Homosexuality in the Bible

[Pah]

Let's get back to the topic, shall we?​

 

[s2a]

You can eat your chips -- and ask for more.

Deal with it.

Perhaps poker just isn't your forté.

If only dodgeball were a professional sport, your especial talents of evasion and deflection--as either player or coach/mentor--would find a most harmonious habitat in which to thrive.

In as much, you have my most sincere sympathies. For treatment of your condition, may I suggest a prescribed dosage of Levitra?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

s2a,

Thanks for your insightful interaction with my posts and with the Scripture in post # 312. It's a pretty long post and I'm sorry that I have not had time to respond to you yet.

First, the attitude towards homosexuality is approached from different perspectives in the OT and NT. In the OT, the condemnation of homosexuality is included in ritual purity laws that also include a whole slew of other purity issues including a host of other minor oddities - like keeping menstrating women outside of the camp, impurity after childbirth --- we can include (from my perspective) major sexual oddities like the prohibition of sex with animals and family members.

The NT approaches homosexuality as associated with fornication (unlawful sex or sex outside of heterosexual marriage) and idol worship (Romans 1 especially, thus associating homosexuality with breaking the first commandment). The NT writers were influenced no doubt by the prohibition of homosexuality in the OT law AND Greco-Roman moral philosophers, who encouraged people to live according to reason rather than the desires of their bodies (which is why we get the exhortation to live according to the Spirit of God and not according to the flesh).

The comparison of the prohibition of murder and homosexuality is not strong because the murder prohibition supports the theological concept of the value of the human being and homosexuality is to be lumped in with the other sexual oddities of the ritual law. Being created and given life by God, the human body is special and of highest value in creation. God requires death for murder in the OT not because murder violates ritual purity - which Christians understand to be imputed today to all of us by the sacrafice of Jesus Christ - but because it greatly offends the Creator in the destruction of His highest prize.

Homosexuality in the NT is approached as connected with the loss of self-control that comes from living according to bodily desires. This loss of self-control causes people to worship idols and have what the writers considered to be un-natural sex (Romans 1). In Paul's Gospel, the Spirit of God brings self-control, and if one cannot control themselves sexually, there is only one way to release: heterosexual marriage (1 Cor 7; 1 Thes 4). Since Paul had a first century medical knowledge and no concept of sexuality that we have today, we can apply the same teachings of self-control to homosexual marriage. Knowing that homosexuality itself is not a loss of self-control, but merely sexuality, homosexuals can express their sexuality in the same way that heterosexuals do, thus preserving the teaching of Scripture.

footnotes:
Socrates and Jesus on Lust
Xenophon's Description of Socrates
Cicero and the New Testament
The inside of the cup
Aristotle and Romans 7
Commited Same-Sex Relationships in Plato
Teles on cutting out an eye...
The Greco-Roman concept of original sin

 

[sojourner]

Perhaps poker just isn't your forté.

If only dodgeball were a professional sport, your especial talents of evasion and deflection--as either player or coach/mentor--would find a most harmonious habitat in which to thrive.

In as much, you have my most sincere sympathies. For treatment of your condition, may I suggest a prescribed dosage of Levitra?

I didn't know we were playing poker. I thought we were discussing homosexuality in the Bible. Since I'm not a doctor, I can't suggest Lithium for you. However, being a minister, I can suggest that daily meditation or contemplation might help you to focus more on the present reality and to be more at peace with others.

In the meantime, keep eating those chips!

 

[s2a]

Let's get back to the topic, shall we?

I'm citing Leviticus 20:13 as predicate in argument. Is that off-topic to the thread header of "Homosexuality in the Bible"?

Surely some inevitable leeway in divergent (tangential) discussion is tolerable in the wake of normal discourse?

[P.S. I'm no firebrand advocate of homosexuality, or of same-sex intercourse/interactions; the issue put forward regards/questions what the Bible says (in Chapter and Verse) about homosexuality. The onus of presentable counter-argument (in that being "gay"--sexually--is either OK, or not, in the eyes of the Lord) is borne by those that allege that the Bible readily accedes homosexuality as being both acceptable and righteous in the eyes of the God of the Bible. Unsurprisingly, no quotable C&V has yet been cited to support such a counter-argument. As Al Gore might wryly observe, this is the "inconvenient truth" that more tolerant, moderate, or "liberal" Christians must face and answer (ie, "justify") today. To ignore or dismiss Leviticus 20:13 as a matter of convenience to more contemporary sensibilities and mores, is to allow equally convenient and ready dismissal of any aspects of prospective foundations of "God's Word" as illustrative and/or compelling "truth".]

