Please Explain: "Gay Christian"

[sojourner]

Even if your reasoning was correct (ancients didn't know about sexual "orientation), I still see it falling short or being too simplistic to explaining same-sex acts. If the Jews banned MALE same-sex acts because they presumed that all men were attracted to women and women to man, then why didn't they also ban FEMALE same-sex acts? So gay or bi women could fulfill their sexual desires but gay men can't? This is unreasonable. Seems the Jews were more concerned about the penis which leads me to my next point.

I'm going to borrow from the argument from the design here and say that the Jews looked at sex as serving a purpose - with the male and female genitalia as being a design ( a complimentary one at that) to fulfill that purpose - to procreate or as God said "to MULTIPLY". Remember there was no birth control back then so sexual intercourse was an act where pregnancy would be expected compared to today's recreational use of sex. I believe this is also a likely interpretation if this is what the term "one flesh" refers to in relation to marriage.

There are several cultural issues in play here.

First, we have shame and honor embedded in gender identity. Males embodied honor and females embodied shame. So, for a man to "bend over and take it like a woman" was for a male to act shamefully instead of honorably. On the flip side, in order to act honorably, a man would never dishonor another equal (another man). For a man to dishonor another man was to act shamefully.

Second, (and along with the first point), since women embodied shame, they were incapable of acting honorably, and didn't need to act honorably, because the man was the one who brought honor to the household. So women could act shamefully in homosexual acts, and it didn't matter.

Third, the laws mostly applied to the men, since honor and righteousness, as a rule, came to the household through the man. Therefore, female homosexuality need not be mentioned.

Fourth, as you say, there was the whole procreation thing, which was another indicator that homosexuality was unknown as an orientation. If sex was meant for procreation, then a sex act that could not procreate was just unnatural and wrong.

Fifth, salvation (in a manner of speaking) was effected through the propagation of offspring. One's children were one's immortality. When a woman was barren she was said to be without God's favor. So the homosexual act was tied up in the concept of righteousness before God.

So, there were a lot of cultural reasons for the injunctions against homosexuality, none of which are based in morality, so much as they are based in cultural and religio-sexual reasons that simply do not exist for 21st century Euro-Americans.

 

[Ingledsva]

So you're suggesting there weren't any homosexuals at all in the ancient times and that different sexual orientations evolved only later?

In Romans 1:26-27 Paul is clearly talking about men changing their nature. He sure is not talking about men who inherited a so called homosexual orientation. Neither is he talking about men transmitting homosexual behaviour on their children. I think he knew the difference between hetero and homosexual preference, since he's talking about men leaving (giving up) the natural use (function) of the woman.
Another translation says: They stopped wanting to have sex with women.
He was just writing about heterosexual heretics.
Gay boys, as we know them at the present time, don't ever want to have sex with women, so in the case of a gay boy there is no matter of stop wanting to have sex with women.
Paul wasn't writing about gay people, but he did write it so that even gay people would understand how horrible those heretics are.
In fact a heretic is a hetero who decides to become homo. They act as if sexual orientation is a choice. They are very dangerous.

Actually Romans I is talking about the Qadash and Sacred Temple Sex,

It says these people have changed the WORSHIP of YHVH, into the sexual worship of the Act of Creation.


It's pretty obvious if you read it in context, especially from Rom 1:21 down to 26 and 27, that they are talking about sexual acts in relationship to Pagan worship NOT HOMOSEXUALITY.


He is talking to the people of Rome where there are a lot of Temples with Temple Prostitutes.


Rom 1:21 Because that, -- when they knew God,-- they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain (mataioo is actually IDOLATROUS) in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.


Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and serpents.


Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:


~~ ~ NOTE: the people in 24 that dishonor their bodies, are the people WHO worship the Act of Creation in 25! Religious Sexuality! ~~~


Rom 1:25 -- Who -- changed the truth of Deity into a lie, -- and worship and render religious homage -- to the "Act of Creation" more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.


*

 

[AgnosticBoy]

There are several cultural issues in play here.

First, we have shame and honor embedded in gender identity. Males embodied honor and females embodied shame. So, for a man to "bend over and take it like a woman" was for a male to act shamefully instead of honorably. On the flip side, in order to act honorably, a man would never dishonor another equal (another man). For a man to dishonor another man was to act shamefully.

This is one of the reasons why I dislike history and theology - the lack of verification of anything you just said is depressing. Thank God I'm in school for a science!

But lets assume that what you just explained is the precise way of how the ancient Israelites viewed gender identity. The key component of dishonor of the man is "bending over and taking it like a woman" - almost as if he has to act "submissive" to another. Got it.

