Corinthians 6

[james_]

Hi, I'm not a homosexual, but I am doing my own personal research in what the bible truley says. I read the article 'What the bible says and doesn't say about homosexuality". It was really interesting and brought up several points when it can to many interpretations of the scriptures, but I still knew of other scriptures.

I'm not here to say he is wrong, or he is right, I'm here to get informed. I want to know what people think about other versus that claim to say homosexuality is wrong.

Such as Corinthians 6:9:

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


Can someone explain when the bible defines the word homosexual? Because from the article, it seems the word then is not the same as the modern meaning.

[Matt Algren]

One interpretation here: http://whosoever.org/bible/corin.shtml

(Two things worth mentioning in addition to the translation: A) This is back when male 'seed' was thought to include everything necessary for nascent life. The woman was for incubation, so to engage in gay sex to completion was seen as killing a baby. B) 1 Corinthians 6 also says that Christians shouldn't sue each other, but we conveniently ignore that one.

[Daniel]

If you continue your research, you will find that the bible does not contain the word homosexual. The word was invented in the 1880's by a German sex researcher. So- the translator of this passage has chosen a word with is pejorative (in this context anyway) which only confuses things further.

Andew Little (another member- and a straight ally) has done very adroit research in this matter. You will find his posts via the search feature- I will endeavor to dig them up too. As well, U-dog has written extensively about the word(s) in question.

[james_]

Thank you. That really changes thing. That the word homosexual isn't in the original bible. So what you are saying is that the translator didn't know the translation of a particular word and invented the word homosexual and decided that that's what it means?

What is the original scripture? Where can I find documentation on this?

I really appreciate it.

[Daniel]

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2860&highlight=clobber+passages

And

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1545&highlight=translation

And

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=43151&postcount=7

This last post takes you to the following as well as another posts....


1Cor 6:9 has two words that, when translated into English, have been understood to be directed against homosexuality. The Greek the words, malakoi(s) and arsenokoitay, are problematic for different reasons, however.

malakos - is an adjective.
malakois appears in Matt 11:8 and Luke 7:25 and is the neuter/plural form of malakos. malakoi appears in 1Cor 6:9 and is the masculine/plural form of malakos. This is the full extent of the appearance of the malakos adjective in the New Testament.

It appears in ancient Greek texts and is understood to mean, variously, freshly plowed (when talking about land), luxurious (when talking about clothing) and is also used to mean temple idol slaves or servants (Homer and others).

The Latin Vulgate Bible, from the 5th century translated malakois (Matt 11:8 and Luke 7:25) into mollibus, which means "luxurious" or "effeminate". It translated malakoi (1Cor 6:9) into idolis servientes, which means idol slaves or servants.

The King James version (1611), which relied heavily on the Vulgate, translated malakois to "soft" in Matt and Luke, as it was referring to clothing. But in 1Cor, evidently not being happy with "idol servants" they translated malakoi into "effeminate". It seems to many scholars that the Latin translators were closer in time and culture than the English translators, so they would have a better idea of meaning. None-the-less, the KJV translation has, of course, stuck ever since.

As far as arsenokoitay is concerned it appears twice in scripture and not at all in classic Greek literature. It is a compound word, not uncommon in Greek. 1 Cor 6:9 uses arsenokoitay and 1Tim 1:10 uses arsenokoitais. The words combined to make the first word are arsen (adjective neuter/singular), o (masculine definite article) and koitay (noun feminine/singular). The second word is the same, except that koitais is feminine/plural.

Now, the first thing is that the Greek language is gender specific. These words have feminine endings which means they refers to something female. The word parts are varied, however. arsen means “male”. o is the male definite article (the). koitey, the root of koitay and koitais, means “bed” or "place where koitus (coitus) occurs" - can we presume "female's bed", since it is feminine?

What was being communicated here? No-one is really sure. The KJV opted for “the abusers of themselves with mankind”. The NIV went with “homosexual offenders”. The NRSV went with “sodomites”.

The notion of "men in a bed together" is not literal at all, but shows the same bias as KJV, by assuming a lot of things that the Greek, or Latin, doesn't say.

But the Vulgate, translated 1000 years earlier, and closer to the original culture, than the KJV translated to adulteri, which means “adulterer” but in the female tense. You could argue that this doubles up on the earlier use of adulterer appearing in the same verse, but that one is male tense.