I tire of the "revelation of one" arguments that cherry-pick whatever faith-based (and individualized) rationales may tend to satisfy one's own present civic/political/societal positions and sensibilities, whilst insisting that Scripture is--in fact--the revealed and inerrant "WORD OF GOD" itself (amongst such self-ascribed claimants of pious revelation). To observe that such rationalizations are "unscientific", is most literal understatement at it's zenith. Uncritical and special pleading accounts/arguments of individually "inspired" understandings/interpretations of either Biblically-derived or manifestly existential "truths" are in fact..."opinion"...beyond any provison of either credible support or independently verifiable evaluation/determination. Tendered opinions are nice enough to ruminate upon, and deliberate accordingly amongst more decent and pleasant folk. But subjective opinion presents neither crediblre fact nor testable evidence upon which to either formulate, nor derive, an objective and unbiased conclusion. To state "I believe", or "I feel" something is "true" (or as being an "absolute truth") is to submit nothing more substantial than a personalized opinion, or a testimony of faith. That's both fine and acceptable within a forum dedicated solely to personal quests of self-validation and qualified admittance to a private club of like-mided individuals...but in a forum open to debate...such rationales fail any test adherent to burdens of objective critical evaluation/conclusion.]

May I be so bold so as to propose that within forums predicated/dedicated to actual "debate"--that applicable standards of reason, ascertainable facts/evidence; and demonstrable burdens of acceptable and evidenced "proof"--be permitted to prevail as/in contrast to proffered personalized "feelings" and subjective/personalized opinions?

REF invites and encourages such deliberations amongst it's member rolls. Evict the cheaters, and dirty, unsportsmanlike players to be sure. But let's not handicap more experienced golfers just because some new players consistently place themselves in the rough.

 

[s2a]

Hello angellous_evangellous,

You said:

s2a,
Thanks for your insightful interaction with my posts and with the Scripture in post # 312. It's a pretty long post and I'm sorry that I have not had time to respond to you yet.

As I am an infrequent visitor myself, I fully appreciate indulging more pressing priorities over online forum interactions. ;-)

First, the attitude towards homosexuality is approached from different perspectives in the OT and NT. In the OT, the condemnation of homosexuality is included in ritual purity laws that also include a whole slew of other purity issues including a host of other minor oddities - like keeping menstrating women outside of the camp, impurity after childbirth --- we can include (from my perspective) major sexual oddities like the prohibition of sex with animals and family members.

OK...and, I know.

In their time and place (and in due consideration of the intended audience), "rules of conduct" were part and parcel of managing (and maintaining) a "civil" society of divergent peoples...the overwhelming majority of which could neither read, nor write; nor fairly contemplate matters of economy, health/sanitation, geopolitics, or sociological impact/implications of the variant cultural "oddities" in any other place of majority practice or exercise of superstitious beliefs. Fear and ignorance ruled the day, so religion (with it's "rules for living") became law by default. Of course, having more than one religion, and differing established "rules" within those religions...manifested some conflicts of opinion...and war.

And so does history account, but recall that my recent inquiry put to you begs of more pertinent answer today.

Perhaps you could illustrate Chapter and Verse that delineates the differences between "then", and now---outlining what "exactly" is forbidden, and what Scripturally referenced "circumstances" validate/support a contrarian argument in opposition to Leviticus 20:13; that "clearly" suggests that Leviticus 20:13 is no longer a valid or merited "understanding" or interpretation of supposed initial intent and meaning?

Your reply (in a sense) follows:

The NT approaches homosexuality as associated with fornication (unlawful sex or sex outside of heterosexual marriage) and idol worship (Romans 1 especially, thus associating homosexuality with breaking the first commandment). The NT writers were influenced no doubt by the prohibition of homosexuality in the OT law AND Greco-Roman moral philosophers, who encouraged people to live according to reason rather than the desires of their bodies (which is why we get the exhortation to live according to the Spirit of God and not according to the flesh).

