The bible and homosexuality

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.

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.

This just isn't true. Since that time is the general opinion of a lot of people that one or two things he endorsed or tolerated should not be endorsed or tolerated, such as slavery or a subordinate role for women. There are also a lot of people, not a majority or barely a majority, who disagree with Paul on a lot of things, and there are a very, very few who would agree with you that many of the practices he endorsed or tolerated are immoral."We have come to realize" is utterly meaningless in the west, where the idea of how people should live varies immensely. People in general are way too alone and unhappy to make "we have come to realize" mean anything impressive.

Sorry, got busy again. Haven't been able to get back here in a while. I don't know what's been said between the post I'm responding to and this one. I'm sure they are in your estimation.First, I don't believe that Paul "promoted" slavery. He did discuss it with no attempt to put an end to it. Slavery has been common in a number of societies where it bore no resemblance to the awful things that happened to blacks in the United States, and where it was little different than an employer/employee relationship in the U.S.I live in a community of about 200 people. The women here live in what we believe is the same subordinate role Paul would have approved of. Any of the single ladies living here, and there's a dozen or so, could walk away today, and not one of them wants to. Probably the most typical comment from visitors to our village is how peaceful it is and how happy everyone is.You're welcome to call a submissive role for women immoral. I don't agree with you, a significant percentage of America doesn't agree with you, and I don't think I see anything in mainstream western society that lends much authority to its views on the matter.But then, I'm also sure I would define Paul's idea of a submissive or subordinate role for women much different than you would. I didn't see that this was relevant. I think you're drawing assumptions about my views on the Bible from my comments about Paul. The story of Lot is a very old story and comes from a society much different than the one I live in. I think what Lot did was awful. You're right, you could, and if we're talking about the American version of slavery, you'd find me among those. I'm not sure that I'd agree that the 19th century version of slavery in India was immoral, although the caste system that it was a part of I agree is awful.Either way, that's one. You said many. Here's two, but this doesn't apply to the issue of immoral for two reasons. One, people who agree that women should be allowed to speak in church might very well not agree that a man who didn't allow that speaking 2,000 years ago, in that society, was necessary immoral for going along with his society's attitudes in that area. Two, and more significantly, it would be likely to be a minority who would agree that Paul didn't allow women to speak in church. He talks about women praying and prophesying in the same chapter. Female prophets are mentioned in the NT. Paul described Phoebe and Prisca as fellow workers, and Junia as being "of note among the apostles." It's awful hard to be certain what he was talking about in 1 Cor 14. My complaint is not about your moral views. Obviously, we have a different opinion on the morality of practicing homosexuality, which would have been obvious, I think, even prior to this discussion. But on the subject of Paul, my complaint is your harsh judgmentalism of him. I think you have taken his words in the worst possible way, ignored his cultural context, and condemned him as immoral based on those judgments.I would add that I think you're putting the slavery he spoke of in an American context, and I don't think that's accurate, either.In the end, your conclusion that "The fact that Paul promoted both is enough for me to conclude that his epistles are of no moral value whatsoever," is, in my opinion, unjustified.

Glad you asked.There are two types of slavery described even in the Law of Moses. One's for captured foreigners, and it is the ownership of another human being that you think of when you think of slavery. The other is the indentured service that a Hebrew could commit himself to. Both are referred to as slavery in ancient writings.So there are two things at work in Paul's references to slavery. One, that slavery was often something one commited himself/herself to, and it wasn't a whole lot different than our employer/employee relationships. Two, where the other type of slavery was happening, there wouldn't have been a whole heck of a lot Paul could do about it, besides what he does, which is to ask for a master to treat his slave kindly. I never said anything about women or girls being inferior. Right, it was a comment. My answer was that your question is irrelevant. Are we discussing Biblical inerrancy or something? I thought we were discussing Paul.But here's another comment. The Bible is silent on everything. It's an inanimate collection of various types of writings. We could discuss why the writer of Genesis or the culture that passed the Lot story along were silent on Lot's behavior, but I still wouldn't see where that was relevant, because Paul didn't write Genesis, lived a thousand years later, and was from a mixed Greek/Hebrew culture. No, I think he was supposed to be telling disciples of Christ how to live in a society that they could expect to be opposed to them. Because reforming society had nothing to do with his mission or message.

