Corinthians 6

[Matt Algren]

Originally Posted by james_

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_]

Originally Posted by Matt Algren

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]

Originally Posted by james_

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]

Originally Posted by awediot

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. 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]

Originally Posted by keltic63

now might be a good time to remind members of our Guidelines. 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]

Originally Posted by james_

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]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

.

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.