Within such an immodest stretch of interpretation (absent any direct Scriptural reference); but for the sake of argument, let's proceed...

The comparison of the prohibition of murder and homosexuality is not strong because the murder prohibition supports the theological concept of the value of the human being and homosexuality is to be lumped in with the other sexual oddities of the ritual law.

Hmmm. Is this position truly reconcilable with:
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
- Leviticus 20:13

Again I would assert that your God's declaration here is pretty clear and straightforward (no pun). The Lord sanctions (demands?) the execution of homosexual acts and it's executors. "MUST" is a pretty definitive word here. Equivocation with this "commandment" would seem to be "interpretative" at best, and most certainly within the realm of remaining deliberative debate.

Being created and given life by God, the human body is special and of highest value in creation.

This latter assertion is backed by what referenced C&V, specifically?

God requires death for murder in the OT not because murder violates ritual purity - which Christians understand to be imputed today to all of us by the sacrafice of Jesus Christ - but because it greatly offends the Creator in the destruction of His highest prize.

Indeed, and perhaps so.

If this interpretation is to be accepted as valid, then how can it be that so many self-professed Christians favor imposition of state-sanctioned executions today? If Christ's sacrifice on the cross removed man's righteous implementation of God's Will in the directed and (previously) mandated execution of sinners (lawbreakers), then where in the NT do we find Scriptural sanction for justified/righteous war? Does Jesus teach anywhere in the NT that killing in God's name (or in pious execution of His Will) is either ordained or justified as being righteous? Does He ever suggest that such ascribed motivations are neither justified/sanctified as righteous?

I'm reminded of James 3:17-18:
"But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness."

Righteousness derived from peace, instead of a divine righteousness being validated by war, killing, and murder. Is God ever really on the side of those that willingly choose to go to war, for any reason?

Homosexuality in the NT is approached as connected with the loss of self-control that comes from living according to bodily desires.

I know.

Rationalizations borne of ignorance, naivete, and religious bias are usually--and almost always inevitably--demonstrably flawed and embarrassing in more enlightened times.

Being "gay" is no more a mental illness...than it is an (alleged) utter abandonment of contemporary social mores. I never "chose" to be "straight"--not as a matter of conscience, personal/social rebellion, or lacking control of personal will.

I enjoy (and always prefer) the company of women: intellectually, emotionally, and to the most saleient point...sexually. I can't explain or define why this is so, as it is a part of my personal nature and profoundly innate sexual proclivities.

I can certainly exercise demonstrable "self-control" in the fact that I don't rape or sexually assault every woman that I feel may suit my immediate sexual urges. This aspect of "self-control" does not define my sexuality, nor my gender-preferential sexual partners. I am not sexually attracted to men. Period. And I claim no superior aspect of "self-control" in saying so.

I readily indulge "bodily desires" as time and circumstance (and partner willingness/horniness) allow to fullest extent, and I revel in the subsequent "loss of control" that inspiring hot monkey love between two consenting adults can and does offer.

Oddly enough, I can never recall a time when I willingly "chose" to be "straight". And ya know, pious obedience to some divinely ordained "correct" sexual proclivity never entered my mind either. I enjoy and revel in shared sexual (and the occasional intellectual) intimacies with women. I don't know "why", and I effort no conscious decision-making process in so doing. I figure that (most) homosexuals follow similar tendencies in their own motivations.

This loss of self-control causes people to worship idols and have what the writers considered to be un-natural sex (Romans 1). In Paul's Gospel, the Spirit of God brings self-control, and if one cannot control themselves sexually, there is only one way to release: heterosexual marriage (1 Cor 7; 1 Thes 4).

Understood, but this presents another absurd (and unacceptable) premise...especially within a more "enlightened" perspective towards human sexuality; ie, "only married people can (or should) have sex". People that remain unmarried (either by choice, circumstance, or by pure repulsiveness) therefore have no Godly sanction to indulge the strongest primordial urge known to our species (ask anyone under 70 if they'd rather eat, or have sex--betcha 90% would forego the Twinkee for a decent roll in the hay).