So which meaning do you want to use? It seems you have quite the range of choices, and biblical scholars can’t agree – can we?

[awediot]

Thank you. That really changes thing. That the word homosexual isn't in the original bible. So what you are saying is that the translator didn't know the translation of a particular word and invented the word homosexual and decided that that's what it means?

What is the original scripture? Where can I find documentation on this?

I really appreciate it.

Personally, as a Christian, I can't hinge my soul on a technicality of hermeneutics or exegesis. I believe the Bible to by inspired and the translations accurate enough... But I also cannot change my orientation, nor choose to disbelieve in Christ. So if I'm condemned for just being gay, then God has planned on damning me from day one, Calvinism is probably right and I'm doomed...but that's okay, because I'd rather not spend eternity with a God who does such things to His creatures.

The way I see it, sex outside of a committed, monogamous relationship (marriage) is wrong (a sin) because it diminishes the purpose and experience of intimacy, which was designed to be shared as a loving couple... But, it is only one of many sins:

ABOMINATIONS:
(in no particular order, but specifically referred to as such)

eaters of an abominable thing
sacrifers of a blemished thing
learners of nations abomination
those that do unrighteously
those with haughty eyes
lying tongue
hands that shed innocent blood
hearts that devise wicked plans
feet that run rapidly to evil
false witnesses
strife spreaders
a foreword heart
lying lips
those proud in heart
scorners
chargers of interest
sodomites.

Galatians 5:19-21(KJV)
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.


Proverbs 6:16-19
16There are six things which the LORD hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
17Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
18A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
19A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.

Or maybe just damnable infractions...


A sower of discord (Pro. 6:19) Wickedness (Pro. 8:7) A false balance or scale (Pro. 11:1) Sacrifices of the wicked (Pro. 15:8; 21:27)The way of the wicked (Pro. 15:9) The thoughts of the wicked (Pro. 15:26) The proud of heart(Pro. 16:5) Justifying the wicked (Pro. 17:15) Condemning the just (Pro. 17:15)Divers, dishonest weights (Pro. 20:10, 23) Divers, dishonest measures (Pro.20:10) Refusing to hear the law (Pro. 28:9) Prayers of the rebel (Pro. 28:9)Eating flesh of peace offerings on the 3rd day (Lev. 7:18) Homosexuality (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Dt. 23:18)Taking ornaments from idols when being destroyed (Dt. 7:25-26)Any Idolatrous practices (Dt. 12:31; 13:14; 17:4; 18:9; 20:18; 29:17)Offering an imperfect animal to God as a sacrifice (Dt. 17:1)Any traffic with demons (Dt. 18:7-12) Wearing clothes of the opposite sex (Dt.22:5) Bringing the hire of a harlot or sodomite into God's house (Dt. 23:18)Re-marriage of former companions (Dt. 24:1-4) Cheating others (Dt. 25:13-16)Making images/idols (Dt. 27:15) Idols of Ammon (1 Ki. 11:5)Idols of Moab (1 Ki. 11:7; 2 Ki. 11:13) Idols of Zidon (2 Ki. 23:13)Incense offered by hypocrites (Isa. 1:13) Eating unclean things (Isa. 66:17)Offering human sacrifices (Jer. 32:35) Robbery (Ezek. 18: 6-13)Murder (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Adultery (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Oppression of others, particularly the poor or vulnerable (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Violence (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Breaking vows (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Lending with interest to a brother (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Lying with a menstruous woman(Ezek. 18: 6-13) Hardness of heart (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Injustice (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Worship of anti-Christ (Dan. 11:31; 12:11; Mt. 24:15; 2 Th.2:4; Rev. 13) Incest (Lev. 19: 6-30) Things highly esteemed by man (Lk. 16:15) Many other sins of the nations (Lev. 18: 26-29; Dt. 18: 9-12 20:18; 29:17; 1 Ki. 14:24; 21:2, 11; 23:24; 2 Chr. 28:3; 33:2; 34:33; 36:14; Ezek. 7: 3-20; 8: 6-17; 16: 2-58; 20: 4-30; Rev. 17: 4-5)


We are all represented on that list...probably a few times...probably in ways we don't even recognize...I do worse things than be gay, and am no different than any other sinner trying to be better, and depending on grace in the mean time.