Second, (and along with the first point), since women embodied shame, they were incapable of acting honorably, and didn't need to act honorably, because the man was the one who brought honor to the household. So women could act shamefully in homosexual acts, and it didn't matter.

Again, instead of asking you to give some evidence as to how we can know that women embodied shame I'll just assume that you're right. So why would shameful acts be isolated to just same-sex acts between women and not other shameful acts? In other words, why are some shameful acts banned for women but not others (e.g. women can't sleep with animals - that goes for males also, they can't have 2 husbands, etc)? Going by your logic women should've been able to do any shameful act since they were already looked at as being shameful.

Fourth, as you say, there was the whole procreation thing, which was another indicator that homosexuality was unknown as an orientation. If sex was meant for procreation, then a sex act that could not procreate was just unnatural and wrong.

Yes. To add to my point and yours, I think the very definition of sex played a role. It would seem that sex only involved the male genitalia engaged in penetration. Anything else was just playing around.

 

[Ingledsva]

This is one of the reasons why I dislike history and theology - the lack of verification of anything you just said is depressing. Thank God I'm in school for a science!

But lets assume that what you just explained is the precise way of how the ancient Israelites viewed gender identity. The key component of dishonor of the man is "bending over and taking it like a woman" - almost as if he has to act "submissive" to another. Got it.



Again, instead of asking you to give some evidence as to how we can know that women embodied shame I'll just assume that you're right. So why would shameful acts be isolated to just same-sex acts between women and not other shameful acts? In other words, why are some shameful acts banned for women but not others (e.g. women can't sleep with animals - that goes for males also, they can't have 2 husbands, etc)? Going by your logic women should've been able to do any shameful act since they were already looked at as being shameful.


Yes. To add to my point and yours, I think the very definition of sex played a role. It would seem that sex only involved the male genitalia engaged in penetration. Anything else was just playing around.

No animal sex because that is listed in the Sacred Sex Temple acts. The punishment is death.


No more then one husband - because this is patriarchy - and the women are broad mares to pop out descendants. More than one man - don't know who the father is.

We know to be a women was considered shameful - by the way they were treated, and the laws concerning them,

- at least two to testify against a male, - life giving menstruation was treated as contaminating,

- If you had a female baby you had to purify longer then for a male,

- then there is that - "Thank God I wasn't born a girl" (however it goes.)


And a whole lot more!



*

 

[AgnosticBoy]

No animal sex because that is listed in the Sacred Sex Temple acts. The punishment is death.

I understand that bestiality is wrong. My point about that was that it would not be dishonorable or wrong for a woman to engage in those acts if they were NOT expected to act honorable as sojourner mentioned in his earlier post. So that one particular point of his isn't convincing regarding why asame-sex acts between women were not banned. I accept some of his other points.

We know to be a women was considered shameful - by the way they were treated, and the laws concerning them,

- at least two to testify against a male, - life giving menstruation was treated as contaminating,

- If you had a female baby you had to purify longer then for a male,

- then there is that - "Thank God I wasn't born a girl" (however it goes.)


And a whole lot more!
*

I can agree with you here. I'd have to say that women were still expected to have some moral decency, especially when it came to fidelity.

 

[Ingledsva]

I understand that bestiality is wrong. My point about that was that it would not be dishonorable or wrong for a woman to engage in those acts if they were NOT expected to act honorable as sojourner mentioned in his earlier post. So that one particular point of his isn't convincing regarding why asame-sex acts between women were not banned. I accept some of his other points.


...

It has nothing to do with the standing of women - or men for that matter.


It is a LAW of YHVH, given to the Hebrew, and punishable by death.


Most likely because it was a Sacred Sex, Temple practice, = Idolatry.


*

 

[Sonofason]

Don't try misdirection. It won't work. The Israelites were, historically, Canaanites. They supposedly came from Canaan to Egypt. But there is nothing in the archaeological record that shows they were ever there in large numbers. There is also nothing in the archaeological record to show that there was a large influx of people into Canaan (when the Israelites supposedly came marching home to the Promised Land). In other words, it didn't happen. The bible is historically wrong on this point.

Wrong
Adam begat Seth, Seth begat Enos, Enos begat Cainan, Cainan begat Mahalaleel, Mahalaleel begat Jared, Jared begat Enoch, Enoch begat Methuselah, Methuselah begat Lamech, Lamech begat Noah,

Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japeth

Ham had sex with his own mother and begat Canaan and Canaan begat all the canaanites.

Shem begat Arpachshad, Arpachshad begat Shelah, Shelah begat Eber, Eber begat Peleg, Peleg begat Reu, Reu begat Serug, Serug begat Nahor, Nahor begat Terah, Terah begat Abraham, and Abraham begat Isaac who God called Israel, the father of all Israelites.