 

[s2a]

Since Paul had a first century medical knowledge and no concept of sexuality that we have today, we can apply the same teachings of self-control to homosexual marriage. Knowing that homosexuality itself is not a loss of self-control, but merely sexuality, homosexuals can express their sexuality in the same way that heterosexuals do, thus preserving the teaching of Scripture.

[Excuse me, but this strikes me as an especially convoluted, and unsupported conclusion as predicated upon Scripture alone.]

I appreciate your derivative evaluation and conclusion as offered "interpretation" (regarding the faithful acceptability of homosexual practices and behavior), but for many Christians (and self-professed skeptics alike), even faith-based rationalizations must eventually be predicated upon some "final word", or compelling presented and referenced evidence(s) that utterly dispel the most prevailing notions of reasonable doubt. For Christians, the "final word" is always sourced from [dogmatic] Biblical Scripture. If the NT suggests that "being gay is OK with God", then where is the definitive C&V that testifies as much? After all, consider the intended audience of the day of the NT...still overwhelmingly illiterate, unschooled, and prone to motivations/actions borne of fear and ignorance. Wouldn't it have been just as easy for Jesus to say "being gay is OK", and therefore forever removed the bias, prejudice, fear, and hatred focused upon homosexuals for over two thousand years running now?

I mean, c'mon. Either God changed His mind about homosexuality, and sent Jesus to clear things up (plainly) for the rest of humanity to accept and understand...or He didn't...and all you shellfish-eatin', workin' on the Sabbath, tampon-wearin', idol-bearing adherent faithful are just deluding yourselves into an eternal weenie roast in Hellfire and damnation.

footnotes:
Socrates and Jesus on Lust
Xenophon's Description of Socrates
Cicero and the New Testament
The inside of the cup
Aristotle and Romans 7
Commited Same-Sex Relationships in Plato
Teles on cutting out an eye...
The Greco-Roman concept of original sin

Ya know (and I appreciate your thoughtful references), in my more intemperate days of vigorous youth and haughty insouciance, I took time to indulge the ruminations of Plato, Socrates, Cicero, Aristotle, et al. I love me some good ole' fashioned philosophy today, really I do. Odd thing is, and virtually to the individual man and mind of the most quotable and saliently introspective philosophers of ages both historical and contemporary, none [and that's a small number] have ever chosen to declare their expositions/ruminations as enforceable law, or some ultimate dispensation of unequivocal "truth". Funny how the Christian religion never really condones that "path"...

If only the Bible had evinced the same amount of care and pointed footnoted reference to external sources of human philosophy and reflection that you have thoughtfully provided.

Alas, it doesn't. At all. Idolatry isn't philosophy...it's just religion in another incarnation different from your own.

The Bible (in OT and NT) seems to be of the position that "God's Word" is the only authority that can lend discernible truth or answer to those niggling existentialist questions of "Why am I here?"; "What am I supposed to do while I'm here?"; and, "What happens when I die?". Noted philosophers since the dawn of recorded history have sought to provide concrete (or suggestive) answer to such direct, yet such complex inquiries remain extant today, with multitudinous profound "answers"..

 

[s2a]

Hi sojourner,

You said:

I didn't know we were playing poker.

There's an old axiom that asserts that "if you don't see the sucker at the table, you're probably it".

I thought we were discussing homosexuality in the Bible.

Others were. I was. I have. I did.

Since I'm not a doctor, I can't suggest Lithium for you. However, being a minister, I can suggest that daily meditation or contemplation might help you to focus more on the present reality and to be more at peace with others.

Cool.

And here I was...all lost and confused...of the mind that daily meditation and contemplation were just some "new age" concepts of personal reflection. Who knew that a follower of Jesus Himself would personally counsel, testify, and endorse such subjective evaluative endeavors for others to pursue?

How cogent and incisive of you to infer that greater personal introspection on my part might lessen my compunctions to be more "at war" with others? How arrogant of you to surmise.. How utterly useless, impotent, and vainglorious of you to suggest on/of my behalf.

I can claim of two close personal friendships with ministers of "Christ's Word" (one Methodist, one Lutheran) that would readily mock your lent counsel in my personal regard, and ridicule your characterizations of my grasp of reality, or of my "peaceful" nature.

But hey...this isn't about me, or my "ultimate" salvation, or soul...it's about what the Bible SAYS and DECREES regarding the "sin" of homosexuality.