-I haven't looked over this much... but: http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

[Daniel]

Personally, as a Christian, I can't hinge my soul on a technicality of hermeneutics or exegesis. I believe the Bible to by inspired and the translations accurate enough... But I also cannot change my orientation, nor choose to disbelieve in Christ. So if I'm condemned for just being gay, then God has planned on damning me from day one, Calvinism is probably right and I'm doomed...but that's okay, because I'd rather not spend eternity with a God who does such things to His creatures.

The way I see it, sex outside of a committed, monogamous relationship (marriage) is wrong (a sin) because it diminishes the purpose and experience of intimacy, which was designed to be shared as a loving couple... But, it is only one of many sins:

Not interested in what the good book might actually say? But invested in Calvinism? That's quite interesting. Telling too.

So your soul needs a hinge? And Calvinism does it for ya? Perhaps you should talk to U-dog. That's right up his alley. :)

[awediot]

Not interested in what the good book might actually say? But invested in Calvinism? That's quite interesting. Telling too.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste. :D

Where did I say any of that?

[Daniel]

Where did I say any of that?

Oh...Dean....looking for a fight are ya? :rolleyes::D

[awediot]

Oh...Dean....looking for a fight are ya? :rolleyes::D

No.Just not comfy with people putting words in my mouth.

[Daniel]

No.Just not comfy with people putting words in my mouth.

I suggest you go back and read your post with new eyes...or ears.

[awediot]

I suggest you go back and read your post with new eyes...or ears.
uh...I wrote it.

[Daniel]

uh...I wrote it.

Yep. You sure did. And if you can't observe your train of thought as another person might perceive it, then I guess you are at a loss as far as my post is concerned.

Perhaps we should let James have his thread back? And if you can't speak to his question you might have your fun elsewhere?

[awediot]

Yep. You sure did. And if you can't observe your train of thought as another person might perceive it, then I guess you are at a loss as far as my post is concerned.

Perhaps we should let James have his thread back? And if you can't speak to his question you might have your fun elsewhere?

How about you let james speak for himself?

[james_]

Okay, the explanation of arsenokoitai does make sense. Though, does that mean his says that a man shouldn't be in a woman's bed? I'm not sure if I understand what that is supposed to mean. But it does raise a lot of questions.

So, what would you say Romans 1:24-27 translate into then?

1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

1:25 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.

1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

1:27 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 recompence of their error which was meet.


What comes out of this. If that debatable word was only used twice, and not included in this. What does this verse mean exactly?

By the way, I'm sorry I didn't search more in the site before posting. I probably could have found some of theses threads myself.

[james_]

It's cool by the way, it's a thread, peopel tend to say what they want. I dont mind.

[awediot]

Okay, the explanation of arsenokoitai does make sense. Though, does that mean his says that a man shouldn't be in a woman's bed? I'm not sure if I understand what that is supposed to mean. But it does raise a lot of questions.

So, what would you say Romans 1:24-27 translate into then?

1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

1:25 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.

1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

1:27 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 recompence of their error which was meet.


What comes out of this. If that debatable word was only used twice, and not included in this. What does this verse mean exactly?

By the way, I'm sorry I didn't search more in the site before posting. I probably could have found some of theses threads myself.

...it means God gave idolatrous adults over to a reprobate mind, as explained prior to your snipped quote:

Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles...

Also:

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

The homosexuality of Romans is comparable to greed and disobeying of parents...Only by dissecting it, leaving out the common sins that also result and ignoring the idolatry, is it cut down to the classic gay clobber passage it has become.

[Daniel]

Okay, the explanation of arsenokoitai does make sense. Though, does that mean his says that a man shouldn't be in a woman's bed? I'm not sure if I understand what that is supposed to mean. But it does raise a lot of questions.

So, what would you say Romans 1:24-27 translate into then?

1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

1:25 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.

1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

1:27 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 recompence of their error which was meet.


What comes out of this. If that debatable word was only used twice, and not included in this. What does this verse mean exactly?

By the way, I'm sorry I didn't search more in the site before posting. I probably could have found some of theses threads myself.

Not a problem- I remembered the conversation- which was recent.

You might use the search feature for the passage above as well as the words 'clobber passages.' I know that those who are into the nitty-gritty of biblical matters have done the legwork here. Sorry that I can't remember the conversations right off the bat.

However....

For a deep read, you might check out John Boswell's tome Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980)

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-bos.html

He deals with the these verses extensively.