 

[Sonofason]

Don't try misdirection. It won't work. The Israelites were, historically, Canaanites. They supposedly came from Canaan to Egypt. But there is nothing in the archaeological record that shows they were ever there in large numbers. There is also nothing in the archaeological record to show that there was a large influx of people into Canaan (when the Israelites supposedly came marching home to the Promised Land). In other words, it didn't happen. The bible is historically wrong on this point.

The Bible is never wrong, not on any account.

 

[Sonofason]

LOL! It is hilarious how you keep saying that when you don't like the answers.


Look it up outside "religious" archaeologists' work!


- ALL - work done since the original - including recent work with up to date equipment. - prove the original dating was WRONG!


Wood and Piotr Bienkowski debated this in the March/April 1990 issue of Biblical Archaeological Review.


"Wood has attempted to redate the destruction of Jericho City IV from the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) to the end of the Late Bronze I (c. 1400 BC). He has put forward four lines of argument to support his conclusion. Not a single one of these arguments can stand up to scrutiny. On the contrary, there is strong evidence to confirm Kathleen Kenyon's dating of City IV to the Middle Bronze Age. Wood's attempt to equate the destruction of City IV with the Israelite conquest of Jericho must therefore be rejected."



*

Just prove what you say. If you have evidence, show it. The fact that people debate the facts of the matter is not evidence.

 

[sojourner]

The Bible is never wrong, not on any account.

I've presented several examples that you've either patently ignored, tried to misdirect, or (as in here) used the "Nuh-uh!" argument. Perhaps you'd like to actually provide an answer to the examples I gave you?

 

[sojourner]

Just prove what you say. If you have evidence, show it. The fact that people debate the facts of the matter is not evidence.

That's what I'm trying to get you to do.

 

[sojourner]

Wrong
Adam begat Seth, Seth begat Enos, Enos begat Cainan, Cainan begat Mahalaleel, Mahalaleel begat Jared, Jared begat Enoch, Enoch begat Methuselah, Methuselah begat Lamech, Lamech begat Noah,

Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japeth

Ham had sex with his own mother and begat Canaan and Canaan begat all the canaanites.

Shem begat Arpachshad, Arpachshad begat Shelah, Shelah begat Eber, Eber begat Peleg, Peleg begat Reu, Reu begat Serug, Serug begat Nahor, Nahor begat Terah, Terah begat Abraham, and Abraham begat Isaac who God called Israel, the father of all Israelites.

That's very nice, but the archaeological record does not bear the bible out on this.

 

[Sonofason]

The member you refer to is not alone since his or her beliefs are not too different from liberal theologians take on the Bible. There are those in that camp like John Shelby Spong who don't even believe in the bodily or physical resurrection of Jesus Christ which I thought was a primary tenet of Christianity. The main thing I wonder though is what's the point in following a text or a religion when you can be just as effective at making up your own moral standards and having a better understanding of the world through science.

Here's one debate to compare conservative vs. liberal theologian:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsXzu4tcOTI Dr. William Lane Craig (conservative) vs. Bishop Spong

There is no salvation, and no eternal life offered through science. God is the creator of science. Science is knowledge and God holds it all in the palm of His hands.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

It has nothing to do with the standing of women - or men for that matter.


It is a LAW of YHVH, given to the Hebrew, and punishable by death.


Most likely because it was a Sacred Sex, Temple practice, = Idolatry.


*

So you disagree with sojourner then? Got it.... Because it is INCONSISTENT to say that women were not expected to engage in honorable behavior but then to find rules that ban them from engaging in various sexually indecent acts (acts that even men were banned from doing) EXCEPT for same-sex acts. Perhaps if you let sojourner answer for his own claim for starters, that might help.

 

[Sonofason]

That's very nice, but the archaeological record does not bear the bible out on this.

Then keep digging.

 

[Sonofason]

That's what I'm trying to get you to do.

If I were talking to you, I might oblige. But my comment is not directed to you, so please feel free to refrain from commenting.

 

[sojourner]

Then keep digging.

No need. It's not there. The bible is WRONG on this point.

 

[sojourner]

If I were talking to you, I might oblige. But my comment is not directed to you, so please feel free to refrain from commenting.

Translation: "I'm going to ignore your challenge, because I know I'd lose."

 

[Sonofason]

No need. It's not there. The bible is WRONG on this point.

Where is your evidence?

 

[Sonofason]

Translation: "I'm going to ignore your challenge, because I know I'd lose."

What is it you want me to prove?