I'm not gay. Your status as a minister of God's Word, or mine as a unbelieving and heretical layperson...are essentially moot to the issue at hand.

Tell you what. I won't presume to lend you counsel, or suggest some curative elements of self-introspection" on your part, simply to gain agreement with my perspective. I no more expect you to abandon your faith-based beliefs, than you should expect me to abandon my own deliberative conclusions.

Spare me your proselytizing protestations/advice/counsel of suggestive conscious self-introspection. I have no quarrel with the sheep you keep within the pen you craft and maintain. My only interest is to point towards, and prospectively leave open, the gated door of the pen itself. It's up to you to decide whether or not he sheep should be allowed to wander beyond the fenced environs of strict and pious dogmatic adherence. "Reality" is only constrained by the boundaries of observation and experience you are willing to partake for yourself.

Baaa...

 

[sojourner]

I'm citing Leviticus 20:13 as predicate in argument. Is that off-topic to the thread header of "Homosexuality in the Bible"?

Surely some inevitable leeway in divergent (tangential) discussion is tolerable in the wake of normal discourse?

[P.S. I'm no firebrand advocate of homosexuality, or of same-sex intercourse/interactions; the issue put forward regards/questions what the Bible says (in Chapter and Verse) about homosexuality. The onus of presentable counter-argument (in that being "gay"--sexually--is either OK, or not, in the eyes of the Lord) is borne by those that allege that the Bible readily accedes homosexuality as being both acceptable and righteous in the eyes of the God of the Bible. Unsurprisingly, no quotable C&V has yet been cited to support such a counter-argument. As Al Gore might wryly observe, this is the "inconvenient truth" that more tolerant, moderate, or "liberal" Christians must face and answer (ie, "justify") today. To ignore or dismiss Leviticus 20:13 as a matter of convenience to more contemporary sensibilities and mores, is to allow equally convenient and ready dismissal of any aspects of prospective foundations of "God's Word" as illustrative and/or compelling "truth".]

I tire of the "revelation of one" arguments that cherry-pick whatever faith-based (and individualized) rationales may tend to satisfy one's own present civic/political/societal positions and sensibilities, whilst insisting that Scripture is--in fact--the revealed and inerrant "WORD OF GOD" itself (amongst such self-ascribed claimants of pious revelation). To observe that such rationalizations are "unscientific", is most literal understatement at it's zenith. Uncritical and special pleading accounts/arguments of individually "inspired" understandings/interpretations of either Biblically-derived or manifestly existential "truths" are in fact..."opinion"...beyond any provison of either credible support or independently verifiable evaluation/determination. Tendered opinions are nice enough to ruminate upon, and deliberate accordingly amongst more decent and pleasant folk. But subjective opinion presents neither crediblre fact nor testable evidence upon which to either formulate, nor derive, an objective and unbiased conclusion. To state "I believe", or "I feel" something is "true" (or as being an "absolute truth") is to submit nothing more substantial than a personalized opinion, or a testimony of faith. That's both fine and acceptable within a forum dedicated solely to personal quests of self-validation and qualified admittance to a private club of like-mided individuals...but in a forum open to debate...such rationales fail any test adherent to burdens of objective critical evaluation/conclusion.]

May I be so bold so as to propose that within forums predicated/dedicated to actual "debate"--that applicable standards of reason, ascertainable facts/evidence; and demonstrable burdens of acceptable and evidenced "proof"--be permitted to prevail as/in contrast to proffered personalized "feelings" and subjective/personalized opinions?

REF invites and encourages such deliberations amongst it's member rolls. Evict the cheaters, and dirty, unsportsmanlike players to be sure. But let's not handicap more experienced golfers just because some new players consistently place themselves in the rough.

You aren't a Christian. You don't respect either the authority or the veracity of the Bible. Therefore, your use of it to support your arguments are not cogent.

I have not made the claim that the Bible "readily accedes homosexuality to be acceptable in the eyes of God.

Yeah...so what's the problem? We have always interpreted the truth of scripture through the lens of the time and culture in which we live. Why would you dream up an arbitrary "rule" that says we can't do that? Once again, your gross misunderstanding of how we Christians use our scriptures has led you down the garden path of obfuscation. We do not "conveniently or readily dismiss" the truths contained in the Bible. But we do look beyond the surface reading of the words on the page. We do engage in serious criticism in order to determine what that truth has to tell 21st century Americans, as opposed to 2nd century b.c.e. Hebrews.

