FollowerOfTheLord
Member
I didn't ask you to believe me once did I? Instead you need to believe God its right there in His Word.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is pro-gay Christianity really a tenable position? (DIR thread)
- Thread starter Saint Frankenstein
- Start date
I didn't ask you to believe me once did I? Instead you need to believe God its right there in His Word.
If you want me to believe that you are an expert on God, telling me things about myself that I know are false is not the way to do it.
Tom
GoodbyeDave
Well-Known Member
I think it depends on your approach to the interpretation of scripture.
Leviticus is quite clear in its condemnation. But if you accept Leviticus in toto, then you should be celebrating the Passover and Day of Atonement! No Christian can accept the OT as it stands, or they'd be a Jew (or at the very least, a Seventh Day Adventist).
Paul is also quite clear in Romans I, but reaction to this is going to depend on to what extent you consider Paul's writings to be divinely inspired. He obviously didn't consider himself a prophet, as in other places he distinguished between things that God required and things that he personally recommended.
There's never a quick answer for Biblical interpretation, unless you just accept the authority of a particular church.
As for what early Christians thought, one has to remember that we have a small number of writers who may not be representative: most people in any religion don't write books about it. Moreover, people at that time had many views which no-one would be defending today, like accepting slavery. I remember Clement of Alexandria (or was it Clement of Rome?) declared it was a sin to shave!
You will discount scripture that tells you that you are wrong, but that only shows how you can’t stand to see the truth.
To take away your argument about Old Testament Scripture take a look at what Paul wrote in the New Testament.
(1 Corinthians 6:9-19) “You know perfectly well that people who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God: people of immoral lives, idolaters, adulterers, catamites, sodomites, thieves, usurers, drunkards, slanders and swindlers will never inherit the kingdom of God.”
I think the position of the Jews and early Christians is perfectly clear from what the Bible says. Attempts to change the meaning of such clearly stated texts as 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 and Leviticus 18:22 and others are doomed to failure, IMO.
EverChanging
Well-Known Member
The Bible doesn't have a lot to say about same-sex intercourse, but what is there does seem on the surface hard to reconcile with gay relationships that involve sex. It is important to note that two gay persons could still have a romantic relationship, even live together, without sex, and there is no condemnation of this in scripture or tradition.
I find certain passages such as the Sodom and Gomorrah story inadequate to condemn homosexuality. The prophets and Jesus denounced the sin of Sodom as inhospitality. Because the angels, thought to be men, were given refuge they were not to be harmed, but the men tried to rape them anyway. So far as I know there are strains of thought within Jewish tradition that did condemn the sin of sodom as homosexual acts, although this interpretation only arose fairly late in Christian tradition. Romans 1 is also interesting. Many early church fathers interpreted these acts to refer to sex during menstruation which was condemned not as a mere purity taboo but as an act of injustice in Ezekiel 18. Indeed the early church fathers condemned sex during menstruation across the board, though they differed as to whether these sins were venial or mortal. The Catholic Church no longer teaches this.
It is important to consider why Jewish and Christian tradition looked on sex between two persons of the same sex as so heinous. The Jewish scriptures don't actually mention sex between two females. The only passage used as a reference to female homosexuality is Romans 1 which is not how early fathers interpreted it. Sex between two women did not involve penetration and did not involve making one man "act as the woman," which in Jewish patriarchal culture was a debasement to a man. In cultures surrounding Jewish and Christian thinkers male-male sex was often rape, an act of humiliating another, often times in war. Other times it involved prostitution, particularly involving pagan gods, or the enslavement of young boys as sex slaves. Given that context for homosexuality it would naturally be condemned. Homosexuality in our modern culture generally involves people who are in loving relationships, relationships that often involve great sacrifice in the face of hostility. Most often gay sex does not involve slavery, prostitution, or cultic prostitution. It is worth considering whether our very different context for homosexuality warrants a re-evaluation of the tradition. Also worth considering is other ways that Christian teaching (by which I mainly refer to Catholic tradition which I am most familiar with) has developed in regard to sex.
Much of the condemnation of homosexuality in Catholicism today involves natural law theory, the same sorts of ideas that prohibit masturbation and contraception as intrinsically evil acts, that prevents an impotent man from marrying, or any person who has a deformity such that (s)he cannot participate in vaginal intercourse culminating in ejaculation within the woman. I find many of these arguments dubious at best, as do even some theologians who accept the traditional moral teachings.
You might find these articles interesting. I can't vouch for everything in them mind you, but I am in general sympathy with the ideas contained therein. They concern homosexuality and contraception from the point of view of a man who identifies as a gay (and partnered) traditonalist Catholic:
Faithful to the Truth: The Testimony of Sacred Tradition.
