I explained this in my first post in this thread (go back and read it, OK?). Paul was against sex- all sex. Fornication was especially bad. Marriage was only tolerable as it could be used by those (who couldn’t resist sex) to avoid fornication. Gay sex was fornication back then, so, yes, Paul was against it too. He seemed to rank it pretty close (as a sin) to “straight” fornication.
That particular passage is Paul ranting about a group of heretical 'Christians". For their heresies, God punished them by inflicting many sins upon them- fornication, gay sex, murder, theivery, etc. In other words- they are sinners because they are evil heretics, and thus were cursed with a group of sins. Loopydude got it completely backwards when he said they were evil sinners because they were gay.
Paul was a great “salesman”, but a little weird about sex- even for his day.
Note, I am not really a Christian. Agnostic, maybe. Or you could say “doubting Christian”. “Unitarian” might be close, also.
I would be glad to share what I know of what the bible has to say on the matter. As far as homosexuality (or rather, homosexual behavior) is concerned there appears to be 3 places in the bible that address homosexuality. (As generally agreed by most…) There is the account of Sodom & Gomorrah (the most indirect of the 3 cites), the words in Leviticus and in Romans.
The OP references lobster in a clever way to highlight the apparent contradiction (and hypocrisy I would imagine…) in keping the prohibition of “gay sex” and not the prohibition of 'eating lobster. It’s a valid question. In this thread we discussed this in some detail. (With no small amount of digression). Also, in this thread we discussed this in some detail with a fair amount of cites. You might cruise through them for some cites that address the bible has to say on the matter.
In short, the prohibition of both ‘lobster’ and ‘gay sex’ were features of the Mosaic Law. Most people are familiar with the 10 commandments which are the bedrock, if you will, of the Mosaic Law. There were however 600 or so other “laws” as part of the Mosaic Law.
There are several rather pointed cites in the NT that show clearly that the Mosaic Law was “fulfilled” with Christ’s sacrifice and therefore followers were no longer under Law. That doesn’t mean though, that the Law was “gutted” and that after Christ there was to be spiritual anarchy, but rather the strict covenants associated with the law were no longer applicable. Jesus strengthened parts of the Law in an effort to help people to understand the spirit if the Law as well as it’s application when he said that it wasn’t enough for example to abstain from fornication, but that we shouldn’t be "mentally’ coveting another man’s wife, essentially committing adultrey in our heart. He had similiar things to say about murder. (another one of the Laws of Moses)
So, Paul would have reaffirmed the prohibition of engaging in homosexual sex in Romans and there appears to be no biblical support of homosexuality, in either direct or indirect terms in the bible. (Which was discussed in some detail in the threads cited…)The only language in the bible that addresses homosexual behavior condemns it in certain terms. In fairness, there are those on this board who believe that the apparent condemnation were not in fact addressing homosexuality, but rather practices that were common at the time of Paul’s writings. We’ve never gone so far as to address each of the cites one by one to investigate those claims. My reading of the bible, and most importantly in it’s context, doesn’t support any of those claims.
I would be willing to respectfully continue the discussion. Forgive me for not providing cites (for the NT references for the "fullfillment of the Law for example…) I am moving this week and things are a bit hectic.
With all due respect, I read that post and it contextually wrong as well. Paul does a fine job of expaining himself, and doesn’t need much help from you or me. In this thread (I think…) Loopydude went from accurately citing the bible (which I always appreciate…) to the unbelievable statement “homosexuals = satanic.”
You’ve made the same presumptuous mistake. Paul believed that being single was the best position to fully accomplish one’s ministry.**(1 Cor 7:32-35) (1 Cor 7:7-8) **Paul remained a lifelong bachelor for the purpose of pursuing his ministry. It would appear that all of Jesus’s disciples were single as well. (And of course Jesus himself…)
Paul was realistic and understood that not everyone had the constitution to remain single, and so he made allowances for marriage. (1Cor 7:36-38) He admonished men to refrain from touching a woman (who was not his wife) as a precaution from committing fornication. And, although he believed that remaining single was the best option** (1Cor 7:38)** he also recognized that married people could be effective people in the Lord’s work. As far as sex between married people, he advocated a balanced view of sex. He believed that sex should be subordinate to other more important activities **(1 Cor 7:5) **and should be kept in ot’s propoer perspective. He also advocated communication between married couples and that a husband should be sensitive to his wife’s sexual appetite and be willing to show consideration to her needs. **(1Cor 7:3) ** Further, a wife should be sensitive to her husband’s sexual needs and willing to meet his needs.
