Does the New Testament Anywhere Clearly Talk About Homosexuals?

[Ingledsva]

Not if you love them. And if you're lucky - they love you, too.

Cannibal lovers nibbling away at each other?



*

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Cannibal lovers nibbling away at each other?



*

I'm imagining lovers without arms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-pFAFsTFTI

 

[Ingledsva]

Yes, but did you do it with one or both hands tied behind your back?

Fuzzy handcuffs. You get to guess what I used.




*

 

[Ingledsva]

I'm imagining lovers without arms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-pFAFsTFTI

And - Wouldn't it be a fantastic world if we had that kind of love for each other.



*

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Fuzzy handcuffs. You get to guess what I used.




*

Oh man you're killing me. :biglaugh:

OK, I have a PhD in New Testament, and I've studied the homosexuality question quite a bit. I understand and appreciate how difficult it is to convince a positivist that homosexuality is addressed in anywhere in the NT. There are a few problems:

1) Did the ancients even know about homosexuality?
2) What about the words used?
3) In what way is it meaningful to say that a modern concept of homosexuality is address in ancient terms?

I think all three of these problems are solved, using Romans 1 as the example.

1) The ancients knew that some men and women were only attracted to the same sex and only enjoyed sex with the same sex and refused to marry, etc. We see this in Plato and Plutarch - that I know of offhand - and perhaps other places. But Plutarch is first century, and we can place Paul's opinion of homosexuality within this discussion.

2) Paul's use of "according to nature" is a technical philosophical term utilized by both Plato and Plutarch to describe committed same sex relationships (i.e., not just pederasty, but adult consensual relationships). This removes the ambiguity of other terms and places them in the context of the larger discussion concerning 'homosexuality' (more specifically, same sex relationships)

3) It's impossible to place Paul in modern discussions - like the modern philosophical reflections on orientation - but we can place him in ancient discussions on the same topic - defining 'homosexuality' as 'committed, consensual adult same sex relationships.' While 'homosexuality' would include discussions concerning unwilling relationships like pederasty, rape, and sex slavery (where the vocabulary takes us when ambiguous), the ancient discussion was focused on consensual relationships.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Plato did not discuss homosexuality, except to treat the pleasures of a catamite as an obvious example of disgraceful pleasure. He discussed pederasty, and that somewhat ambiguously.

 

[Jainarayan]

Paul was accepted by the apostles as a fellow apostle. This includes by both Peter, the rock upon which the Church would be built, and John, the disciple whom Christ loved.

Ah! Peter... whom Paul usurped as the spokesman for the early church.

Anyway, if you read the Gospels carefully you will see Jesus often preaches a doctrine for Saints.

Dah wha!? Huh?

As homosexuality was not accepted in ancient Jewish society, there is no reason to think that Christ accepted it. And the apostles, like Paul, inspired by the spirit, make it explicit.

There's no reason to think that Jesus rejected it. If homosexuality was such an "abomination", why did he not speak on it as he did on divorce? Maybe because divorce is hurtful to another person, but consensual same sex relationships are not. Jesus was all about not hurting others. Why are divorce, adultery, and "shacking up", which nary a Christian has not done, not as fixated on today by some Christians as homosexuality is? Why is homosexuality given the honor of primacy amongst abominations? Moreover, Paul was speaking to gentiles, not Jews, among whom same sex relationships were a given, as was promiscuous sex of any sort (gee, just like today), and ritual prostitution. History says that Rome and Corinth were hotbeds of ritual prostitution and promiscuous sex.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Plato did not discuss homosexuality, except to treat the pleasures of a catamite as an obvious example of disgraceful pleasure. He discussed pederasty, and that somewhat ambiguously.

You don't know Plato.

Plato, Sym. 192a

Some say they are shameless creatures, but falsely: for their behavior is due not to shamelessness but to daring, manliness, and virility, since they are quick to welcome their like. Sure evidence of this is the fact that on reaching maturity these alone prove in a public career to be men. So when they come to man's estate they are boy-lovers, and have no natural interest in wiving and getting children, but only do these things under stress of custom; they are quite contented to live together unwedded all their days. A man of this sort is at any rate born to be a lover of boys or the willingmate of a man, eagerly greeting his own kind.

Plato, Laws 1.636c

And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.

 

[dgirl1986]

of course not, your natural desire is to have children. And that is why homosexuality is believed to be unnatural...it doesn't allow you to fulfil your natural desires. It becomes a roadblock to our natural desires.

