Homosexuality and Scripture

[Rev. Joshua]

Sherrie,

I assure you I write with great thought, care, and prayerful consideration. If you'll notice, I try to maintin an instructive rather than combative tone here - since I think that is consistent with the role of a pastor.

The fact that you and I have a disagreement over biblical interpretation doesn't mean that I'm a bad shepherd or a poor student of the Scriptures. It simply means we have different beliefs.

Joshua

 

[Mark Guthrie]

Josh, you are truly deceived if you really think that homosexuality is acceptable. You will be held accountable before God for deceiving you flock. I really do not know how much thought you have put into this, but I can tell you that the Holy Spirit is not in it.

Also, only God is "reverend" not man. REV. Again, another prideful example of how man has to lift himself up above Christ Jesus. God forbid!

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Mark you are new here so you have not read Joshuas feelings toward the Bible he has said that not one word of it was the words of God. I am sure he will not deny this and I am not typing it here to insult but rather to show you where he is coming from. But I agree when you read this stuff it is amazing isn't it.
Murph

 

[Aaron]

A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10-11.

Folks, it is time to stop arguing with Post-it.

 

[JamesJ]

OK then... Can we get a comprehensive listing of verses of scripture and the other writings that might instruct a person that homosexuality is not a sin? (Keep in mind that the "other writings" will not be given anywhere near the same amount of respect that scripture does.) I keep seeing things like "I've prayfully considered the scriptures, and I've read other things", but I've not actually seen any particulars. If they've been posted somewhere else, please provide a link or reproduce them here. I say, time to "lay the cards on the table"... If the great preponderance of those here are wrong (don't see how), show us whatcha got... Am I out of line asking for this here in this open forum?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Sherrie:
Phillip

I am curious too! As I have several times responded to the post with scripture and they either want to blow me off, or tell me my scripture doesn't count. I never seem to refer to the correct scripture when it comes to this. I am wonder what would be the correct scripture? I am really curious. They wont blow you off like they do me. Your a man. So I will look toward a response from someone, about your post.

Sherrie

Sherrie,

I don't think this is a gender thing. If you will notice up until this post there have been few responses to several of us.

I think it might be because of our "strong" stand on what should be common sense when reading the Bible and possibly our belief in God's inerrant Word. This is an excellent example of why, we, as Southern Baptists voted the liberals out. Our college professors in our biggest colleges were teaching everything from evolution to "Jesus was not born of a virgin" and also something called universiality (I think), but essentially it meant a person can reach God and heaven through ANY religion. We just left the biggest church in our town that was Southern Baptist because the minister, although preached Jesus was the only way, he also was extremely liberal and even preached the ancient Indians who smoked peyote found God in their own way. Now, I have some Indian ancestory (not much but enough I can say discuss this without feeling prejudice) and I disagree that they "found" Jesus Christ by worshipping the God of the sky, etc.

Rev. Joshua will not answer some of the specifics about the Bible because his only real recourse is that he doesn't believe what it says----or that Jesus did away with the ten commandments and other laws about sin, just because He replaced the portions on blood sacrifice with Himself, etc.

Maybe he thinks he couldn't win if he argued with us. My guess is; however, that he may answer now, but then again, he may not. We'll see, but this ain't a man and woman thing---I don't think. He seems to be only answering certain people who maybe in his mind he thinks he might sway to his beliefs. I don't know what he is thinking. Liberals can be awfully sneaky.

 

[Phillip]

Oh, Sherrie,

I was wrong, he did respond to you. Great. Well, you don't fit into the category of being swayed his way very much, so ignore that in my earlier post. Maybe he just thinks I don't like him. This could be further from the truth. I love him and pray that he will see the light. But, I still feel a truly Christian group of people would not accept his doctrine and give him an ultimatum. There is NO excuse to preach heresy from the pulpit, or on this board, claiming to be a minister.

Sad, it is happening all over. We just had a sister church in a small town about 30 miles east of us fire their preacher because he confronted an older Sunday School teacher who claimed that the Bible wasn't all true. He made a motion in business meeting to adopt the Southern Baptist Words and Faith statement (see it posted on my website baptist-church.org under "what we believe") plus adopt a document that says all Sunday School teachers will believe, without exception, that the Bible is the literal Word of God. He was fired without so much as a weeks severance pay. Rev. Joshua is right about that: many of our churches are headed down that path--the only problem is--that path does not lead to Jesus Christ.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by JamesJ:
OK then... Can we get a comprehensive listing of verses of scripture and the other writings that might instruct a person that homosexuality is not a sin? (Keep in mind that the "other writings" will not be given anywhere near the same amount of respect that scripture does.) I keep seeing things like "I've prayfully considered the scriptures, and I've read other things", but I've not actually seen any particulars. If they've been posted somewhere else, please provide a link or reproduce them here. I say, time to "lay the cards on the table"... If the great preponderance of those here are wrong (don't see how), show us whatcha got... Am I out of line asking for this here in this open forum?