And from this counsel, counsel that if followed would produce better communication and healthier sex lives, we get , **“Paul was against sex- all sex.” **Shheeeeshhhh! What are some common complaints among married couples? At least some of them involve a lack of communication and empathy for each other’s needs and sexual appetities. Other complaints involve sexual perversions and fetishes that are demeaning or thoroughly unpleasent to one of the partners. I have had at least two couples who have had their marriages tested because of internet pornographic addictions.
And what was the core message from Paul about sex?
Be careful, be very careful. Don’t put yourself in a position that produces a booty call from someone other than your wife/husband.
Remain single if you can; it will help your ministry. If not, cool! But have good communications and empathy with your spouse, so that you will be “rendering your due” to the one you love and married.
Keep sex in it’s proper healthy perspective and recognize it as just one (important) part of a loving God fearing relationship.
Like Loopydude you have correctly cited some biblical texts. (much appreciated!) But when you take it a step farther and make comments like , “Paul was against sex- all sex”, or “Paul was a great “salesman”, but a little weird about sex- even for his day” you’re committing the exact same crime you’ve assailed Loopydude for.
Ok, you agree that Paul did say that Fornication was bad right? Thus, sex while single is bad, right?
And that it *would be best * to remain single, right?
Which means- Paul said* it would be best to live without sex* .
I did say that Paul *tolerated * marriage (and thus we suppose sex within marriage), for those who weren’t strong enough to resist the lure of fornication. In other words- at best- it’s second best to be married and have sex- staying single AND celibate is best.
Now- if someone says it is “best” to remain celibate, and is very anti-fornication & gay sex I can certainly say that person is against sex in general. And, in his day, altho mnay woudl join Paul on the anti-gay sex bandwagon, and it wasn’t uncommon to rail against fornication- very few dudes suggested celibacy was “best”. Thus, like it or not- Paul was “a little weird about sex- even for his day”. IMHO- celibacy= weird.
And you forget 1Cor7;1 “…it is good for a man not to touch a woman”. Sex is natural and healthy- it is NOT “good for a man to not touch a woman”. And in 1Cor7:7 & 8- which you cite but not quote he continues with the “it’s best to remain celibate”.
I have made no mistake- presumptuous or not. Being celibate is unnatural and thus 'weird". Paul advocated such as the best way. Paul was wrong here (and the recent problems in the Catholic Church also give us a hint about how well celibacy works). And note- Paul never even met Jesus (well, at least in person). Show me in the Words of Jesus where sex is bad, or celibacy is good. Or even where gay Sex is bad. He never said anything like that- right? ;j
So this is fine as your refutation of the blanket comment that St. Paul was against sex altogether. But it does nothing for the OP, as it says nothing about sex as just one part of the relationship between two consenting, safe, monogamous adults who happen to be of the same sex.
Could y’all hurry this up a little? I’ve got a date tomorrow night.
Wrong! He didn’t say that. He said that it would be best to be celibate, but he also said it would be good to be married. And for those married, sex is good. This post is stsrting to sound like Loopydude’s tortured path towards ‘homosexuals = satanic.’
He more than tolerated marriage.** (1 Cor 7:38)** The rest of the premise is sound, but that doesn’t get us to** “Paul was against sex- all sex.”**
Sure you can say that. But it is **you **saying it. Paul never said anything like it at all. He supported those who chose to marry, and gave sound counsel for their sex lives. But nowhere in his writings did he say , “against sex in general” or anything close to it.
Paul was issuing a warning for those who were unmarried as a caution. But only to those who were unmarried. But as to your wife…All bets are off. But once again, best to remain celibate doesn’t mean that Paul was against sex, all sex.
Shheeeeshhh. Are you sure you’re not Loopydude?
Jesus never said sex was bad, but neither did Paul. Nor did Jesus offer any commentary on homosexual sex, although the bible condemns it.
Why do you think he thinks it is best to be celibate (or single)? I’m not saying it wrong to never have sex and reproduce, but I don’t understand how one can say it is the best choice. If it is indeed preferable to never touch a woman, as he says, then how can the people “be fruitful and multiply”?
Perhaps Paul wasn’t against sex, per se, but it doesn’t seem like he was much of an advocate for marriage for the sake of marriage. It seems that he was recommending it as a way to reduce sinning.