Pharsea: Contraception.
I find certain passages such as the Sodom and Gomorrah story inadequate to condemn homosexuality. The prophets and Jesus denounced the sin of Sodom as inhospitality. Because the angels, thought to be men, were given refuge they were not to be harmed, but the men tried to rape them anyway. So far as I know there are strains of thought within Jewish tradition that did condemn the sin of sodom as homosexual acts, although this interpretation only arose fairly late in Christian tradition. Romans 1 is also interesting. Many early church fathers interpreted these acts to refer to sex during menstruation which was condemned not as a mere purity taboo but as an act of injustice in Ezekiel 18. Indeed the early church fathers condemned sex during menstruation across the board, though they differed as to whether these sins were venial or mortal. The Catholic Church no longer teaches this.
It is important to consider why Jewish and Christian tradition looked on sex between two persons of the same sex as so heinous. The Jewish scriptures don't actually mention sex between two females. The only passage used as a reference to female homosexuality is Romans 1 which is not how early fathers interpreted it. Sex between two women did not involve penetration and did not involve making one man "act as the woman," which in Jewish patriarchal culture was a debasement to a man. In cultures surrounding Jewish and Christian thinkers male-male sex was often rape, an act of humiliating another, often times in war. Other times it involved prostitution, particularly involving pagan gods, or the enslavement of young boys as sex slaves. Given that context for homosexuality it would naturally be condemned. Homosexuality in our modern culture generally involves people who are in loving relationships, relationships that often involve great sacrifice in the face of hostility. Most often gay sex does not involve slavery, prostitution, or cultic prostitution. It is worth considering whether our very different context for homosexuality warrants a re-evaluation of the tradition. Also worth considering is other ways that Christian teaching (by which I mainly refer to Catholic tradition which I am most familiar with) has developed in regard to sex.
Much of the condemnation of homosexuality in Catholicism today involves natural law theory, the same sorts of ideas that prohibit masturbation and contraception as intrinsically evil acts, that prevents an impotent man from marrying, or any person who has a deformity such that (s)he cannot participate in vaginal intercourse culminating in ejaculation within the woman. I find many of these arguments dubious at best, as do even some theologians who accept the traditional moral teachings.
You might find these articles interesting. I can't vouch for everything in them mind you, but I am in general sympathy with the ideas contained therein. They concern homosexuality and contraception from the point of view of a man who identifies as a gay (and partnered) traditonalist Catholic:
Faithful to the Truth: The Testimony of Sacred Tradition.
Pharsea: Contraception.
EverChanging
Well-Known Member
Follow up:
For more information on how most (if not all) early fathers interpreted Romans 1 in ways other than a reference to homosexuality -- and other information about the interpretation of early fathers on controversial passages such as the story of Sodom and Gomorrah -- you can find much great information in the book referenced below. Some of the author's scholarship has been called into question, but it is a wonderful read and the information on the fathers seemed pretty solid as it is easily referenced:
Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century
For more information on how most (if not all) early fathers interpreted Romans 1 in ways other than a reference to homosexuality -- and other information about the interpretation of early fathers on controversial passages such as the story of Sodom and Gomorrah -- you can find much great information in the book referenced below. Some of the author's scholarship has been called into question, but it is a wonderful read and the information on the fathers seemed pretty solid as it is easily referenced:
Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century
EverChanging
Well-Known Member
Maybe in part, but I wouldn't reduce it to just that. Besides, there is interest an growth in Buddhism in the West, yet Buddhism is not always gay-friendly either, particularly in traditional cultures. Many Westerners may not know that, though.
Last edited by a moderator:
FollowerOfTheLord
Member
Hateful that's your opinion, just like its my opinion to say its gross, immoral, wrong, and a choice.
Last edited by a moderator:
EverChanging
Well-Known Member
Yeah, and only your opinion, I might add.
(1 Corinthians 6:9-19) “You know perfectly well that people who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God: people of immoral lives, idolaters, adulterers, catamites, sodomites, thieves, usurers, drunkards, slanders and swindlers will never inherit the kingdom of God.”
(1 Corinthians 5:11) “What I wrote was that you should not associate with a brother Christian who is leading an immoral life, or is a usurer, or idolatrous, or a slanderer, or a drunkard or is dishonest; you should not even eat a meal with people like that.”
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
Of course that meaning of the word was added in the 20th century. Good luck.
FollowerOfTheLord
Member
Well the good KJV says they will not inherit the Kingdom...
FollowerOfTheLord
Member
Actually many others agree