NO, you are NOT wrong. That is the entire problem with these arguments, nobody is using scripture except to tell us we interpret them wrong. I don't think you will get what you want, though, not from a pastor who does not believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

 

[Ransom]

Since nobody from the pro-homo camp has told me why my interpretation of 1 Cor. 6:9-10 is wrong, I can only assume silence is assent and that homosexuality is, indeed, still a damnable abomination in the eyes of God.

 

[stubbornkelly]

1 Cor. 6:9-10 lists the following sins, saying those who practice them have no part of the Kingdom of God:

sexual immorality or fornication
idolatry
adultery
pederasty
homosexuality
theft
covetousness
drunkenness
railing
swindling

Well, gee, I guess I don't see where "homosexuality" is even mentioned in those verses in Corinthians.

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor. 6:9-10, KJV)

Where again does it read "homsexuality?" I certainly don't read it, or even any implication of it in those verses. Granted, I did quote from the KJV, since that seems to be the least likely translation to be debated as invalid. Perhaps you're using a different translation? Since you mentioned fornicators and adulterers in your laundry list, can I assume that you're reading homosexuality as a separate listing?

Help me out, Ransom. On what basis do you include "homosexuality" as a separate word in your list? Then maybe we can go somewhere with this.

[ September 25, 2002, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: stubbornkelly ]

 

[Ransom]

stubbornkelly said:

Help me out, Ransom. On what basis do you include "homosexuality" as a separate word in your list? Then maybe we can go somewhere with this.

As I said in my first post to this thread:

The word translated "homosexuals" in 1 Cor. 6:9 ["abusers of themselves with mankind" in the KJV] is arsenokoites - a compound word derived from arsen, male, and koite, sexual intercourse. The meaning of the word is plain: an arsenokoites is a practicer of homosexuality, one who lies with a man as with a woman.

The Septuagint translation uses the same words, arsen and koite in Lev. 20:13, which in English reads:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
I am a pious,

Doesn't the claim to piety imply an absolute standard for virtue/goodness established by God? What is your absolute standard by which any person's claim to piety should be judged? It must be universal since the term piety is only meaningful if an objective standard is the measure. It is not subjective.

...prayerful,

This statement raises more questions than one might imagine. If numerous other godly people of the past and present have prayerfully studied the scriptures and concluded that homosexuality is sin and you have done so and concluded it is not then can we not rightly say that either you are wrong or the others are wrong? And if we can agree to this, can we not also conclude that either they were Spirit led into their conclusion or you were Spirit led into yours? Finally, since human sexual purity is a subject frequently addressed in the NT therefore making it a major concern with regard to the doctrine on sin, what would be the proper judgment of a teacher/pastor who claimed to have arrived at a conclusion through sincere prayer, study, and submission to the Spirit's leading who came to the wrong conclusion?

trained, studious baptist minister.

This assumes a truthful quality in what you were trained and what you studied. If you had studied in a fundamental school you would be no less trained or studious than if you studied in a liberal/higher criticism school. In other words, the statement as it stands is perfectly meaningless.

My prayerful study of the Bible and related historical and theological material is what lead me from the belief that homosexuality is intrinsically sinful to the belief that it is not.

Someone asked before but specifically what Bible and material are you talking about. And to be fair with the rest of us, please stay within orthodoxy. My questions would be these:

1- Even if all of the Bible passages relating directly to homosexuality were explained away, how do you deal with the indirect passages that forbid sex outside of marriage coupled with the fact that only heterosexual marriages are affirmed by the Bible? Where in the Bible or from any other authoritative source do you draw the notion that any homosexual relationship is ever affirmed by God?

2- Which of the biblical prophets or apostles support your conclusions in their non-canonical writings?

3- Which of the early church fathers, commentators, or historians support/affirm your conclusion that homosexuality is not always sinful?

4- Please demonstrate that your method is not to cast doubt on direct condemnations then claim that the silence (which in reality does not exist) equals consent.

There are many baptist ministers in this category, and I encourage people with questions (particularly lurkers) to read widely and prayerfully on the subject.

Since I would like to ensure that the proof I might read is a result of genuine scholarship and not a contemporary bias, please cite at least some sources that are 100+ years old.

