER going to condone sex outside of marriage! It's ridiculous. The guy who wrote the article contends Paul was speaking about men and woman who weren't normally born attracted to the same sex but had sex anyway and that was what Paul condemned. But Paul says men BURNED for one another! I've not known a straight man that burned after another straight man. But that's me. He would have condemned ANY type of sex outside of marriage anyway and he was a Jew. Jews didn't condone same sex marriages. They may have in Greece and Rome, but they didn't in Israel. I don't believe Paul suddenly saw the light, believed people were born with a preference and therefore wrote Romans 1 to condemn straight people from having sex with other straight people of the same gender but allowing sex between two same sex individuals born that way. I'm sorry. It's beyond ridiculous.

Jews didn't condone same sex marriages. They may have in Greece and Rome, but they didn't in Israel.
Who was Paul writing to?

WG

Didn't Dave state over and over there were no homosexuals or at least they didn't recognize them .
No, once again that is not what I said. I have said over and over, and it's a fact, that they knew nothing of orientation. There were people who liked to expand their horizons with others of the same sex, usually in addition to relations with people of the opposite sex, but they didn't have a designated word for "homosexuals." Please get that straight. (Pun not intended.)

No, once again that is not what I said. I have said over and over, and it's a fact, that they knew nothing of orientation. There were people who liked to expand their horizons with others of the same sex, usually in addition to relations with people of the opposite sex, but they didn't have a designated word for "homosexuals." Please get that straight. (Pun not intended.)

So if Paul knew NOTHING about orientation, it stands to reason when he wasn't implying some people were born naturally attracted to the same gender. I have really tried hard to see this from the other view point. I know and love people who are gay. I can't get around it. I don't believe the argument.



Who was Paul writing to?

He was writing to the Romans. But he doesn't change the rules for sex because they are more free to experiment. He believed it was wrong for the Jews and everyone else. That's my take.

So if Paul knew NOTHING about orientation, it stands to reason when he wasn't implying some people were born naturally attracted to the same gender.
So not what I said, so thoroughly out of context. Read what came after that part and please stop twisting my words.

So not what I said, so thoroughly out of context. Read what came after that part and please stop twisting my words.
Please lay it out, simply and clearly.

Please lay it out, simply and clearly.
It may take a while, lots of other stuff going on, plus today we apparently get to ride out the storm of the century...

Please lay it out, simply and clearly.
I haven't forgotten. But life is jam-packed right now...

WG ......They may have in Greece and Rome, but they didn't in Israel. I don't believe Paul suddenly saw the light, believed people were born with a preference and therefore wrote Romans 1 to condemn straight people from having sex with other straight people of the same gender but allowing sex between two same sex individuals born that way. I'm sorry. It's beyond ridiculous. It's beyond ridiculous, says classyT, ending the above quote. I have to agree.

Well, I waited almost a month for this thread to continue but I think now it won't. So here's what I think.

The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality. The language is very clear and the attempts to interpret the passages differently to prove the opposite is wildly creative but, as most scholars agree (based on links provided by several people - I needn't cite them, they're easily found for the reading) the creative interpretations fail to convince. And classyT's arguments are stronger than the others offered here. Also, the Bible nowhere APPROVES of homosexuality which is often implied by the pro-group.

However, does that mean homosexuality is evil or immoral or sinful. Absolutely not. The ancient Hebrews had their reasons just as modern humans have theirs. What they condemned is no longer applicable. As has been pointed out, moderrn thinking/psychology understands these things much differently than the ancients.

A problem arises, then, about the inerrancy of the Bible. If the Biblical literalists can disregard prohibitions like wearing clothing woven of more than one kind of cloth, or clipping the edges of your beard, and so on, then there is no reason not to disregard the prohibitions against homosexuality. Some taboos no longer apply, some do. One simply discerns to the best of one's ability.

I haven't forgotten. But life is jam-packed right now...
Iwasgoingtowritesomethingaboutthisatlast,butforsom ereasonthisprogramwon'tacknowledgethatmyspacebarex ists!!

Let's see if it's working today. Hey, look at that! Spaces!!

I have no idea what that was about. Anyway, in response to the question, after much research and examining, I can't do any better than the article I already posted. It lays things out as well as I ever could, so here it is again for convenience.



Clobbering “Biblical” Gay Bashing (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thegodarticle/2011/10/clobbering-biblical-gay-bashing/)

If your gay you should not worrie what people think. Them and any narrow view that claims to know better.

If your gay you should not worrie what people think. Them and any narrow view that claims to know better.

Them

The whole point is any form of sexual relationship outside of marriage is sin, that is God doesn't like it and forbids it. Jesus loves the sinner but hates the sin, he didn't condemn the woman caught in adultery but forgave her and told her to stop doing it. Homosexual acts are singled out because they are unnatural and there is a consequence for this. Historically, homosexual acts were part of pagan temple worship and so are unacceptable for God's people

There can be gay Christians but they cannot engage in homosexual acts, why do you think so many paedophiles wound up in the church? A mistaken belief devoting yourself to God dealt with your self discipline problem

Paraclete wrote: There can be gay Christians but they cannot engage in homosexual acts, why do you think so many paedophiles wound up in the church? A mistaken belief devoting yourself to God dealt with your self discipline problem

That last sentence - you may be onto something there.

Homosexual acts are singled out because they are unnatural and there is a consequence for this. Historically, homosexual acts were part of pagan temple worship and so are unacceptable for God's people

These are rather contradictory. Indeed they were part of pagan temple worship, so that's enough to make them taboo for Israel, and also for Paul. But I don't see any evidence for the first sentence.

