OK, sorry I got to this a little late. I honestly kept procrastinating as I waited for more and various comments to come in before continuing. As I said last time, the arguments I was presenting were not necessarily my opinion. They are simply defenses I have seen used in the past. I respect any who hold the views I have listed and do believe that someone can hold them and legitimately be a Christian. After all, I am sure I am wrong in many doctrinal issues I hold today and pray that through time, humility, and being teachable those errors will grow less and less.
There are certain absolutes that I believe anyone who is a true Christian must hold: 1)God is the Creator of all the earth, 2)Jesus Christ, His only Son is my Lord, 3)He was born, lived a sinless life, died on the cross, and was resurrected on the third day, 4)His death purchased the forgiveness of sins and His resurrection provided the way for me to live victoriously, 5)the Holy Spirit, the third part of the trinity draws me to God, empowers me to live like Christ, and will one day renew my body that 6)one day I may live together with God 7)together with the community of believers of which we, the church are a shadow and forerunner of today. That's basically my version of the Apostles creed. Anyone (man, woman, straight, gay) who believes and seeks to live by it is a Christian.
-----------------
That being said, I'd like to look back at those verses and arguments I presented yesterday. With regards to the OT scriptures, yes they are part of the purity code (the Kosher law, the Old Covenant, whatever you want to call it). It is true that we no longer are bound by that code. However even within that code there were varying degrees of "wrong". Of all the things punishable by death (adultery, witchcraft, willful rebellion towards parents, incest, homosexuality did I miss any?) I believe all are still considered wrong today. You can't possibly say that adultery was then or now considered on a par with wearing clothes with mixed fibers. The punishment may not still be wrong, but the reason for the prohibition has not changed. That cannot be said for something like eating pork or ceremonial hand washing.
--------------------
With regards to arsenokoitai, (the word translated homosexual in I Corinthians) yes, we cannot give a definitive translation for the word. The fact is, there is always problems in translation from one language to another but that doesn't mean the meaning cannot be conveyed. To my knowledge the word is used over 70 times in other Greek literature and only once does it not have a homosexual reference.
That reference was quoted in the last blog and again here: "In fact, many men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives." Most believe John was referring in this penitential to anal sex which was by many cultures considered a homosexual act even when performed among opposite sex partners. But that is not a rabbit trail I want to go down at this point. I just want to say that we can say with confidence that Paul is referring in both these texts is homosexuality. Considering that virtually all Biblical scholars for 1900 years held this view and an overwhelming majority still do today I am pretty confident in making the assertion.
-----------------
I personally think the argument presented for the Romans verse was the weakest. The entire arc of Romans 1 is talking about societies or groups of peoples, not individuals. It is an American (or Western) interposition on this scripture which makes the defense and therefore it does not stand. Even if I were to take an individualist perspective on it, I cannot deny that the very next sentence calls the acts (whether performed "naturally" or "unnaturally") indecent.
I do just want to say that this portion of the chapter does continue to build. Paul is describing a society that is falling deeper and deeper into depravity. There is a list of sins further down which Paul would consider worse than what has come before. This list includes arrogance, malice, slander, insolence, and gossip. So if I were to look at Romans and say that a person committing a homosexual act is a sinner, I would have to say that those holding the signs and picketing etc are worse sinners. I am guilty.
-----------------
One argument that I did not list yesterday simply because I (surprisingly) could not find it from anyone on the sites, books, etc that I used in research was the fact that Jesus says nothing whatsoever about homosexuality. I guess he knew he had a limited time for his ministry and he was far more concerned with issues that really mattered like self-righteousness, pride, greed, religious bigotry, apathy over the needs of the poor and outcasts, etc. These are the things that really needed fixing. But then, I don't need to make that past tense, do I?
I'm not done yet, but this is getting very long. More tomorrow. Keep the comments coming. I promise not to delete any that contribute in any way to the conversation.
