Christianity and homosexuality

Factual Questions
1

Answering a question in this thread in P&E= bishop-vs-trump
Where would that be? Chapter, verse? (LGBT is condemned )

See
Romans 1:26–27. or 1 Corinthians 6:9–10- which can be translated as Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,

So maybe. Paul seems to have invented a new word, which could mean men having gay sex (but there was already terms for that) Or it could mean men who sell themselves for sex to other men. Endless arguments.

Or this-

(https://reformationproject.org/wp-content/uploads/fbrfg/favicon-32x32.png?v=WG2Q6EP2AE)The Reformation Project

Romans addresses unrestrained lust, not sexual orientation. - The Reformation…

In his commentary on Romans 1:26-27, John Chrysostom wrote, “You see that the whole of desire comes from an excess which cannot contain itself within its proper limits.”

  • “Paul isn’t condemning being gay as opposed to being straight. He is condemning self-seeking excess as opposed to moderation—a concern made clear by his repeated use of the term “lustful,” and by his description of people “exchanging” or “abandoning” heterosexual sex.*”
    Committed same-sex relationships simply aren’t in view in [Romans 1](Romans 1 NIV - Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus,… | Biblia).

https://collected.jcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1077&context=mastersessays
Many contemporary Christians who use Romans 1:26–27 to condemn the
LGBTQ+ population, fail to understand the cultural dynamics of the text, the text
itself, and the contemporary world. Such a literalistic and ahistorical reading of
Romans 1:26–27 imposes a contemporary cultural context wholly different than
the one in which Paul wrote. The present notion of “homosexuality” as an innate
orientation was a concept unknown to Paul and his contemporaries.

Basically Paul didnt want anyone to have sex for any reason except to have children, and even that was questionable to him. Paul was weird when it came to sex.

We dont really knoiw.

Now the OT condemns it but also condemns wearing clothes ot two different materials, “squaring your beard”, and is okay with slavery and many other nasty things.

2

I suspect this thread is going to be moved to Great Debates pretty soon.

Without delving too much into minutiae, I am suspicious of any argument that tries to split hairs over one word while letting all other words go unchallenged. I strongly suspect that people (not the OP, but others) who try as hard as they can to say that “homosexuality didn’t mean homosexuality” aren’t going to argue that “adultery didn’t mean adultery” or “prostitution didn’t mean prostitution.”

Rather than argue, “The Bible didn’t say homosexuality when it said homosexuality,” it might be more solid to argue, “The Bible itself is a heavily flawed book that we shouldn’t accept anyway.”

Finally, if Paul had “weird views about sex,” then why should it matter if he criticizes homosexuality? His views could simply be dismissed as, “Well, he was the guy who had weird views about sex.”

3

Well, two points.

If you’re looking at Christian views on homosexuality, an argument that proceeds from “the bible is a weird book and we shouldn’t accept it” might be relevant to explaining why you don’t accept Christianity, but it won’t assist much in understanding Christian views on homosexuality, because Christian view on homosexuality do not proceed from that starting point.

Secondly, I think you are misconceived when you talk about splitting hairs over one word while letting all the others go unchallenged. If we don’t ask ourselves what Paul means by “idols” or “adultery”, that’s not because we uncritically embrace a simplistic understanding of these words; its because these words are not germane to the question we are examining. But we do have to consider what Paul meant by “homosexuality” — or, rather, what Paul meant by the word that some translators render as “homosexuality” and others render in other ways. You can’t simultaneously take the text seriously and be uninterested in any explanation of what the text means. Christians do take the text seriously; therefore, you’d expect the Christian understanding to be informed by precisely this kind of examination and analysis.

4

That is fine. I was answering an honest question.

Paul in the NT doesnt use that word. He used arsenokoitēs. What did he mean?

"* 1975: Bailey[3] agreed the word refers to males involved in homosexual acts,[4] but not generally to ‘homosexuals’[5]

  • 1980: Boswell[6] claimed the word only designates male prostitutes[7] [8]

  • 1983: Scroggs[9] interpreted the word as referring only to abusive pederasty[[10]]"

So, experts differ. Most modern scholars agree with Scroggs-abusive pederasty.

Right.

I tend to agree with Scroggs, but I do not pretend to be a expert.

Read the cite, it goes into much more details than my small “fair use” snippet. There are more opinions. But all agree Paul made up that word, form two other root words. It means what Paul meant it to believe.

5

Where are you getting this from? I’m not aware of anywhere that Paul mentions having children as a reason to have sex (either pro or con).