[james_]

...it means God gave idolatrous adults over to a reprobate mind, as explained prior to your snipped quote:

Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles...

Also:

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

The homosexuality of Romans is comparable to greed and disobeying of parents...Only by dissecting it, leaving out the common sins that also result and ignoring the idolatry, is it cut down to the classic gay clobber passage it has become.

I'm completely open to interpretation of the scripture, but reading that section, I would never think to research the homosexuality as a metaphor for the Roman's greed. I will look this over some more, but that seems very hard to interpret.

[Daniel]

James- here is another thread worth investigating.

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=36794&postcount=12

[awediot]

I'm completely open to interpretation of the scripture, but reading that section, I would never think to research the homosexuality as a metaphor for the Roman's greed. I will look this over some more, but that seems very hard to interpret.

Just don't try to understanding it starting from 24... You cut out it's meaning and WHY God did this to those people.

[Daniel]

James- I also suggest that you PM U-dog on the matter. He's very patient, knows his stuff, and is a minister. Simply asking him to comment of this thread may be fruitful.

[Daniel]

You are concerned with Leviticus, this is worth reading...

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=26962&postcount=13

[james_]

Thanks, well, I understand that a lot of Leviticus isn't really followed except for the in the jewish religion so I am not so much interested in that as I am trying to interpret other things.

Which Bible version does everyone perfer by the way. I don't really like NIV because it seems to take away the ability to interpret the script. I would much rather read word for word the translations rather I understand it completely or not, I can do research if I need to.

See, I can understand the debate of like Sodom and Gomorrah, you see the word 'know' and it's debatable right there, but that particular verse you read it and it seems like it's speaking of sexual acts, not some hidden meaning of Roman greed.

I'm still looking it up and trying to learn how to read between the lines. The thing it, that seems like a plausible interpretation, but the literal sense seems like one too. It seems like the easier to understand interpretation would be the right one.

[james_]

...it means God gave idolatrous adults over to a reprobate mind, as explained prior to your snipped quote:

Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles...

Also:

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

The homosexuality of Romans is comparable to greed and disobeying of parents...Only by dissecting it, leaving out the common sins that also result and ignoring the idolatry, is it cut down to the classic gay clobber passage it has become.

Still trying to break this down... Reading this, breaking down the parts... How would you know not to take this in literal sense?

[awediot]

Still trying to break this down... Reading this, breaking down the parts... How would you know not to take this in literal sense?

I take it quite literally as a lesson on how God may eventually abandon you to what you have replaced Him with, or idolized, as you wish. It is a frequent theme. This one just happens to mention homosexual lust among the typical sins spoken of.

[awediot]

I'm completely open to interpretation of the scripture, but reading that section, I would never think to research the homosexuality as a metaphor for the Roman's greed. I will look this over some more, but that seems very hard to interpret.

That's not what I'm saying... It isn't about homosexual sex. It mentions it...Included:

29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

This was not because they were gay, but they were idolaters.

[james_]

But why mention homosexual sex at all then. What was the point of it. I'm sorry and I don't want to sound like I'm arguing with you, I'm just trying to get a better understanding.

[kara speltz]

That's not what I'm saying... It isn't about homosexual sex. It mentions it...Included:

29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

This was not because they were gay, but they were idolaters.

Aweidiot, the Bible did not mention homosexuality! The word, and the concept didn't even exist until 1850's and it was the King James Version that first added homosexuality. The irony, of course was the King James was a homosexual himself.

This posting is trying to find some truth in the misinterpretation of the bible. Let's not add to the confusion.

Kara

[awediot]

Aweidiot, the Bible did not mention homosexuality! The word, and the concept didn't even exist until 1850's and it was the King James Version that first added homosexuality. The irony, of course was the King James was a homosexual himself.

This posting is trying to find some truth in the misinterpretation of the bible. Let's not add to the confusion.

Kara


Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman... (kjv) shows the concept was known at the time. The word doesn't concern me. The act of same gendered sex was implied in a few places... Now whether it just meant lust, or love, or "marriage" is questionable, but not that it was what we've deemed "homosexuality" today.

Looking at the bigger picture and keeping "homosexuality" in context I don't think is adding to the confusion. it is a different way to look at the problem...a way that I have discovered some answers through.

[Matt Algren]

Thanks, well, I understand that a lot of Leviticus isn't really followed except for the in the jewish religion so I am not so much interested in that as I am trying to interpret other things.