OK, sorry I got to this a little late. I honestly kept procrastinating as I waited for more and various comments to come in before continuing. As I said last time, the arguments I was presenting were not necessarily my opinion. They are simply defenses I have seen used in the past. I respect any who hold the views I have listed and do believe that someone can hold them and legitimately be a Christian. After all, I am sure I am wrong in many doctrinal issues I hold today and pray that through time, humility, and being teachable those errors will grow less and less.
There are certain absolutes that I believe anyone who is a true Christian must hold: 1)God is the Creator of all the earth, 2)Jesus Christ, His only Son is my Lord, 3)He was born, lived a sinless life, died on the cross, and was resurrected on the third day, 4)His death purchased the forgiveness of sins and His resurrection provided the way for me to live victoriously, 5)the Holy Spirit, the third part of the trinity draws me to God, empowers me to live like Christ, and will one day renew my body that 6)one day I may live together with God 7)together with the community of believers of which we, the church are a shadow and forerunner of today. That's basically my version of the Apostles creed. Anyone (man, woman, straight, gay) who believes and seeks to live by it is a Christian.
-----------------
That being said, I'd like to look back at those verses and arguments I presented yesterday. With regards to the OT scriptures, yes they are part of the purity code (the Kosher law, the Old Covenant, whatever you want to call it). It is true that we no longer are bound by that code. However even within that code there were varying degrees of "wrong". Of all the things punishable by death (adultery, witchcraft, willful rebellion towards parents, incest, homosexuality did I miss any?) I believe all are still considered wrong today. You can't possibly say that adultery was then or now considered on a par with wearing clothes with mixed fibers. The punishment may not still be wrong, but the reason for the prohibition has not changed. That cannot be said for something like eating pork or ceremonial hand washing.
--------------------
With regards to arsenokoitai, (the word translated homosexual in I Corinthians) yes, we cannot give a definitive translation for the word. The fact is, there is always problems in translation from one language to another but that doesn't mean the meaning cannot be conveyed. To my knowledge the word is used over 70 times in other Greek literature and only once does it not have a homosexual reference.
That reference was quoted in the last blog and again here: "In fact, many men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives." Most believe John was referring in this penitential to anal sex which was by many cultures considered a homosexual act even when performed among opposite sex partners. But that is not a rabbit trail I want to go down at this point. I just want to say that we can say with confidence that Paul is referring in both these texts is homosexuality. Considering that virtually all Biblical scholars for 1900 years held this view and an overwhelming majority still do today I am pretty confident in making the assertion.
-----------------
I personally think the argument presented for the Romans verse was the weakest. The entire arc of Romans 1 is talking about societies or groups of peoples, not individuals. It is an American (or Western) interposition on this scripture which makes the defense and therefore it does not stand. Even if I were to take an individualist perspective on it, I cannot deny that the very next sentence calls the acts (whether performed "naturally" or "unnaturally") indecent.
I do just want to say that this portion of the chapter does continue to build. Paul is describing a society that is falling deeper and deeper into depravity. There is a list of sins further down which Paul would consider worse than what has come before. This list includes arrogance, malice, slander, insolence, and gossip. So if I were to look at Romans and say that a person committing a homosexual act is a sinner, I would have to say that those holding the signs and picketing etc are worse sinners. I am guilty.
-----------------
One argument that I did not list yesterday simply because I (surprisingly) could not find it from anyone on the sites, books, etc that I used in research was the fact that Jesus says nothing whatsoever about homosexuality. I guess he knew he had a limited time for his ministry and he was far more concerned with issues that really mattered like self-righteousness, pride, greed, religious bigotry, apathy over the needs of the poor and outcasts, etc. These are the things that really needed fixing. But then, I don't need to make that past tense, do I?
I'm not done yet, but this is getting very long. More tomorrow. Keep the comments coming. I promise not to delete any that contribute in any way to the conversation.