I think most if not all beliefs that I would hold (especially about the Bible's teaching on sin) can be traced back through church history to the NT days. If homosexuality should be accepted by orthodox Christianity now, the teaching should have been accepted by orthodox Christians at some point in the past.

 

[stubbornkelly]

Yeesh. I did a search (because scrolling back through 13 pages was just not going to happen this afternoon) and the post I quoted was the one to come up. I thought I had gone back far enough. Sorry to trouble you.

My understanding is that the Septuagint translated quadesh as aresenokoitai. Even sticking with arsenokoitai for a moment, it is not my understanding that koite means "sexual intercourse" as you have stated. Rather, I've most often read it translated as "beds," which does, admittedly, seem connotive of intercourse, but I've not been convinced of that correlation. Certainly the English coitus is derived from koite but that's hardly proof that they are synonyms.

Could we be very simplistic and say that the talk about multiple male beds is an admonition of promisciuity? Maybe, but that doesn't quite do it for either side, does it? But given my understanding that arsenokoitai in this passage is not a correct translation (should be quadesh), it's almost a moot point.

But back to arsenokoitai. We could go over Leviticus, and see all the possibilities there, if you want. I'm not going to claim that there's no possible way that arsenokoitai refers to any and all same-sex contact, but given my study, I'm not inclined to believe that any and all same sex contact is being admonished.

Really, the whole discussion seems futile. Not because there aren't merits to it - there are - but because we're starting to go in circles. "We" have been asked to use scripture only, not interpretation, yet that makes no sense when discussing theology. Who's bearing the burden of proof here? Is anyone? On whose bases are the merits being argued? Mine, as one who believes the Bible is not as cut and dry as it reads on a page? I somehow doubt it.

Mostly, I felt a need to respond to your last post about silence as assent, not to debate the issue. Haven't we all read various scholars' and theologians' - liberal and conservative - work on the subject? My silence was merely because I didn't want to get into an argument when there seems to be no way what I ("I" as "liberal," here) say will be even taken under consideration, unless what I say is, "oh, you're right; I'm wrong." That's not a discussion at all.

I do believe there are cultural and etymological issues at hand. The two sides aren't even coming from the same theological page, so I'm not sure how we can expect each other to agree. Which, by the way, is fine by me.

 

[Rev. Joshua]

For those looking for an annotated, comprehensive bibliography on homosexuality and Christianity, you can find one here. Many of these are the standard works used in any contemporary discussion of homosexuality and faith.

Scott, Boswell makes several arguments for the widespread acceptance of same-sex relationships in medieval Europe. I'm not a historian, but I have found much of his writing to be persuasive in that regard. Several of his books are in the bibliography above, and I encourage you to read them if you are looking for historical discussions of same-sex relationships.

Regarding the biblical discussions, as far as I know I have addresses every single one (that is to say all three New Testament passages that deal with sam-sex relationships. As I have said over and over again, I do not believe that the primary function of the Scriptures is to provide a specific rulebook for day-to-day life. They serve to illustrate general principles of faithful living, but they are not a divinely authored, verbatim list of God's absolute rules. They contain within them some absolute principles, but that is a significant distinction.

The biblical writings come from a context where the oppression of women, people of other nationalities, and sexual minorities was the norm. That context is reflected in the writings, and it is the task of the interpreter to rescue the message of Scripture from the imperfect context in which it was created.

Joshua

 

[Ransom]

stubbornkelly said:

My understanding is that the Septuagint translated quadesh as aresenokoitai.

If [there is] a man [LXX os] who lies [LXX koimethe] with a male [arsenos] as those who lie [koitein] with a woman [gunaikos], both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. (Lev. 20:13)

Even sticking with arsenokoitai for a moment, it is not my understanding that koite means "sexual intercourse" as you have stated. Rather, I've most often read it translated as "beds," which does, admittedly, seem connotive of intercourse, but I've not been convinced of that correlation.

What difference does it make? If one "beds" a man as one "beds" a woman, he is still guilty of an abomination according to both Lev. 20:13 and 1 Cor. 6:9-10.

Could we be very simplistic and say that the talk about multiple male beds is an admonition of promisciuity?

What multiple male beds? The verse is not speaking of promiscuity, it is comparing men lying with men and men lying with women, and pronouncing the former to be an abomination. Even with my limited Greek knowledge I can see the obvious parallelism.

