Homosexuality and Scripture

Well, from my perspective it shows the inconsistencies of the "inerrantist" perspective:

- when Paul said that it was better not to marry and that the only people who should marry are those who cannot control their lusts that was "specific advice for a specific context" because we have other verses that contradict it.

- but when Paul said that women should not lead that was an eternal rule for all time, because the verses that contradict that (Gal 3:28 for instance) aren't relevant

- and the very minor references to some types of homosexual contact must be universal rules because we think it's icky.

It's funny how you folks think liberals are the ones with the inconsistent hermeneutic.

Joshua

 

Friend speaks my mind.

 

Rev. Joshua said:

from my perspective it shows the inconsistencies of the "inerrantist" perspective:

Let's examine these "inconsistencies," shall we?

- when Paul said that it was better not to marry and that the only people who should marry are those who cannot control their lusts that was "specific advice for a specific context" because we have other verses that contradict it.

It remains to be shown that there are other verses that contradict it. In any case, the reason Paul was giving "specific advice for a specific context" was, as I said, because Paul said so - not because it is a convenient excuse for harmonizing an alleged contradiction.

Paul wrote chapter 7 "concerning the things about which you wrote" (7:1) and in light of "the present distress" (7:26). That is a plain reference to a specific situation or context.

Moreover, he says that his advice is "by way of concession, not of command" (7:6); that part of what he writes is not according to divine commmandment, but personal advice (7:12,25; cf. 7:10).

So there is every reason to take much of 1 Cor. 7 as wise counsel with a certain amount of flexibility, rather than firm, divine, absolute command equally applicable in every context.

Over and against this, on the other hand, is 1 Cor. 6:9-10 - a catalogue of "unrighteousness" taken entirely from the holiness code of Leviticus 18-20, with the single exception of drunkenness. Paul's condemnation of homosexuality and other wickedness in this section is firmly grounded in divine law. He apparently even coins a word for "homosexuality," arsenokoites, based on his reading of the proscription against homosexual acts in Lev. 20:13. He appeals to the Corinthians on the basis of what they already know.

Context.

- but when Paul said that women should not lead that was an eternal rule for all time, because the verses that contradict that (Gal 3:28 for instance) aren't relevant

Again false. The rules against female authority in the church are for all time because they are grounded in creation: Adam was created first (1 Tim. 2:13), and Eve fell first (2:14).

In addition, why is Gal. 3:28 not relevant? Because Paul is not addressing the question of authority in the Church. The only discussion of authority in Galatians is Paul's defense of his own apostolic authority in chs. 1-2.

In Gal. 3:28 Paul is addressing the basis upon which we are saved, and his argument culminates in his saying that the basis of salvation is the same for all. There are not different conditions to be met by "Jew" vs. "Greek," "slave" vs. "free man," "male" vs. "female."

Context.

- and the very minor references to some types of homosexual contact must be universal rules because we think it's icky.

Perhaps with your humanistic, anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions you can dismiss these "very minor references" so cavalierly. I cannot, and will not.

I have already dealt with how the proscription against homosexuality is anchored in the design of creation, and you simply chose to ignore it by chasing a rabbit trail of setting Paul against Moses. Perhaps you would care to go back and tell me where I was incorrect in my reading of Genesis 1-2?

[ September 27, 2002, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

What was Paul's wife's name again?

Was it Paul who had no need for sex or women?

I'm not saying he was homosexual, I'm saying he had some type of problem with sex, many people do. But that doesn't justify them projecting their problems onto others. Following Pauls direction for men and women, there would be no people left on earth now.</font>[/QUOTE]1 Cor. 7:8-14
For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

 

Quote by Post it

"I'm not saying he was homosexual, I'm saying he had some type of problem with sex, many people do. But that doesn't justify them projecting their problems onto others. Following Pauls direction for men and women, there would be no people left on earth now".

Paul had a problem with sex eh! Wrong again. Sex outside marriage he most certainly spoke against but not in wedlock. Read Hebrews 13:4- "Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge."

