[dwashbur]

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.

[classyT]

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!

[dwashbur]

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.

[Athos]

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.

[classyT]

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.

[dwashbur]

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]

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.

[classyT]

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.

[dwashbur]

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

[classyT]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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.

[classyT]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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?

[dwashbur]

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.)

[classyT]

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.

[dwashbur]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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.

[dwashbur]

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...

[dwashbur]

Please lay it out, simply and clearly.

I haven't forgotten. But life is jam-packed right now...

[Athos]

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.