Originally posted by 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.... They contain within them some absolute principles, but that is a significant distinction.
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?
The biblical writings come from a context where the oppression of women,
...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.
people of other nationalities,
...still present today. Notably, it is when scripture is not respected that the worst abuses take place.
and sexual minorities was the norm.
... 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.
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
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.