Nobody really cares what you're tired of. Why should you be so concerned about what we do with our writings???

See the rebuttal in pink above. We don't do that.

We don't do that either. Usually, in fact, it's those opposed to homosexuality that espouse the Bible as the "inerrant word of God." O-b-f-u-s-c-a-t-i-o-n.

Sooo...what you're saying is that there's no way we can use arguments of faith in a religious forum. That's ludicrous! If you don't like the basis of argument here, find yourself another forum.

As you're doing here.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If the NT suggests that "being gay is OK with God",

I don't think that it does, and I would never try to argue that. However, there are many Christian interpreters of Scripture who have (I think) responsible critical methods that provide insightful and constructive interpretations of the NT that encourage homosexuals to be themselves and enjoy their relationship with God.

The best book that I have ever read on the topic is a collection of scholarly essays: Homosexuality and the Plain Sense of Scripture, edited by my teacher, David Balch. Balch, who is a renown NT scholar, has a daughter who is homosexual, and admits freely that it is not from a plain reading of the biblical text that one moves from a homophobic biblical interpetation but from the human heart - the desire to include the thousands of Christian homosexuals in Chrsitianity in a constructive manner.

As for the references above to 'my God'....

The inhumane treatment of homosexuals in the OT is but a minor reason for us to be angry with God. If we claim that there is a Creator God (as Christians do...), then God apparently created humans and indeed the world with many frailties, and threatens to punish us for simply being who we are, and after we make a mess of ourselves because of our weaknesses, God is either unwilling or unable to bring it to an end. Therefore, God deserves to die.

In Christianity, we have the theology of the cross. We believe that Jesus is God, suffered on the cross, and was raised in victory. The cross is useful to us because we can pour into it all of our anger and hatred for God in a constructive way. I've suggested that God presented himself to die not only for our weaknesses or offenses against him but for God's offenses against us. We can say that we are not powerful enough to kill God - but God volunteers Godself.

Process Theology of the Cross
God's Judgement
Christian responsibility to beg for mercy

 

[sojourner]

Hi sojourner,

You said:



There's an old axiom that asserts that "if you don't see the sucker at the table, you're probably it".




Others were. I was. I have. I did.



Cool.

And here I was...all lost and confused...of the mind that daily meditation and contemplation were just some "new age" concepts of personal reflection. Who knew that a follower of Jesus Himself would personally counsel, testify, and endorse such subjective evaluative endeavors for others to pursue?

How cogent and incisive of you to infer that greater personal introspection on my part might lessen my compunctions to be more "at war" with others? How arrogant of you to surmise.. How utterly useless, impotent, and vainglorious of you to suggest on/of my behalf.

I can claim of two close personal friendships with ministers of "Christ's Word" (one Methodist, one Lutheran) that would readily mock your lent counsel in my personal regard, and ridicule your characterizations of my grasp of reality, or of my "peaceful" nature.

But hey...this isn't about me, or my "ultimate" salvation, or soul...it's about what the Bible SAYS and DECREES regarding the "sin" of homosexuality.

I'm not gay. Your status as a minister of God's Word, or mine as a unbelieving and heretical layperson...are essentially moot to the issue at hand.

Tell you what. I won't presume to lend you counsel, or suggest some curative elements of self-introspection" on your part, simply to gain agreement with my perspective. I no more expect you to abandon your faith-based beliefs, than you should expect me to abandon my own deliberative conclusions.

Spare me your proselytizing protestations/advice/counsel of suggestive conscious self-introspection. I have no quarrel with the sheep you keep within the pen you craft and maintain. My only interest is to point towards, and prospectively leave open, the gated door of the pen itself. It's up to you to decide whether or not he sheep should be allowed to wander beyond the fenced environs of strict and pious dogmatic adherence. "Reality" is only constrained by the boundaries of observation and experience you are willing to partake for yourself.

Baaa...

CHIPS...KEEP EATING THOSE CHIPS! (Or chimps...)