Has it occurred to you that there could be a reason for that? Who adopts the unwanted children? The baron and the homosexuals, thats who.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I claim this thread for Angellousia!

 

[sojourner]

I was mainly referring to perverting Gods word and character to say that those who practice this sin are acceptable to him.

The Bible uses the word "abomination" to describe it

The bible uses the word "abomination" to describe an act that the writers did not clearly understand. It's a bigger abomination to dehumanize others with a partial interpretation of a biblical passage.

 

[sojourner]

To be honest with you I really am not interested in anything you have to say.For one, you come off as a rude dude.Second, you don't know how to communicate with people in a civil manner.You speak very badly.And you are staff? I do not wish to speak to you anymore.Just leave me alone and please do not contact me anymore.Please.......

...And this to the one who probably knows more biblical Greek than anyone else on the forum, and who was making a civil suggestion to help? :areyoucra

 

[sojourner]

I claim this thread for Angellousia!

If you're lucky, you may receive the honor of being placed on an "ignore" list, like the rest of us.

 

[sojourner]

Oh man you're killing me. :biglaugh:

OK, I have a PhD in New Testament, and I've studied the homosexuality question quite a bit. I understand and appreciate how difficult it is to convince a positivist that homosexuality is addressed in anywhere in the NT. There are a few problems:

1) Did the ancients even know about homosexuality?
2) What about the words used?
3) In what way is it meaningful to say that a modern concept of homosexuality is address in ancient terms?

I think all three of these problems are solved, using Romans 1 as the example.

1) The ancients knew that some men and women were only attracted to the same sex and only enjoyed sex with the same sex and refused to marry, etc. We see this in Plato and Plutarch - that I know of offhand - and perhaps other places. But Plutarch is first century, and we can place Paul's opinion of homosexuality within this discussion.

2) Paul's use of "according to nature" is a technical philosophical term utilized by both Plato and Plutarch to describe committed same sex relationships (i.e., not just pederasty, but adult consensual relationships). This removes the ambiguity of other terms and places them in the context of the larger discussion concerning 'homosexuality' (more specifically, same sex relationships)

3) It's impossible to place Paul in modern discussions - like the modern philosophical reflections on orientation - but we can place him in ancient discussions on the same topic - defining 'homosexuality' as 'committed, consensual adult same sex relationships.' While 'homosexuality' would include discussions concerning unwilling relationships like pederasty, rape, and sex slavery (where the vocabulary takes us when ambiguous), the ancient discussion was focused on consensual relationships.

The problem with #3 is that these relationships were considered "unnatural" by the writer, who did not have as clear an understanding of homosexual orientation as does modern medicine. Therefore, to use such passages to say "the bible says," as a "trump card" over modern medical findings, is clearly an inadequate argument. I would further hazard an opinion that, even though these ancients may have preferred same-sex relationships, they did not identify that way -- at least, not in the same, organic and inclusive way that the modern term implies.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

I claim this thread for Angellousia!

I claim this thread in the name of the Kingdom of Triumphistan.
See... we've even marked it with our flag.

 

[sojourner]

I claim this thread in the name of the Kingdom of Triumphistan.
See... we've even marked it with our flag.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The problem with #3 is that these relationships were considered "unnatural" by the writer, who did not have as clear an understanding of homosexual orientation as does modern medicine. Therefore, to use such passages to say "the bible says," as a "trump card" over modern medical findings, is clearly an inadequate argument. I would further hazard an opinion that, even though these ancients may have preferred same-sex relationships, they did not identify that way -- at least, not in the same, organic and inclusive way that the modern term implies.

It's only a problem if we try to apply what is written to our lives.

Besides, Paul had a choice between writing that it was natural or unnatural -- that's the way that first century people were talking about "homosexuality."

My point in all this is that it's not the homosexuality issue that causes problems in the application of this passage - it's the cosmological issue that is the real problem. That is to say - if we adopt and adapt Paul's view that "homosexuality" is unnatural, then we also must adopt the cosmology that goes with it. The cosmology here isn't that complex - the unification of male and female in their sexual compatibility represents the unification of Christ and the Church and the wholeness that is achieved in the kingdom of God. No other human relationship has that status--and furthermore, homosexual contact destroys this image and causes a break in the wholeness of Christ and the Church and the purity of the kingdom of God.

Funny thing is - 'homosexuality' in Romans 1 could be a rhetorical device to demonstrate the unity of Christ and the Church. I doubt that, but it is possible.