Which Bible version does everyone perfer by the way. I don't really like NIV because it seems to take away the ability to interpret the script. I would much rather read word for word the translations rather I understand it completely or not, I can do research if I need to.
I quite prefer the New Living Translation, though not for its interpretation of these verses; they made the same mistake others made.
See, I can understand the debate of like Sodom and Gomorrah, you see the word 'know' and it's debatable right there, but that particular verse you read it and it seems like it's speaking of sexual acts, not some hidden meaning of Roman greed.

I'm still looking it up and trying to learn how to read between the lines. The thing it, that seems like a plausible interpretation, but the literal sense seems like one too. It seems like the easier to understand interpretation would be the right one.
Not hidden, comparable.

As for Romans 1, it's helpful to remember that Paul's letter to the congregation in Rome wasn't split into chapter and verse until the 1200s and 1500s, respectively. So while there are times when it's edifying to pull a verse or three out, when trying to understand it in its entirety, it's best to read it as one big letter. In this case, people read Romans 1 and stop, when the most important verse, the one that clicks the entire thing in place, is Romans 2:1.

Paul wasn't saying "These people are doing terrible things and are doomed so kick them out." He was saying "These people are doing terrible things and are doomed but so are you, so STFU."

And again, the "terrible thing" at issue was barely similar to what we now know as homosexuality, and included (from their understanding) sacrificing a child to a pagan fertility god.

[awediot]

But why mention homosexual sex at all then. What was the point of it. I'm sorry and I don't want to sound like I'm arguing with you, I'm just trying to get a better understanding.

He was covering the bases. We see that sex outside of "marriage" was considered sin...gay sex too, btw. It was fornication/adultery (maybe)... I do not see it as a condemnation of being gay.

How we act, in any number of ways, on any number of impulses is the larger question.

[Daniel]

But why mention homosexual sex at all then. What was the point of it. I'm sorry and I don't want to sound like I'm arguing with you, I'm just trying to get a better understanding.


For two reasons.

1) is the story of S & G about homosexual sex?

Do you see the bias in your question in the use of the word homosexual? A better question would be "Is the story of S & G about same-sex sexuality?" One should note this: the men of Sodom wanted to rape the angels, not go clubbing with them, or take them out on a date.

Is the act of rape about same-sex sexuality?

A modern view says no: rape is about the abuse of power. It has nothing to do with where a man puts his penis. It is about asserting control over another being (in this case two angels). And btw, this happens to young men in prison all the time, especially gay men. Which is why some prisons house them separately.

2) what is the story of S & G really about?

Modern scholars note that Sodom was destroyed because it's people did not welcome God's messengers. As such, sexuality is not the focus. In simple terms, God destroyed Sodom because the people there dissed his PR people.

Boswell discusses this scripture in great detail.

As a side note, the story has a whopper re how women were viewed. Lot offered his daughters to the men. What does this say about how women were viewed? Does anyone really think that kind of thing would be acceptable now? Nope. I don't think so. For all the hollering about same-sex sexuality, one wonders why this aspect is glossed over.

Lot doesn't come off very well in the story. A very patriarchal tale it is. From beginning to end.

[Matt Algren]

But why mention homosexual sex at all then. What was the point of it. I'm sorry and I don't want to sound like I'm arguing with you, I'm just trying to get a better understanding.
You have to consider the book/section/chapter/verse in historical context, stripping away your own present-day cultural knowledge. There are several things at play with regard to Romans.

First is that, as I've pointed out, common understanding of biology at the time was not what we know now, that sperm + (egg and womb) = baby. Their understanding was that sperm seed + (egg and womb) = baby. Women were just considered incubators.

So of course, since the man controlled where the seed went, and since it had to go into a woman's womb to even potentially grow into a baby, putting it anywhere except a woman's womb was unacceptable, both culturally and religiously. Remember that the OT story of Onan has him being struck dead because he ejaculated outside a woman's womb. The 'sin' of ejaculating with a man, which (again, to their understanding) effectively killed human life, was considered comparable.

Add to that the fact that this letter was going to Rome. Paul knew that there were still pagan temples that employed male prostitutes that men (one assumes straight men) could have sex with as an act of worship for pagan fertility gods. The man would (again, to their understanding) quite literally sacrifice a child to a fertility god by ejaculating with one of the prostitutes.