To all on this panel who uphold what the scripture says as oppossed to Post it and Rev. Joshuas distorted interpretation of it, I'd just like to give a big Here Here. And to Weeping Prophet a special Here Here to you because there's no point backing up your very valid arguments with scripture as these two dont pay any attention anyway. So as for you Post it, your the one that should learn to back things up from scripture. I dont see you providing an abundant supply of referenced quotes from scripture to back up your arguments so maybe you should learn something. Rather, all you are doing is attempting to greatly dim that life giving light to the blind revealed through Gods word by argueing that Gods word is so unclear that we cant know what sin is. This was clearly seen in your response to Katies post "if sin isnt sin , then why do we need Jesus", of which you replied:

"So who is right? God is right and we don't know but a tiny part of the truth. We can't know and won't know until we meet him".

Then whats the point of reading scripture if its so obscure that it only generates arguments. Whats the point of you coming in here sprouting of your backward, round about arguments of circular reasoning and trying to back up these empty untruths which have no weight behind them whatsoever with scripture if you youself say that it virtually benefits nothing and that we won't know anything until we meet God face to face. Why is it called Gods revealed word? Do you really think that its Gods intention to present us with a book that is so obscure, lacking the slightest bit of clarity that it has all the members of his church scrambling around in the dark trying to determine its real meaning? I dont see that and I dont see the majority of true Christians boggling their minds and confounding themselves trying to extract meaning from His word that ISNT EVEN OBSCURE. I do see two wolves in sheeps clothing, greatly decieved who seem to say that God is so ungenerous, after all that He has done by giving over His beloved Son, to leave 'The way the truth and the light' still in ambiguity and has purposefully structured his word soley to create debate and division in the church.

You two truely are going to be accountable to God for promoting non scriptual based ideas and contributing to world inhabited by a confused mass of people who are told that Gods word is a very delicate piece of material to decipher and therefore cannot be understood.

You Post it think you have your argument in a nutshell. Well in the words of John Clease I tell you 'nutcase more like it'

And as for you Rev. Joshua, is the debate getting a little to hot for your liking. I notice you like to keep in the background until things cool down a bit so you can again enter into "nice, friendly, open minded and tolerant debate that caters for the implementation of newage ideas and humanistic trimmings. You cant incorporate the worlds liberal ideas and man made philosophies into scripture. Next you'll be telling us your a theistic evolutionist that wouldnt surprise me at all.

One last thing- Be Afraid! Be Very Afraid! You provoke God to wrath. And when you do finally come face to face with God you can present your arguments before him. See what He has to say!

 

Kirk, I'm sure all of this made perfect sense to you when you wrote it, but it's not grounded in reality. I'm not aware that I've ever dodged debate here, although I do have a real life and sometimes can't post a reply for a couple of days. As for humanism and New Age teachings, I am neither a secular humanist nor a New Age quack. I am a Christian minister who happens to disagree with some of those here on an issue of biblical interpretation.

As for theistic evolution - of course I'm a theistic evolutionist. Who isn't?

Joshua

 

It saddens me to read children of Christ going back and forth at each other. This is not how Christ wants us to be. He set the perfect example for us, not that anyone of us can be perfect. But the word is what the word is. No one has the rights to pull out words here and there and make them as they wish them to read. A debate such as this, with people who refuse to even consider what the word of GOD truly states is a debate not worth discussing

[ September 30, 2002, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Angie ]

 

As I expected, Joshua was not able to cite a source that is not recent- meaning that his view has no support amongst the great saints and Bible scholars of the past. In particular, the absence of any agreement from the first 300 to 400 years of Christianity is telling. Their societies were in many ways much more permissive than ours. If there were any qualifications or ambiguity about the condemnation of homosexual behaviour, it is beyond pale that they would not have addressed it. Quite apparently, if homosexual marriage were allowable by God, it would have been to the advantage of early Christians to say so in some areas.

This supposed biblical/Christian justification of homosexuality represents a departure from both the Bible and the historical, orthodox Christian view of morality.