On the other hand, he does say (in I Corinthians 7):

I’m not saying that Paul was not “weird when it came to sex”; but it’s not always easy to tell what Paul’s views are in general outside of the contexts and specific situations he was addressing in his letters.

6

While Paul was weird when it comes to sex, your statement is contradicted to what Paul writhes in Cor. Paul basically makes it clear that one should marry to satisfy their urges:

“But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry , for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” 1 Cor 7:9x

Paul also talks about how he will continue to do evil, but sin will not master him. Romans 7:15-25

Both do indicate that while one can commit the sin, the goal is to get it out of the way for devotion to the Lord’s work, sin being covered by grace.

7

Without being too prejudicial(?) wasn’t something like that a characteristic of ancient Greek culture, the Achilles and Patroclus “paternalistic” romantic relationship sort of model for some men? And presumably Paul lived much of the time in an area which was mostly the extended Hellenistic society.

Then it would be logical that Paul would advise against something common to the culture that he found to be over-indulgent? Because much of the admonitions against sexual (and other) indugences were of the puritanical bent - if it is fun, it must be evil because it distracts from prayer-time, as he says:

In the discussion of Achilles and Patroclus, Wikipedia says:

The Greek custom of paiderasteia between members of the same-sex, typically men, was a political, intellectual, and sometimes sexual relationship.[9] Its ideal structure consisted of an older erastes (lover, protector), and a younger eromenos (the beloved). The age difference between partners and their respective roles (either active or passive) was considered to be a key feature

8

I think that the question of “Christianity and homosexuality” is different from the the question of “the Bible and homosexuality”.

Regarding the title, some Christian groups are extremely homophobic, some are extremely accepting, and then there’s everything in between.

Regarding Biblical sources, the same sections that condemn homosexuality also condemn women speaking in church and mixing fabrics. So, different Christian sects just pull what they want from the Bible and ignores what they don’t like. Must be a day of the week that ends in Y.

9

I find the entire idea of attempting to apply logic to something so fantastical to be simply ludicrous.

So no point in bothering.

10

Good thing you didn’t bother, then.

11

You will notice I made no attempt at cross-millennial linguistic analysis.

12

I will give you that.

Good point. But that is not what this is about. This is about what the NT says about it.

13

Got it. It is maybe opposed, but it seems to be no worse than women speaking in church or praying out loud in front of people.

14

But isn’t even that open to selection and/or interpretation?

15

And based on what the NT OT says about it.

16

I agree. Of course, as a Jew what any of the New Testament says about anything is just an academic exercise. When we consult the talmud we find that every single word in the torah is debated. This pleases me.

Whether or not the torah condemns homosexuality is, of course, an ongoing debate.

17

Just as it has ever been, in its 3000 or so year history, believers and scholars constantly interpret, parse, translate, and re-interpret this extremely complicated book of books. Those practices which were seen as problematic in any given era, were found to be proscribed by the Word of God. Those which were proscribed in earlier periods but the culture had moved along and either no one cared any more about that or the opportunity to practice it no longer existed, just fell out of discussions. It’s a very big long old book, and figuring out what God had in mind when they inspired someone to write something down, at a time when virtually every single thing was different than it is now, is, um, challenging. Translations continue to be refined and argued.

Conservative Christians look mainly to the violent and punitive and often mysteriously arbitrary Hebrew god, and also some particular letters of Paul, to justify their punitive and narrow beliefs. Liberal Christians rely heavily on the Gospels, and what Jesus was remembered to have said. Paul was concerned to build a cohesive church of former gentiles, jews, and any others, who all adhered to the precepts and salvation history which he frankly was the main author of. He lived in a particular time, in the swirl of Roman, Greek, Jewish, Zoroastrian, and other religions that the Roman Empire had drawn into its vast sway. His ideas were formed by his time and by his own vision. As a Pharisee, he was appalled by what he saw as the licentiousness of some Greek sexual practices as well as the bacchanals of Rome, and his writings reflect that.

Liberal Christians tend to rely on modern biblical scholarship rather than old translations which are faulty but conservatives feel that they are ‘truer’, because they don’t trust modern scholarship, particularly when it contradicts what they happen to believe (like homosexuality is a sin, abortion is a grave sin).

There’s a constant tug of war between those who want to move Christianity forward toward what they see as what Jesus intended, and those resist any change. That’s been true since the very beginning.

19

[Moderating]
This thread was never a Factual Question. Figure out what you’re trying to post, figure out what forum that’s supposed to be, and post there.