Out of curiosity, why can't you be a Christian and still be involved in homosexual activity? You can be a Christian and steal, lie, fornicate... I mean that isn't what God wants for us but it happens. I once heard someone very intelligent in the Word say there is NO WAY you can be in a homosexual relationship and still be saved. Do you think that is true?

Out of curiosity, why can't you be a Christian and still be involved in homosexual activity? You can be a Christian and steal, lie, fornicate... I mean that isn't what God wants for us but it happens. I once heard someone very intelligent in the Word say there is NO WAY you can be in a homosexual relationship and still be saved. Do you think that is true?









Thank you! I've seen so many "prominent" Christians and others say this it makes me ill. What they are saying is, "God's grace can forgive everything...except that." I've had people tell me I can't be a Christian and hold my political views. So to some people, grace isn't strong enough to cover that, either.

If grace is grace, then it covers everything. If it doesn't cover everything then it's not grace. It's works. Sometimes it really is that simple. You and I have some fun with our disagreements, but at the end of the day, Grace is where we huddle together to soak up the Lord's warmth. I like being there, and I like hanging out there with you and my other brethren and sistren there.

Dave,

Trust me... your political views are sending you to hell. Ha ha I'm so funny. NO. I am in totally agreement with you, Grace is Grace! It has NOTHING to do with our performance. Having said that, Paul clearly states that if we are under grace sin doesn't have dominion over us. Grace is the power to get rid of sin... but the pulpits are too afraid to preach it. So instead we get 10 steps on how to improve the flesh. Of course, they don't call it that, but it is what it is. Grace and Truth CAME by Jesus Christ.

Trust me... your political views are sending you to hell. Ha ha I'm so funny.

Forgive me for not laughing at that one. I've had multiple instances where "Christians" have been telling me just that. The American Church has thoroughly lost its way and has no idea what is really important any more. That's what happens when you mix Christianity with politics. CHRISTIANITY ALWAYS LOSES AND GETS CORRUPTED.

Well it's ridiculous and I certainly don't believe someone goes to hell because they are on the wrong side of me politically. Sadly, the church really has no clue as to what sends a person to hell. They make little of the blood and much of works. If you asked most people in the world ( not Christians) how one gets to heaven they will tell you do good, be kind, love and maybe you will make it. Worse if you asked most Christians you will get the same answer plus they add accept Jesus as your savior too. Smh This is MY passion. The answers are wrong, wrong and WRONG! Sometimes I am concerned even for you! I don't think you understand grace. You struggle and it's because you don't rightly divide the word of truth. I know I am beating a dead horse but the perfect example is in the gospels when Jesus separates the sheep and the goats. That ain't grace! We know that God's word is truth and what Jesus states in that passage is not at ALL what Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit explains in Romans. It would behoove us to figure out why. I don't think you can reconcile the two properly unless your rightly DIVIDE the word of truth. Oh I know, I know, I know... off topic and you won't discuss this passage with me here. Excuses, excuses.

You're correct it's off topic, but if you want to start another thread, I'll gladly try to educate you. Again. :P

You can be Christian and also sin, but then the teaching of the Christian faiths (and non-Christian faiths) is that there are consequences for your decisions. Perhaps this teaching evolved from the examples we see in this life, that we all experience the consequences of our decisions, so it's likely we do in the next life as well. If you don't agree with the teaching, don't worry about it and live your life and just be aware that your consequences in this world will be certain and won't be up to you - the choices you make are yours, but what becomes of those choices will be out of your hands.

But that's the whole question, whether it is actually "sin" when it's in a committed marital relationship. The biblical passages fall into two categories: 1) resistance to outside Canaanite culture (Leviticus etc.) and warnings against promiscuity (1 Corinthians etc.). So I don't think we can reach a definitive conclusion about a married, faithful same-sex couple based on that. Under those conditions, leave them alone.

Let's try a slightly different tack. You're in church, service is just starting. Two men, newcomers, come through the door with big smiles on their faces, excited to be here. You notice they're holding hands.

What do you do?

Welcome your fellow human or at least MYOB!

It's interesting (telling?) that my last question got exactly one response.

It's interesting (telling?) that my last question got exactly one response.


That may be because you come across as disingenuous in this thread that you started.

You seem to be relying on Leviticus and Corinthians as a support for a committed gay relationship. But, as anybody can see, neither remotely supports that position.

The one condemns homosexuality as a foreign pagan rite which you imply has no bearing on ordinary sexual practice, just sexual practice within pagan rites. That's a stretch. The other condemns homosexuality within a general prohibition against promiscuity. But you (and the others you linked to), all learned linguists, play with the semantics to change the meaning of key words. Ok, but that still does NOT approve of gay sexual practice.

It is a logical fallacy to go from an aspect of a thing forbidden to a completely different aspect of that thing being permitted. I have an interest in the question because of its Biblical connection - the context in which your question was posed. I don't think the pro-gay Bible crowd has made its case.

But I can see why it is so important to Bible believing Christians. What I don't see is why they can't just dismiss the disapproval as reflecting the times of past millenia. We've come a long way since then. (The Fundamentalists, of course, would not allow for the Bible to have changeable views in a case like this).

The Bible is a "good book", suitable for guidance and ancient history and beautiful spiritual poetry. It tells a fascinating tale of an ancient nomadic tribe as it discovered great truths about itself and its members and its God. Do I believe it was written by God? No.

My personal view, FWIW, is I have no interest in how consenting adults live their private lives. They're free to be what they want to be.

Bravo Athos. Very well said! Wish I could greenie you but sadly I have to spread the rep.

Very well said. I have no problem with people disagreeing; I have a problem when those people try to take rights away from other people. Your suggestion has merit, I need to look into it more. Thanks!

And I also am required to spread the rep around before I can give you a green. Oh well.