In any case, does the modern Church really want to believe that the cosmos will fall apart just because of homosexual contact? Or can we preserve the heart of the cosmology and get rid of the symbol -- seeing that homosexual relationships are a unifying phenomenon and not a destructive one. That is to say, the symbol no longer has meaning, but the cosmology does -- whereas we cannot keep the symbol and lose the cosmology it represents.

We must consider that homosexual relationships have been around for thousands of years and the cosmos hasn't yet fallen apart.

 

[sojourner]

It's only a problem if we try to apply what is written to our lives.

Besides, Paul had a choice between writing that it was natural or unnatural -- that's the way that first century people were talking about "homosexuality."

My point in all this is that it's not the homosexuality issue that causes problems in the application of this passage - it's the cosmological issue that is the real problem. That is to say - if we adopt and adapt Paul's view that "homosexuality" is unnatural, then we also must adopt the cosmology that goes with it. The cosmology here isn't that complex - the unification of male and female in their sexual compatibility represents the unification of Christ and the Church and the wholeness that is achieved in the kingdom of God. No other human relationship has that status--and furthermore, homosexual contact destroys this image and causes a break in the wholeness of Christ and the Church and the purity of the kingdom of God.

Funny thing is - 'homosexuality' in Romans 1 could be a rhetorical device to demonstrate the unity of Christ and the Church. I doubt that, but it is possible.

In any case, does the modern Church really want to believe that the cosmos will fall apart just because of homosexual contact? Or can we preserve the heart of the cosmology and get rid of the symbol -- seeing that homosexual relationships are a unifying phenomenon and not a destructive one. That is to say, the symbol no longer has meaning, but the cosmology does -- whereas we cannot keep the symbol and lose the cosmology it represents.

We must consider that homosexual relationships have been around for thousands of years and the cosmos hasn't yet fallen apart.

The cosmology is outdated, though, in the postmodern world where sexual identities are not so clear cut, and in which homosexuality is seen as normal and healthy as heterosexuality. Perhaps the cosmology, instead, needs to be based, not upon "sexual compatibility," but upon unconditional love, which is symbolized by committed couples of any identity.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The cosmology is outdated, though, in the postmodern world where sexual identities are not so clear cut, and in which homosexuality is seen as normal and healthy as heterosexuality. Perhaps the cosmology, instead, needs to be based, not upon "sexual compatibility," but upon unconditional love, which is symbolized by committed couples of any identity.

Oh, I agree. As I said:

1) We can't change the cosmology and keep its symbol - that would render the symbol useless.

2) We can't keep the symbol and reject the cosmology

3) We can modify the symbol and the cosmology, that is, rejecting the portion of the cosmology that relies on the symbol. That is to say, the symbol and cosmology need to be modified at the same time.

Where does this leave us?
1) It just would be silly to keep the cosmology without modification if we accept homosexuality, because the cosmology basically says that homosexual contact destroys unity and harmony in the cosmos.

2) We can't say that homosexual contact is inherently evil while rejecting the idea that male/female unity basically keeps the cosmos going.

3) What we can do is remove the requirement for unity between human beings as male/female, knowing that homosexual relationships are healthy and produce happiness and strong families, etc. So we accept homosexuality and recognize that Paul's teaching concerning unity can be appreciated in lifestyles that he rejected. The heart of the teaching is unity, not homosexuality - we modified the secondary example, not the message itself.

 

[sojourner]

Oh, I agree. As I said:

1) We can't change the cosmology and keep its symbol - that would render the symbol useless.

2) We can't keep the symbol and reject the cosmology

3) We can modify the symbol and the cosmology, that is, rejecting the portion of the cosmology that relies on the symbol. That is to say, the symbol and cosmology need to be modified at the same time.

Where does this leave us?
1) It just would be silly to keep the cosmology without modification if we accept homosexuality, because the cosmology basically says that homosexual contact destroys unity and harmony in the cosmos.

2) We can't say that homosexual contact is inherently evil while rejecting the idea that male/female unity basically keeps the cosmos going.

3) What we can do is remove the requirement for unity between human beings as male/female, knowing that homosexual relationships are healthy and produce happiness and strong families, etc. So we accept homosexuality and recognize that Paul's teaching concerning unity can be appreciated in lifestyles that he rejected. The heart of the teaching is unity, not homosexuality - we modified the secondary example, not the message itself.

This^^^^