Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    dwashbur's Avatar
    dwashbur Posts: 1,237, Reputation: 175
    Ultra Member
     
    #21

    Sep 21, 2016, 10:53 PM
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by dontknownuthin View Post
    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.
    dwashbur's Avatar
    dwashbur Posts: 1,237, Reputation: 175
    Ultra Member
     
    #22

    Sep 23, 2016, 01:40 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by classyT View Post
    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?
    dwashbur's Avatar
    dwashbur Posts: 1,237, Reputation: 175
    Ultra Member
     
    #23

    Sep 25, 2016, 10:03 AM
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
    Can you please explain how you came to this conclusion?
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 905, Reputation: 55
    Senior Member
     
    #24

    Sep 26, 2016, 07:22 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by classyT View Post
    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?
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #25

    Sep 26, 2016, 08:04 AM
    ...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?
    dwashbur's Avatar
    dwashbur Posts: 1,237, Reputation: 175
    Ultra Member
     
    #26

    Sep 26, 2016, 08:31 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    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.
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 905, Reputation: 55
    Senior Member
     
    #27

    Sep 26, 2016, 08:55 AM
    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.
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #28

    Sep 26, 2016, 09:42 AM
    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?
    dwashbur's Avatar
    dwashbur Posts: 1,237, Reputation: 175
    Ultra Member
     
    #29

    Sep 26, 2016, 11:44 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    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.
    classyT's Avatar
    classyT Posts: 1,562, Reputation: 214
    Ultra Member
     
    #30

    Sep 26, 2016, 01:09 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
    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.
    dwashbur's Avatar
    dwashbur Posts: 1,237, Reputation: 175
    Ultra Member
     
    #31

    Sep 27, 2016, 08:26 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by classyT View Post
    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.
    classyT's Avatar
    classyT Posts: 1,562, Reputation: 214
    Ultra Member
     
    #32

    Sep 28, 2016, 12:50 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
    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.
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 38,593, Reputation: 5430
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #33

    Sep 28, 2016, 02:29 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by classyT View Post
    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.
    classyT's Avatar
    classyT Posts: 1,562, Reputation: 214
    Ultra Member
     
    #34

    Sep 28, 2016, 02:56 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    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.
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 38,593, Reputation: 5430
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #35

    Sep 28, 2016, 03:05 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by classyT View Post
    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.
    classyT's Avatar
    classyT Posts: 1,562, Reputation: 214
    Ultra Member
     
    #36

    Sep 28, 2016, 03:15 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    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.
    dwashbur's Avatar
    dwashbur Posts: 1,237, Reputation: 175
    Ultra Member
     
    #37

    Sep 28, 2016, 03:18 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by classyT View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by classyT View Post
    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.
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 38,593, Reputation: 5430
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #38

    Sep 28, 2016, 03:35 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by classyT View Post
    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?
    classyT's Avatar
    classyT Posts: 1,562, Reputation: 214
    Ultra Member
     
    #39

    Sep 29, 2016, 12:35 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    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.
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 38,593, Reputation: 5430
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #40

    Sep 29, 2016, 12:54 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by classyT View Post
    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....

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Wife has a male gay friend and I have a non-gay female friends [ 2 Answers ]

My wife has a male gay friend that she is very chummy with. At times it makes me uncomfortable how well they get along. I do not feel threatened although I do feel cheated at times. When we were younger we had good times in the same fashion that they share minus the sexual factor. We have been...

My boyfriend has a 3 gay friends is he down low or secretly gay? [ 15 Answers ]

Well I been on and off with my boyfriend for 7 years. I have always thought he was very manly. Until I met Charley his openly gay friend. He and Charley have known one another for about 10 plus years.There have been rumors from family members, friends, and the mother of his two kids that he and...

Does being gay make you less of a christian? [ 63 Answers ]

I have many friends who are gay and have not chosen to be that way. I always thought God gave us differences so that we could look past them and accept each other for who we are and not worry about differences or faults. I know it says in the Bible that being gay is a sin, but it always says...

Should a Christian allow those taking the lead in the Church such as Ministers be gay [ 122 Answers ]

I believe that no man or women should ever be allowed to serve as a minster or a leader of any church that represents God. Why? To be frank, the Bible condemns homosexuality. No amount of verbal hocus-pocus can make scriptures like Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26, 27 disappear. 1 Corinthians...


View more questions Search