Well, your post looked like it degenerated to complaints and rambling that have nothing to do with facts or truth, so I'm just going to point out a couple things on the off chance that anyone is actually paying attention to our discussion. My point was that your definition of slavery was too narrow, not that Paul didn't mean what he said. Your definition of slavery is still too narrow, so you can't understand what's being said. That's no one's fault but your own. I can only guess this was said in order to make the argument continue or something. It's pointless. Ok, great. I'm not wanting to assert that the Bible condemns cowardice, and I've told you that repeatedly. We're discussing Paul here. Lam asked if there's anywhere that the Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality. Clearly, the point was that none of the verses in the Bible are actually talking about homosexuality. In my opinion, that point so inaccurate that it's ridiculous to make, so I quoted some verses. It's obvious from this and previous discussions that no one can dispute that.Now you want to know why the Bible doesn't condemn Lot's actions, and it has nothing at all to do with anything we've talked about, although really, I've answered you twice, but you're too busy finding arguments and complaints to listen. Oh, well. Another irrelevant question. I can't answer for Christians, and I certainly don't want to defend or be found agreeing with their political opinions. This is where I decided you weren't interested in discussing or looking at anything. This is just silly. These two sentences are two completely different subjects. The first one is just wrong, and you have pretty much had to admit it is wrong. The second is totally up to you, and I have never been on or discussed that subject at any point, because I don't think "the Bible" is anything more than a collection of books. I don't think those books can be discussed together, as though they were one book.However, you said some really awful things about Paul, and I answered those, and you haven't been the least bit reasonable in discussing those things. In my opinion, since you couldn't defend your tirade against Paul specifically, you're wanting to expand the topic to the whole Bible, and I don't have time to discuss the 85,000 complaints you may be able to dream up against the various books of the Bible. I was willing to defend Paul against your bitterness and venom, so I took the time to do that, and I am satisfied at this point with the effectiveness of my defense, so I'm all done now. Thanks for your time.

Well, I'm satisfied with what I've said on the whole issue, but Berberry had a well-justified objection that I need to explain: Berberry's point is that by saying this I'm lying about my statements about the Bible.I couldn't even find this quote by me. I'm sure I said it back at the beginning of this discussion, maybe three, four, or five posts ago, when I was putting a comment by Paul about effeminacy in the context I think it belongs in. In that situation, I was simply giving a context for Paul.Since then, Berberry has somehow been determined to make an issue about Genesis not saying something negative about Lot's actions in Sodom. I cannot imagine what that has to do with anything at all, much less with anything we're talking about, and that is what I have said repeatedly.Using the Scriptures in general as a context for something Paul said and trying to prove the Bible is for or against something are two completely different things in my eyes. Nor do I use Scriptures and Bible interchangeably, except when I'm talking with Christians, because they do (so sometimes I use their terminology). I don't and have not for a long time held to a "Bible" condemnation or approval of anything at all. This does not stop me from using the Scriptures in general (which to me consist of writings both in and not in the Bible) as a context for Paul or others who I believe to be the same spirit as Paul.The question of this thread, and the one I addressed, was "does the Bible condemn homosexuality explicitly anywhere." I answered that satisfactorily, in my opinion.And if Berberry doesn't feel he admitted that, then that's okay. I misinterpreted him. Because of his constant references to Paul as "homophobic," I made an assumption that he agreed. It seems bizarre to call someone homophobic and then to suggest he approved of loving, monogamous homosexual relationships, but if that's what he says he's doing, then I'll grant that.

Well, this doesn't seem to have turned out too bad in the end.Sorry. Saying that I had a faulty memory on this subject is accurate, but in my own defense, the reason I didn't remember and the reason I didn't know what you were trying to rebut is that I never intended to assert such a thing, so I didn't realize I had said something that sounded like that. I was simply pointing to a pattern, and the thought in my mind for that pattern was mostly Revelations' statement that the cowardly won't enter the holy city. It lists fearfulness first, as a matter of fact (Rev 21:8).There is such a pattern, with the Psalms full of statements not to fear and statements like "The righteous are as bold as a lion."Since you appear to be saying (I hope I'm getting this right this time) that since the writer of Genesis doesn't condemn Lot for his actions, then the Scriptures don't have a pattern of being against cowardice, I'll answer that differently. I think it does have that pattern, and I think the story of Lot fails to be analyzed in that way, because it's a very old story. The story seems awful to us nowadays--including me--, but my answer to why it's not condemned by Genesis is because the story apparently didn't seem immoral or cowardly 3,000 years ago. That strikes me as being as terrible as it strikes you, but I don't think it makes my point invalid as far as there being a pattern of "anti-cowardice" to interpret Paul by.On the other hand, I'm not in any way sure that's what he meant. The Greek theater in his day, according to several of the early fathers, involved teaching boys to live effeminately and homosexually so they could play women in the plays. I've never researched the truth of that, although I've no reason to question it at this point, but it was something the early Christian communities believed. Maybe that's what Paul was referring to.I'm sorry this is long, but now I'm trying to backpedal a bit, because in my eyes, there are several possible interpretations of 1 Cor 6 other than "Paul was just a homophobe who condemned anyone who carried their wrist too accutely or spoke with a soft voice."I was, and am, strongly saying your characterization of Paul is a characterization of Paul, and I don't believe it's an accurate one nor your vehemence toward him justified. I'm not trying to strongly back up an interpretation of 1 Cor 6 concerning effeminacy, because I can't.I want to stand solely on the argument I was trying to make, not on others I might have seemed to have been making. You said something along the lines of "the Bible is not a valid code of morality for today." I'm not even disagreeing with that. I believe there is a God, that God wants and has a people for himself, and that God makes his will known in that people. I believe Paul was a part of that people in his time, and so I chose, and am choosing, to defend him.I hope that's clearer. I don't imagine you'd like our code of morals any better than Paul's, because we believe homosexuality is against God's morals, too, but I am not trying to promote applying Genesis' morals to the United States today.