 

[lunamoth]

I don't think that it does, and I would never try to argue that. However, there are many Christian interpreters of Scripture who have (I think) responsible critical methods that provide insightful and constructive interpretations of the NT that encourage homosexuals to be themselves and enjoy their relationship with God.

The best book that I have ever read on the topic is a collection of scholarly essays: Homosexuality and the Plain Sense of Scripture, edited by my teacher, David Balch. Balch, who is a renown NT scholar, has a daughter who is homosexual, and admits freely that it is not from a plain reading of the biblical text that one moves from a homophobic biblical interpetation but from the human heart - the desire to include the thousands of Christian homosexuals in Chrsitianity in a constructive manner.

As for the references above to 'my God'....

The inhumane treatment of homosexuals in the OT is but a minor reason for us to be angry with God. If we claim that there is a Creator God (as Christians do...), then God apparently created humans and indeed the world with many frailties, and threatens to punish us for simply being who we are, and after we make a mess of ourselves because of our weaknesses, God is either unwilling or unable to bring it to an end. Therefore, God deserves to die.

In Christianity, we have the theology of the cross. We believe that Jesus is God, suffered on the cross, and was raised in victory. The cross is useful to us because we can pour into it all of our anger and hatred for God in a constructive way. I've suggested that God presented himself to die not only for our weaknesses or offenses against him but for God's offenses against us. We can say that we are not powerful enough to kill God - but God volunteers Godself.

Process Theology of the Cross
God's Judgement
Christian responsibility to beg for mercy

Great post A_E. At times you simply blow my mind.

 

[sojourner]

Odd thing is, and virtually to the individual man and mind of the most quotable and saliently introspective philosophers of ages both historical and contemporary, none [and that's a small number] have ever chosen to declare their expositions/ruminations as enforceable law, or some ultimate dispensation of unequivocal "truth". Funny how the Christian religion never really condones that "path"...

That's a fine observation, but philosophy and theology are two different disciplines. While philosophy wrestles with questions about humanity, theology wrestles with issues of the divine. I'm not really sure why some treat theology as an engine for answering questions as opposed to an engine for generating questions.

I do know that some, repeat, some books of the Bible contain Law. It follows, then, that some do not. I'm not convinced, though, that the Law should be treated as immutable or unchageable. We certainly fiddle around with civil law a lot in this country! (While the Levitican Law certainly condemns homosexual behavior, I'm not sure that law is paricularly applicable in this time and place, just as the law concerning garments of mixed cloth is not applicable in this time and place.)

The Bible (in OT and NT) seems to be of the position that "God's Word" is the only authority that can lend discernible truth or answer to those niggling existentialist questions of "Why am I here?"; "What am I supposed to do while I'm here?"; and, "What happens when I die?".

While the Bible certainly takes the position that God's word is final, it can be reasonably argued that the Bible is only part of God's word. God's word also comes to us through Tradition and through revelation. I think we make a mistake when we treat the printed words of the Bible as the absolute word of God, and the only word of God. We must remember that the Bible is largely a matter of "somebody said that God said this." Many reputable (and the great preponderance of liberal scholars) treat the Bible as "second-hand information" in this regard. We do rely on the Bible to help us wrestle with these questions. We also rely on our religious leadership, as well as personal revelation in the matter.

Noted philosophers since the dawn of recorded history have sought to provide concrete (or suggestive) answer to such direct, yet such complex inquiries remain extant today, with multitudinous profound "answers".

There are probably not definitive answers to these questions. To make theology an absolute in these matters is a salve for the burning questions, at best. To blanket these questions with God is, in a certain sense, applying a panacaea, if one does not then go further to ponder the same questions again from a divine angle. The "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" approach doesn't wash with me.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Great post A_E.

Thanks... I am thinking about how to apply this whole idea to the Eucharist and Pauline theology.

Paul talks about being crucified with Christ and ressurrected (Romans 6; Col. 3) - we are to die to self to gain control of ourselves and live a life "by the Spirit."

After God offers Godself on the cross, he looks to us and says, "now it's your turn" (Mark 8.34) - but we go in the power of the one who went before us. Because God went first, there is no sting (Ephesians 5; 1 Cor 15.55; Phil 2.1-11), only the painful process of allowing ourselves to be weak. In the Eucharist we hold in our hands the broken God, ingesting the power to go where God went.