Again, it is not surprising that the closest you can come to historical evidence relies on the historical revisionism of a contemporary writer. By the way, the question is not whether it was accepted or "winked at" due to social/political pressures but whether anyone seriously commented on the subject from a strictly unbiased, orthodox Christian perspective.

You have done nothing more than answer the question I did not ask. I do not necessarily deserve your time or response... and I do sympathize with you being in the distinct minority here. However, if this is in fact a recently derived opinion without basis in church history or the Bible as I believe it is then you are left with a god that adjusts his holy precepts according to the popular opinions of men... this is not the God of the Bible regardless of which parts you choose to accept or deny.

Obviously, I disagree with your view of the Bible. But even arguing from your perspective, what passage in the Bible says that any sexual activity outside of marriage is acceptable? And also, if marriage is required to legitimize sex then please cite a biblical passage or principle that affirms homosexual marriage.

If you cannot cite one then perhaps history. If not history then by what authority? Do you claim to be under direct inspiration of God with the authority to approve what He has previously condemned and not affirmed?

You claimed piety. Does not piety imply self-less submission? How is piety demonstrated when you deny what scripture says while affirming what it does not affirm?

...still present today. Notably, women are treated much better when the Bible is held in high regard. Even some feminists have seen the pitfalls of having a "gender blind" society.

...still present today. Notably, it is when scripture is not respected that the worst abuses take place.

... in some places yes. But in other places around the Mediterranean homosexuality was honored. If my memory doesn't fail me, there was a whole Greek philosophical thread that accentuated sensual experience (to include homosexuality) as a means to know God... far from being condemned, it was hailed.

The context of scripture is man's universal depravity and sinfulness. It has not changed in the past 2000 years. Every problem they had, we have because people are still driven by their own lusts.

Of course, many liberals like to believe that mankind is basically good and evolving into something even better. This belief like so many others held by liberals stands in contradiction to historic orthodox Christianity and the Bible. The story of the Bible is that man is sinful and in need of a Saviour.

 

If every Homosexual living in the world today would get themselves saved by the blood of the Lamb--their false sex would be eradicated from planet Earth!

The way I figure--pretty soon there will be a doctor who comes along and makes an announcement to the new parents--"You got yourselves a boy!"--will get his pants sued off when it turns out years later--the boy suddenly discovers he ain't! And that the doctor was wrong all along!

Ain't it something that human beings are the only species who does what the other animal species refuse to do! There is a law of nature that says that no animal can be a homosexual! Guy dogs aren't gay! Girl dogs aren't gay! How come only humans want to be gay?

Your friend,
Blackbird

 

There is a law of nature that says that no animal can be a homosexual! Guy dogs aren't gay! Girl dogs aren't gay! How come only humans want to be gay?

Not true. The animal kingdom is replete with mammals that engage in all sorts of sexual behaviors that for humans would be adultery, fornication, group orgies, sodomy, and same gender copulation. All as part of normal interaction for those animals.

This neither supports nor refutes the biblical issue at hand.

[ October 01, 2002, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

Wrong Dr. Blackbird,
The article "Queer creatures", in the New Scientist magazine No2198, of the 7th August 1999, by Gail Vines, has discussed the recent publication of Bruce Bagemihl's book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. This book seems to have finally laid rest the myth that homosexual behaviour is "unnatural", or at least, it confirms that many wild animals do not follow a "heterosexual" styled pattern of behaviour.

The bonobos ape (males and females) ingage in same-sex behavior as a matter of day-to-day activity. It is "normal" for them. This is very common knowledge.

Sounds like interesting reading Post it, Is this some sort of coffee table book with foldout pictures or something? As I said it is very interesting but there is a difference, animals don't know any better but humans should.

And for those that don't believe in modern science, here is some typical same-sex animal behavior you can't deny.
(upon request by PM only due to children and I will only send it to those I have argued with that show they have a mind of an adult... ok scratch that, only someone I have argued with that has a picture listed and I know is an adult)[/QB][/QUOTE]

Thank God I don't have a picture on my post's .

Murph