The bible and homosexuality

Finally, some stuff from the bible!

---

The Laminator

​

quote:

---

It was the Sodom story, not this one.

---

Ah, my apologies for the mistake - I was rushing at the time and simply saw the offering of the concubine, and it sounded familiar from one of the previous topics. I did have a vague recollection that it was his daughters rather than a concubine, but I thought it might just have been an inconsistency between the versions.

quote:

---

You've done a fine job with this compilation. I hope we'll be seeing more of you here at evc.

---

Thanks - I've actually been periodically visiting this forum (though never posting) since around November, so I had a good handle on the forum rules, at least as far as citation and evidence go... Mostly from the helpful examples of what not to do (desdamona's posts, for example).{Edited to fix spelling.}[This message has been edited Morte, 05-04-2004]

If you are in front of me right now, I would give you a big kiss! We need more people like you!

---

The Laminator

​

I wonder if this thread has anywhere left to go. We've been through about 8 pages, mostly NOT dealing with the subject issue. I think maybe the fundies are tired of getting clobbered on this issue. That might be a good thing.

Or they are getting ready to quietly sneak up behind us and stab us in the back. Silence usually means "we're going to get you."Anyway, I don't think this thread can go anywhere else. If the fundies absolutely refuse to answer this question, I will refer back to this thread when ever the fundies make outragous claims about how the bible condemns homosexuality and all that crap.

---

The Laminator

​

You said this about Rom 1:26ff, and this just isn't true. I went through all this once, and I think people had to agree it was at least likely that Paul was condemning homosexuality. To me, it isn't at least likely, it's patently obvious."And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly."Rrhain went on about definitions in the other thread, but the fact is that "that which is unseemly" means "that which is unseemly," and the definitions he threw out don't make a lick of sense in the context.Men leaving the natural use of women to burn in their lust toward one another receiving in their bodies the recompense of their error is as clear a condemnation of homosexuality as can be found. In what possible way could he be clearer? Good heavens! You said this about 1 Cor 6:9, and disputing this just leads to a lot of argument that can't really be concluded, since this is just a list, not a statement like Rom 1:26. However, I don't believe an honest person, looking at the words used and a Greek thesaurus can really believe this passage does not condemn homosexuality, especially knowing that the author of 1 Cor 6:9 had already condemned it in such clear terms in his letter to the Romans.

truthlover writes:

quote:

---

You said this about Rom 1:26ff, and this just isn't true.

---

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Why does it matter what a small-minded idiot like Paul thinks anyway?The passage talks about men "leaving the natural use of women". Aside from the obvious sexism of this statement, it should be clear that, if they left "the natural use of women" (women are there to be used according to Paul, you gotta love this guy, huh?) then they must have been straight to begin with. Also, if fundies can interpret 1 Samuel 15 as relating the actions of a just and merciful God, I can interpret this nonsense as referring to an orgy!Now about "that which is unseemly": fundies, following the racist, sexist homophobe Paul, may think homosexuality is unseemly, but many other people are smart enough to realize that, as a guide to morality, the bible isn't worth the paper it is printed on.Why on earth does the Corinthians passage matter? If (and it's a big 'if') Paul is talking about homosexuality here, so what? He also damns anyone who is effeminate. Haven't you ever known an effeminate, heterosexual male? Better warn them that they're going to hell if they don't straighten up and quit acting like sissies. God's just waiting to dump them into hellfire, huh?

When you take Romas 1:26 out of the context of the rest of the passage, you can force it to apply to homosexuality. But when you look at the rest of it... you find that Paul was speaking of a long litany of what he considers inappropriate behavior. In fact, there is little in the litany that he does not mention.Paul was an aesthetic. He fully believed that the second coming was to happen during his lifetime, certainly within the lifetime of those he was trying to convert. Because of this, he saw little reason for marriage, none for having children (afterall they would not have time to grow up before the second coming) and a very, very strict code of conduct. But there is nothing throught all of even Paul's writings that seems to imply that he saw homosexuality as any worse than any other form of promiscuity, or any of dozens of other behaviors.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar writes:

quote:

---

But there is nothing throught all of even Paul's writings that seems to imply that he saw homosexuality as any worse than any other form of promiscuity...

---

I have great respect for your opinion, jar, but I must take exception to the implication here. Homosexuality is no more a form of promiscuity than heterosexuality. Gays are just as capable of monogamy as anyone else.If one is to take Paul's words seriously (I don't see why one should, if for no other reason than, as you point out, he thought the second coming was imminent), then one must note that he was referring to men who had left "the natural use of women", obviously implying that these men were straight to begin with. Paul seems to feel that using women as sex objects is natural, but to discontinue using women and take up with other men is not. I don't know what type of morality this is supposed to represent, but it is not a morality to which I would ever subscribe.

Paul was constantly, time and again, speaking out against promiscuity. It didn't matter if it was a married man seeking a man or woman other than his wife, or a married woman seeking another man or woman other than her husband, or two single men or two single woman or a a bisexual couple.But the sex is only a small part of what he rails against in each of the Pauline texts. He always includes a long list of other things, which must be included in addition to what he says about sex. Simply pulling one small part out of his epistles to favor some personal agenda is being dishonest,

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm sorry you don't like Paul, Berberry, but the question Lam asked had nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with Paul's morality. Lam asked whether the Bible condemned homosexuality anywhere else than Leviticus. It does.

I agree totally.But, if you agree with this, then why did you write the following?

quote:

---

When you take Romas 1:26 out of the context of the rest of the passage, you can force it to apply to homosexuality.

---

I didn't force it to apply to homosexuality, and you end by agreeing it applies to homosexuality. I didn't say it was worse than other behaviors. I said it was condemned in Romans 1. It is, and I think it's pretty obvious that it is.I prefer Berberry's open condemnation of Paul to the silly games people play trying to pretend like Paul, his churches, or any of the apostles' churches were okay with homosexuality. They weren't, and it's obvious they weren't.note: edited to correct coding (I need to remember to use that preview button!)This message has been edited by truthlover, 06-06-2004 09:45 PM

Like I said to jar, I much prefer your irritation with Paul to silly games. I agree that Paul also condemns the effeminate.I have known a couple effeminate, heterosexual males. Perhaps the early churches asked them to straighten up.As far as acting like sissies, I don't think effeminate actions are the same as acting like a sissy. I do think cowardice is among the major sins condemned by the Scriptures, and I think there's good reasons for that. That's acting like a sissy. I'm not sure that Paul's description of effeminate would have included the "effeminate" heterosexual man that I knew pretty well. Maybe, but I wouldn't have condemned that man. He was not a sissy in any way.

I don't think it was as much about homosexuality as it was about promiscuity, of all kinds along with every other possible misbehaviour. But that is JMHO, and YMMV.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar writes:

quote:

---

It didn't matter if it was a married man seeking a man or woman other than his wife, or a married woman seeking another man or woman other than her husband, or two single men or two single woman or a a bisexual couple.

---

This still leaves the implication that any sex between two men is promiscuous while sex between a married man and woman is not. I strongly disagree. Two men or two women involved in a committed, monogomous homosexual relationship are no more promiscuous than a monogomous, married heterosexual couple.