So not only do we have murder, we have worship of other gods, both of which are explicitly not allowed by the first and sixth commandments. In addition, the men were presumably married, so you could make the case that they were breaking the seventh as well. Remember, though, that the people the leaders of the Roman church were complaining about weren't Jewish. They were gentiles who had never followed the ceremonial laws or the Jewish Decalogue.

Now read Romans within that context. Read it as a Roman Jewish Christian who is steeped in the Holiness Codes. People who were breaking the two most important commandments and possibly a third at one time would pretty clearly be a problem for the new Christian leaders with a strong Hebrew upbringing. Of course Paul would call them wicked, murderous, and hateful. Obviously these leaders would want to get rid of them lest they make unclean this new Church of Jesus.

That's precisely what Paul told them. Exactly what they wanted to hear. But they weren't counting on Romans 2.

[Rick336]

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman... (kjv) shows the concept was known at the time. The word doesn't concern me. The act of same gendered sex was implied in a few places... Now whether it just meant lust, or love, or "marriage" is questionable, but not that it was what we've deemed "homosexuality" today.



Leviticus 20:13 and other anti-gay verses in the Bible is a clear indication that the authors of the Bible were homophobic. But they were also sexist and pro-slavery so one needs to consider the source.

Rick

[awediot]

Leviticus 20:13 and other anti-gay verses in the Bible is a clear indication that the authors of the Bible were homophobic. But they were also sexist and pro-slavery so one needs to consider the source.

Rick

If it's just all made up, then that does solve the theological questions one would have about it... true.

[tdogg]

John Boswell's book is an excellent resource James. I highly recommend you read it. Well worth the money & time to read (maybe you can find it in a local library??).

[Daniel]

John Boswell's book is an excellent resource James. I highly recommend you read it. Well worth the money & time to read (maybe you can find it in a local library??).

Yes- it's an excellent resource. You can purchase a copy here....

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=john+boswell&sts=t&tn=christianity+homosexuality&x=100&y=10

I happen to use Abebooks a lot. And am often amazed at how inexpensive important books can be there. This book caused quite a stir when it came out. No one had done research like Boswell did. Amazing really. He was on the faculty at Yale. A much admired teacher who was handsome and charismatic.

[james_]

I quite prefer the New Living Translation, though not for its interpretation of these verses; they made the same mistake others made.

That's why I like the Darby version. He just translated the text as best he could to the best English fitting word. I get a totally different vibe from NIV or King James.


Not hidden, comparable.

I misspoke, you are right. I absolutely agree that Sodom is about rape and not homosexuality.


As for Romans 1, it's helpful to remember that Paul's letter to the congregation in Rome wasn't split into chapter and verse until the 1200s and 1500s, respectively. So while there are times when it's edifying to pull a verse or three out, when trying to understand it in its entirety, it's best to read it as one big letter. In this case, people read Romans 1 and stop, when the most important verse, the one that clicks the entire thing in place, is Romans 2:1.

Paul wasn't saying "These people are doing terrible things and are doomed so kick them out." He was saying "These people are doing terrible things and are doomed but so are you, so STFU."

And again, the "terrible thing" at issue was barely similar to what we now know as homosexuality, and included (from their understanding) sacrificing a child to a pagan fertility god.

So:

26For this reason God gave them up to vile lusts; for both their females changed the natural use into that contrary to nature;

27and in like manner the males also, leaving the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their lust towards one another; males with males working shame, and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was fit.

You are saying that the wrongness is that they did this to please another God and not because the males were 'inflamed in their lust towards one another'?

It just seems to me that they could have said 'performing act to worship another' or something along those lines.

If I am wrong again, I am sorry, doing my best here.

[Daniel]

You are saying that the wrongness is that they did this to please another God and not because the males were 'inflamed in their lust towards one another'?

It just seems to me that they could have said 'performing act to worship another' or something along those lines.

If I am wrong again, I am sorry, doing my best here.

One way to think about this passage is to think about lust rather than same-sex sexuality. Would it be ok for straight people to lust after one another? And can one have lust for another person if one worships the right God, regardless of one's sexual orientation?

Paul could have written down that context of the story (what writer's call backstory), but he didn't: that's what makes passages like this hard to deal with. We only know who and what he was referring to by seeing the passage in historical context. And we know that Christianity was - at that time- a minor religion in a sea of religious practices.

