Are pro-gay Christians really Christian?

[angellous_evangellous]

I know that Plutarch discusses lesbianism, although not using the term nature or natural, but I'm not familiar with any Aristotelian references to lesbianism. In fact, although I can't find the specific reference offhand, I believe that Aristotle at least once refers to some homosexual desires as being determined by nature.

I'll show you mine and you can show me yours when/if you find it.

Some notes on Paul and homosexuality

Homsexuality and Cosmology: Nature and Choice Are Irrelevant

Paul: Sexuality and "Nature"

 

[Inky]

Just curious, is there a Biblical stance on where homosexuality came from before this event?

Not sure what you mean by that.

Most of my Bible experience is just reading it for myself, not formal study, so I could be off, but I figured the rejection of God described in this passage would have had to come after much of the stuff in the OT. Early on God is described as the sponsor of the Jewish people, not a deity who sought out the worship of all nations. So, the idea of Gentiles "rejecting" the Jewish God seems to make more sense as an NT event, when the more universal outreach began.

 

[doppelganger]

If you think you're a "Christian" then you are a "Christian" regardless of whether someone else disagrees.

Why should anyone care what someone else thinks a "Christian" ought to be?

 

[doppelganger]

I tend to agree with Angellous's analysis that there's been some stretching of the Greek to take the edge off the homophobia expressed in parts of the Bible. It's just one more reason (among many) why getting my morality from the "authority" of a literal reading of some ancient culture's mythology is patently silly.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Most of my Bible experience is just reading it for myself, not formal study, so I could be off, but I figured the rejection of God described in this passage would have had to come after much of the stuff in the OT. Early on God is described as the sponsor of the Jewish people, not a deity who sought out the worship of all nations. So, the idea of Gentiles "rejecting" the Jewish God seems to make more sense as an NT event, when the more universal outreach began.

I dunno.

Christianity was an attempt to unite a Gentile Judaism with a Jewish one, which several thinkers had tried to do before. Paul was trying to get Jews to accept Gentiles, and part of that was to show that the Jewish law was universal even though Gentiles may not have known about it... Jews were unable to follow the law anyway, so the grace of God was needed. As far as I know, this is an original idea. Everything in Paul's thought stems from this thinking, and homosexuality and all other sins are a relatively minor example that Paul uses to make his larger point.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I tend to agree with Angellous's analysis that there's been some stretching of the Greek to take the edge off the homophobia expressed in parts of the Bible. It's just one more reason (among many) why getting my morality from the "authority" of a literal reading of some ancient culture's mythology is patently silly.

I used the word "insane," but I probably have more vested in it.

Don't get me wrong - I am a pretty big fan of some of the ideas in the Socratics, Stocisim, and even some Peripatetics, but I don't think that we should incorporate their cosmologies and cultural musings as our own. We have to recognize great progressions from their thinking.

 

[Autodidact]

Well there maybe some cases of hetrosexual married couples having aids, but the questions they ask you before you give blood show who's more at risk.

Well, there may be a few married homosexual couples with AIDS too, but neither are they at much risk. Do you see the mistake you just made by slipping in the "married?" You should never use this argument, though, because the group at lowest risk (other than the celibate) are lesbians. You don't want to find yourself arguing that lesbianism is the healthiest, most natural and moral way of life for women, do you? Especially if you happen to be a heterosexual man!

 

[Autodidact]

The Romans 1 passage explains that both male and female homosexuality is a shameful passion and is the result of a communal rejection of God. How much more can it possibly be demonized?

Yes, this is closer to what it seems to say. Lesbianism, or at least "unnatural" passions, seem to be more of a punishment than a prohibited act. My guess would be that the author, a man with virtually no knowledge of the subject, assumes that heterosexuality is the only natural choice for any woman, so that necessarily female homosexuality would then be an unnatural affliction inflicted on some bad women by God. He was however mistaken, as female homosexuality is quite natural for a small number of women.