But given my understanding that arsenokoitai in this passage is not a correct translation (should be quadesh),

You are confused. arsenokoitai is used in 1 Cor. 6:9 and is translated "abusers of themselves with mankind" in the KJV. The Septuagint does not use the word arsenokoitai at Lev. 20:13, but it uses forms of its components. The relationship between the two passages is clear enough.

Who's bearing the burden of proof here?

It seems to me that the burden of proof is on those who claim the Scripture means something other than what it has been understood to mean, practically unanimously, for millennia - that homosexual practices are an abomination deserving of God's wrath.

 

[JamesJ]

I guess I have to say that I'm at a loss here... What was the bibliography supposed to do? Am I supposed to take the money that God has put in my control and, as a good steward, give it to people who write things like:

(First 5 in the bibliography. Descriptions edited to save bandwith)

Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe
This Yale historian reveals the results of 12 years of meticulous research into Catholic and Orthodox liturgies for same-sex unions. Boswell traces same-sex unions from Platonic Greece.

Radical Love: An Approach to Sexual Spirituality
presents an enjoyable and exciting exploration of how sexuality and spirituality interrelate.
how the image of God as Lover can heal the images of both self and God that shape our actions.

Myths and Mysteries of Same-Sex Love
This professor of religious studies at San Diego State University bonds intellectual rigor and deep feeling in examining the theories of homosexuality of Freud and Jung as well as clarifying the divine miracle of men loving men and women loving women in Greek literature

Our Selves, Our Souls and Bodies
"Have same-sex relationships the same potential for sacramental meaning and power" as heterosexual relationships? He believes they have because "they can, and do, signify a natural good". Sex thus understood is not only redeemed, it is also redemptive.

Embodiment: An Approach to Sexuality and Christian Theology
It presents empirical data, ethical method, and theological perspective to help all Christians think constructively about human sexuality. Chapters include: 2. Embodiment in sexual theology; 5. Love and sexual ethics; 7. Morality of sexual variations; 8. Gayness and Homosexuality: Issues for the church; 9. The sexually disenfranchised; 10. The church as sexual community.

Also, no scripture? To paraphrase Clara Peller, Where's the scripture? If anyone's read any of the books in the bibliography, and would like to enlighten us on their contents, please help us out. I really am not going to spend God's money on books that contain things from "Platonic Greece", to "God as Lover", and all the way to, "The church as sexual community".

 

[Sherrie]

OK...back to scripture! The reason I choose Romans Chapter 1 is because of the words :

God gave them up to uncleaness through the lust of their own hearts ....Romans 1:24

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themseves that recompence of their error which was met.

Romans 1:26-27

Who did God give up?
Define natural use, please?
What is against nature?
What would be unseemly?

What did God do because of doing that which was against nature?

Romans 1:25
Who changed the Truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen

Who changed the Truth of God into a lie?
Who is the creature?
And who is the Creator, who is blessed for ever?


Well lets start with this. And as asked before...lets stay with scripture. If you have other scripture to go with/or against this please show it.

Sherrie

 

[Rev. Joshua]

James, as far as I know, we've been down the Scripture road before. You asked for a comprehensive list of additional writings (and Scott asked for historical resources) so I provided the list. Whether or not you want to spend your time reading contemporary biblical, theological, and historical research by Ivy League scholars is your decision.

It is, as you requested, a comprehensive list.

As for the biblical passages, I'll see if I can find the thread where we outlined them.

To give you the short version, any Christian hermeneutic follows the example of Jesus.

- All right behavior stems from loving God fully and our neighbors as ourselve (Luke 10 25-28)

and

- The spirit of the law takes precedence over the letter of the law (see for instance MK 5:38-39 where Jesus completely reinterprets EX 21:23-24) or MK 2:27 where we are reminded that the laws were made for us, not vis versa.)

Joshua

[ September 25, 2002, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua ]

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Sherrie, I cannot recommend Scroggs enough for the purpose of studying this passage.

I believe that Paul is using a rather commonplace phrase to illustrate licentiousness (Scroggs cites several examples in comparable writings that use almost identical phrases). The purpose of the passage is not an attack on homosexuality, it simply uses commonly-held beliefs about homosexuality to illustrate a point.

I'll readily concede that Paul and many of his contemporaries thought homosexual intercourse was unnatural. That does not mean that God does. I do not find this anecdote, used in passing to illustrate a totally different point, as sufficient biblical grounds to tell a whole subset of God's children that God does not want them to love their mates.

Joshua

 

[JamesJ]

"As for the biblical passages, I'll see if I can find the thread where we outlined them."

Yeah... I think you're going to need to do that... Those other verses don't support your position, especially in the light of the clear teaching in the scriptures already recorded in this thread.