Corinthians 6

[awediot]

Originally Posted by james_

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/show...2&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_]

Originally Posted by awediot

...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]

Originally Posted by james_

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]

Originally Posted by james_

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]

Originally Posted by awediot

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]

Originally Posted by kara speltz

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by awediot

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]

Originally Posted by Rick336

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]

Originally Posted by 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??).

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

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Sear...ity&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_]

Originally Posted by Matt Algren

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.

Originally Posted by Matt Algren

Not hidden, comparable.

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

Originally Posted by Matt Algren

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]

Originally Posted by james_

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.