 

[Autodidact]

The Romans 1 passage explains that both male and female homosexuality is a shameful passion and is the result of a communal rejection of God. How much more can it possibly be demonized?

right. But, as I have said repeatedly, it's not prohibited. To say that it is is simply a lie; it isn't. Period.

 

[Autodidact]

This post hasn't received any attention.

Although I am completely convinced that the Christian scriptures are against homosexuality, I don't think that is how we should relate to homosexuality today...

That particular post was very interesting, and probably hit the nail on the head. Christians today do not as a rule practice polygamy or slavery either. This however gets into Biblical in/errancy issues and engender controversy.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes, this is closer to what it seems to say. Lesbianism, or at least "unnatural" passions, seem to be more of a punishment than a prohibited act. My guess would be that the author, a man with virtually no knowledge of the subject, assumes that heterosexuality is the only natural choice for any woman, so that necessarily female homosexuality would then be an unnatural affliction inflicted on some bad women by God. He was however mistaken, as female homosexuality is quite natural for a small number of women.

So homosexuality begins with a rejection of God, and not with choice, at least in the mind of whoever wrote Romans 1. As you probably know, there are conflicting views in the ancient world (as preserved in Aristotle, Plato, and Plutarch) as to the causes and nature of homoerotica. Paul chose a view which is clearly anti-homosexual, and the prohibition is strongly implied (in fact there is no other implication from the text), because homosexuality is only practiced to the exclusion of obedience to God.

 

[Wandered Off]

My guess would be that the author, a man with virtually no knowledge of the subject...

Seems to me his knowledge of God was every bit as lacking, yet millions take his specific pronouncements as God's word. Scary.

 

[Autodidact]

I'll show you mine and you can show me yours when/if you find it.

Some notes on Paul and homosexuality

Homsexuality and Cosmology: Nature and Choice Are Irrelevant

Paul: Sexuality and "Nature"

I was looking for references to lesbianism. Would you be so kind as to save me some time and quote them if any? I know Ovid has a poem, and Plutarch mentions Spartan female-famale relationships (I think I can dig that up, with time) but am not aware of any Aristotlelian reference to the subject. Does he? Thanks.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I was looking for references to lesbianism. Would you be so kind as to save me some time and quote them if any? I know Ovid has a poem, and Plutarch mentions Spartan female-famale relationships (I think I can dig that up, with time) but am not aware of any Aristotlelian reference to the subject. Does he? Thanks.

Yeah, I know of more than one reference to lesbianism in Plutarch, and I think two in Plato. I am seperated form my notes now, though, and I'll post them later.

 

[Autodidact]

So homosexuality begins with a rejection of God, and not with choice, at least in the mind of whoever wrote Romans 1. As you probably know, there are conflicting views in the ancient world (as preserved in Aristotle, Plato, and Plutarch) as to the causes and nature of homoerotica. Paul chose a view which is clearly anti-homosexual, and the prohibition is strongly implied (in fact there is no other implication from the text), because homosexuality is only practiced to the exclusion of obedience to God.

That's interesting, angellous, I never thought of it. Kind of a Calvinist view of homosexuality. It contradicts the idea of homosexuality as a choice, rather an affliction. Not exactly pleasant, but it does contradict the view espouses by some in this thread that it is a choice.

 

[doppelganger]

Well, there may be a few married homosexual couples with AIDS too, but neither are they at much risk.

The vast majority of AIDS cases worldwide are transmitted via heterosexual sex. The idea that AIDS is a "gay disease" is very misleading.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's interesting, angellous, I never thought of it. Kind of a Calvinist view of homosexuality. It contradicts the idea of homosexuality as a choice, rather an affliction. Not exactly pleasant, but it does contradict the view espouses by some in this thread that it is a choice.

Yep.

Anyway, I have several references to lesbianism that I will collect in http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/58153-ancient-references-lesbianism.html#post968638.

 

[Autodidact]

Ooh, cool. You're my daddy.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ooh, cool. You're my daddy.

I'm gunna quote you on that if you don't mind.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Wow....