In any case, the cross is there for us to use it as we will. It's a violent image, but the world is a violent place - we are victims of God and other human beings - and indeed many of us are criminals. The message of Chrsitianity is that we know God through suffering - that of Christ and our own. How appropo that we have a God who is dangerous and unpredictable ...

 

[sojourner]

I appreciate your derivative evaluation and conclusion as offered "interpretation" (regarding the faithful acceptability of homosexual practices and behavior), but for many Christians (and self-professed skeptics alike), even faith-based rationalizations must eventually be predicated upon some "final word", or compelling presented and referenced evidence(s) that utterly dispel the most prevailing notions of reasonable doubt. For Christians, the "final word" is always sourced from [dogmatic] Biblical Scripture. If the NT suggests that "being gay is OK with God", then where is the definitive C&V that testifies as much? After all, consider the intended audience of the day of the NT...still overwhelmingly illiterate, unschooled, and prone to motivations/actions borne of fear and ignorance. Wouldn't it have been just as easy for Jesus to say "being gay is OK", and therefore forever removed the bias, prejudice, fear, and hatred focused upon homosexuals for over two thousand years running now?

I mean, c'mon. Either God changed His mind about homosexuality, and sent Jesus to clear things up (plainly) for the rest of humanity to accept and understand...or He didn't...and all you shellfish-eatin', workin' on the Sabbath, tampon-wearin', idol-bearing adherent faithful are just deluding yourselves into an eternal weenie roast in Hellfire and damnation.

Not always, and certainly not all Christians. Only those who insist upon 1) infallibility of scripture and 2) a literalistic reading of the same use the "final word" paradigm. Some of us aren't so sure the "word" is so final.

Except that God never said, "Homosexuality is wrong." Somebody -- some human being -- said that homosexuality is abominable in God's sight. Maybe the issue of homosexuality is 1) more of a gray area to modern, Western humanity than it was to ancient, Eastern humanity, and 2) being given way too much importance by fundamental Christians than it should be. Neither Jesus (nor the gospel writers) appear to be too concerned about the issue.

I don't think it's that God has "changed God's mind." I think that it's a simple issue of modern humanity holding a different world view and relating to God in a different way than our ancestors did. Holding the very human document of the Bible to a different standard of infallibility and immutability than any other human document is a big mistake. For some of us, the Bible does not define the absolute extent of human righteous behavior, as it is read literalistically. Like the Constitution, we interpret its truths based upon the perspective of our own day.

 

[Pah]

You aren't a Christian. You don't respect either the authority or the veracity of the Bible. Therefore, your use of it to support your arguments are not cogent.

We have here a most specious argument. Visiting lawyers must agrue within the law of the locality.

 

[sojourner]

Visiting lawyers must also respect the local law, as well as local practice, or else they're held in contempt, and their arguments are held as inadmissible.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

We have here a most specious argument. Visiting lawyers must agrue within the law of the locality.

More correctly an ad hominim fallacy.

From the mighty wiki, blessed forever:

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

1. A makes claim X.
2. There is something objectionable about A.
3. Therefore claim X is false.

Examples:
"You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well." "You feel that abortion should be illegal, but I disagree, because you are uneducated and poor."

That sojourner's statement fits this definition is more than obvious.

You aren't a Christian. You don't respect either the authority or the veracity of the Bible. Therefore, your use of it to support your arguments are not cogent.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Besides, Christianity has rarely corrected itself with respect to its immorality. Reform has come from merciful hearts who address the protests of "outsiders" who challenge the soul-less interpretation and application of Scripture.

The criticisms of Burtrand Russell and Neitzsche come to mind - and the reactions of Christian leaders to these criticisms can be found from fundamentalists to Roman Catholics.

 

[lunamoth]

Besides, Christianity has rarely corrected itself with respect to its immorality. Reform has come from merciful hearts who address the protests of "outsiders" who challenge the soul-less interpretation and application of Scripture.

The criticisms of Burtrand Russell and Neitzsche come to mind - and the reactions of Christian leaders to these criticisms can be found from fundamentalists to Roman Catholics.

The saddest thing of all is that Christians find themselves scrambling to find a way around the 'authority' of Scripture so that we may Love as Christ loves us.

luna