[Matt Algren]

That's why I like the Darby version. He just translated the text as best he could to the best English fitting word. I get a totally different vibe from NIV or King James.



I misspoke, you are right. I absolutely agree that Sodom is about rape and not homosexuality.



So:

26For this reason God gave them up to vile lusts; for both their females changed the natural use into that contrary to nature;

27and in like manner the males also, leaving the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their lust towards one another; males with males working shame, and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was fit.

You are saying that the wrongness is that they did this to please another God and not because the males were 'inflamed in their lust towards one another'?

It just seems to me that they could have said 'performing act to worship another' or something along those lines.

If I am wrong again, I am sorry, doing my best here.
No, I'm saying that Paul cited them because of compound 'sins', and this was an easy and understood practice to reference. I've also seen speculation that this was a specific example that the leaders in Rome had written Paul about, though doggone if I can find it now. These were people who were getting it soooooo completely wrong that the leaders at the new church in Rome could easily take them for the people you would OBVIOUSLY want to keep out.

So the pertinent point that we can take from Romans 1-2 is not "Here's a list of people to preach against and who shouldn't be dirtying our churches", it should be "Who would we (Christians/church leaders) in 2009 point to as people so far gone that they shouldn't be welcomed or accepted in our churches? What does Paul suggest we do with them?"

To me, the problem isn't just that the mistranslation/misunderstanding casts LGBT people in a negative light, but that it obscures an important teaching that the Church needs to hear.

[james_]

No, I'm saying that Paul cited them because of compound 'sins', and this was an easy and understood practice to reference. I've also seen speculation that this was a specific example that the leaders in Rome had written Paul about, though doggone if I can find it now. These were people who were getting it soooooo completely wrong that the leaders at the new church in Rome could easily take them for the people you would OBVIOUSLY want to keep out.

So the pertinent point that we can take from Romans 1-2 is not "Here's a list of people to preach against and who shouldn't be dirtying our churches", it should be "Who would we (Christians/church leaders) in 2009 point to as people so far gone that they shouldn't be welcomed or accepted in our churches? What does Paul suggest we do with them?"

To me, the problem isn't just that the mistranslation/misunderstanding casts LGBT people in a negative light, but that it obscures an important teaching that the Church needs to hear.

I understand that. That does seem like a good way of looking at the story as a whole. But you still need to look at the small stuff too, right? He was explaining all the wronging of people and he included homosexual acts in there. Where do those come in? Why mention it, if it wasn't a problem?

[awediot]

I understand that. That does seem like a good way of looking at the story as a whole. But you still need to look at the small stuff too, right? He was explaining all the wronging of people and he included homosexual acts in there. Where do those come in? Why mention it, if it wasn't a problem?

From what I can tell, SF doesn't concern itself with theological issues much... The problems with ecumenicism are a taboo subject. Just demand abject "equality" and you'll fit right in.

[keltic63]

From what I can tell, SF doesn't concern itself with theological issues much... The problems with ecumenicism are a taboo subject. Just demand abject "equality" and you'll fit right in.


now might be a good time to remind members of our Guidelines (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/faq.php). Please keep them in mind while posting. In particular, I am concerned about the following:

Posts that are excessively hostile to Soulforce
We certainly make room for forum members to disagree with Soulforce and post constructive criticism. However we don’t permit excessive hostility towards the organization on our own website. Such posts will be removed and offenders will lose their privilege to post messages.

[awediot]

now might be a good time to remind members of our Guidelines (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/faq.php). Please keep them in mind while posting. In particular, I am concerned about the following:

Posts that are excessively hostile to Soulforce
We certainly make room for forum members to disagree with Soulforce and post constructive criticism. However we don’t permit excessive hostility towards the organization on our own website. Such posts will be removed and offenders will lose their privilege to post messages.

THAT brings "excessively hostile" to mind?

Is it true or not?

How does one free them self from religious repression if they can't discuss their own role in it?

[u-dog]

I understand that. That does seem like a good way of looking at the story as a whole. But you still need to look at the small stuff too, right? He was explaining all the wronging of people and he included homosexual acts in there. Where do those come in? Why mention it, if it wasn't a problem?

James,

You need to look at Romans 1 and 2 as a unit. It is a very sweet piece of Rhetorical art on Paul's part. I've argued all of this here before so the regulars can all just skip over this next part. Paul's major opponents throughout his ministry are people that have been called "judaeizers" People who argue that the Jewish laws and customs are still binding on Christians and who argue that before you can become a Christian you must become a Jew. Step one: circumcision.

In Romans, Paul is addressing a community that is comprised of both Jewish and Gentile Christians. He begins in Chapter 1 verse 20 by describing the idolatry of Pagans. He continues by making a list of disgusting things that are going on all around the church in pagan Rome and identifies them as the consequences of idolatry. This is a list design especially to turn the stomachs of good law-abiding Jewish Christians. Among these behaviors, Paul includes some kind of same sex behavior. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT BEHAVIOR CONSISTED OF OR WHO IT INVOLVED. Paul doesn't go into detail. He doesn't have to because he knows that his readers know what he is talking about. But he sums ALL of these behaviors up and labels them ... taken together they are "Idolatry". Worshiping a created thing instead of the Creator.

By the end of what we identify as "chapter 1" (remember that the chapters and verses are artificial identifiers that were added much later for convenience) Paul has his Jewish Christian readers worked up into a frenzy about how terrible the Gentile idolaters are. Then in Chapter two, he activates the trap he laid. Chapter one is the bait. Chapter two is the trap. He turns on his readers and says that THEY are guilty of the exact same thing. They are not guilty of weird sexual practices ... but they ARE idolaters. They are idolaters because they have made an idol out of the law.

3Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgement of God? 4Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgement will be revealed.


Clearly, the whole reason for this argument is to condemn those who judge others. Isn't it ironic that modern day pharisees use this passage to condemn GLBT folks?

[Daniel]

Clearly, the whole reason for this argument is to condemn those who judge others. Isn't it ironic that modern day pharisees use this passage to condemn GLBT folks?

U-dog- the one big bible class I took at Evangel College was on Romans. I remember someone reading the passage in question out-loud and there being a deathly silence. The assumption hung in the air...well...we know what we think about them! You could cut the air with a knife. Everyone was squirming like the scene in Maurice when that infamous passage from Plato is read. Turns out that quite a few of the guys in class were gay.

It is very ironic indeed that this passage is used to condem GLBT folks.

You make a very lucid argument.

[andrewlittle]

Thanks, Daniel, for quoting me - I take that as a compliment. I would like to offer some more general thoughts, however.

The Bible needs to be studied. Even the most conservative pastors study the Bible and lament the extent of "biblical illiteracy" in their churches. If God intended scripture to be clear and concise, it would have been clear and concise. It would not consisit of so many books that obviously show some theological differences of opinion. Study would be useless once the entire Bible had been read and the Bible would probably be much shorter.

Adding to that, we have none of the "original" manuscripts. Most literal interpreters claim that "the Bible is flawless or inerrant IN THE ORIGINAL VERSIONS". Therein lies a can of worms.

When so many passages can be subject to various translations - not to mention interpretations - who has the corner on the right and only version. Is it conservatives of the King James variety, or liberals of hte NRSV or others. I contend that there is not one right theology or interpretation - and I'm not being pluralistic - I am being practical.

When one theology or belief is elevated to the point of saying that all "true" Christians should think this way, it reeks of a lack of humility. Humility is mentioned many more times in the New Testament than sexual behavior. I contend the reason for this is that the opposite of humility, scripturally at least, is idolatry.

To universalize one's own theology, interpretation or translation when variations carry equal weight when examined in the original languages (not original texts), is the same as idolizing one's own intellect and belief system. This brings us right back to Romans 1 and 2. Idolatry is an anethema to faith - it deals in certainties and knowledge of God's intent.

[Daniel]

.

When one theology or belief is elevated to the point of saying that all "true" Christians should think this way, it reeks of a lack of humility. Humility is mentioned many more times in the New Testament than sexual behavior. I contend the reason for this is that the opposite of humility, scripturally at least, is idolatry.

To universalize one's own theology, interpretation or translation when variations carry equal weight when examined in the original languages (not original texts), is the same as idolizing one's own intellect and belief system. This brings us right back to Romans 1 and 2. Idolatry is an anathema to faith - it deals in certainties and knowledge of God's intent.

That's a nice way of putting it.

It is any wonder that until the time of Galileo - and for some time afterwards- humans beings thought of the earth as the center of universe? As such, it is all too easy to assert that one's particular point of view is the right one.

What I hear you saying Andy, is that lack of perspective leads to Idolatry.