I have been reading BJ's blog on this and reading everyone elses comment..... I have my oinions .... however ... my 2 cents I find still add up to nothing! LOL ... then I came across your reply and I just.... I wanted to applaude and thank the Lord for HIS glorious work in you! Not because you are not lesbian ... but because you are WHOLE in His love! So I just ... I wanted to say congrats and keep walking this walk! God brought me out if darkness as well and I surely would not be content to stay in darkness after tasting and seeing that indeed He is good! your report brought joy to my heart! God bless. Jo
Jo, your opinions are always worth far more than just two cents. You don't give yourself enough credit. I don't think I've ever read your blogs, or comments and not come away richer.
""In fact, many men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives." Most believe John was referring in this penitential to anal sex which was by many cultures considered a homosexual act even when performed among opposite sex partners."
Hey Beejai, that was called 'birth control' in ancient Greece and Rome! I'm so glad I didn't live during that time... Only white men have any desire for time travel, women and minorities are like, 'err.. no thanks'.
And I'm glad about your last comment. Yes, Jesus says nothing about homosexuality in the gospels, and he lived in the Roman empire! That was going on, just like abortion was going on; and quite frequently at that. I personally feel like, outside of Q, anything else attributed to Jesus is just wishful thinking. Thomas Jefferson must have felt the same way (ie, Jefferson Bible).
yes the bible says homosexuality, adultry, and such immoral acts are wrong. but isn't it hard to belive something as trivial as sex can condemn a soul for an eternity. whats a human lifespan compared to an eternity. thats like locking up a child for life for being a brat. I believe and love God very much and in my belief He is wise and just. therefore I don't see anyone being condemned for an eternity for something like sex which hurts noone. the ones doing it want to share that experience with each other then thats fine. but I do feel its wrong to promote immoral behavior. if a person gets freaky in the bedroom they should keep it there. the only sexual offenses I can fathom getting a person condemned is rape and molestation because they are acts of harm against another.
"isn't it hard to belive something as trivial as sex can condemn a soul for an eternity" - I wish I was more eloquent - but respectfully, I think you are missing the point - it isn't 'sex', or gluttony or thievery or homosexuality that is condeming one to a life in hell - it is life OUTSIDE Christ to a life in hell. When we become a Christian, we are WASHED CLEAN, yes we still sin, but if Christ is in us, any form of sin is very difficult for us to cope with/live with, and when we do sin we should be deeply regretful and genuinely ask forgiveness - and God WILL forgive.
To live as a homosexual will destine you for hell, as will living as a murderer, robber etc. BUT, if you are in Christ and have a one of fall into sin and repent of that sin and endeavour never to do it again - THEN you are forgiven and the road to Heaven is open to you.
What many seem to think is that it is ok to do whatever we want as long as we love God. My kids love me, but if in their teens they are living lives that displease me, that is not going to be ok and they may well be 'cast from my presence", BUT if they slip up and come to me and say "mum, I stuffed up, I am sorry" - then they are not living a life that is displeasing, they made a mistake and are sorry for it.
So basically what I am saying is that to be continually 'living a life' in sin and not REPENTING (and hence recognising the need for change) is paving a road to hell. To be someone who sins, knows it is wrong and repents, is paving a road to heaven.
I am confused... pardon me ... I may need some help understanding what you are trying to say....
So, Romans 1 does not at all reference homosexuality on a societal or individual level?
Or, It does reference it but on a societal level and not to the individual?
If it is the later then I fail to see how that weakens the case..... We are parts of the whole... and if it is wrong for them because it is displeasing for God why would it be ok for me and pleasing or acceptable?
I believe that a person can have a belief in Christ and call themselves whatever they want. But, the reason I believe it is impossible to be ok with being Gay... and to call oneself Gay as well as aChristian is this: If in fact the act of homosexuality is a sin on any level. In labling myself Gay I identify myself by that sin. It's not just something that I stumble into now and then ... It what I've identified myself with accepting embracing ... letting it embrace me.... ..... and if homosexuality is a sin then I am leaving no room for God to come in and take the proper place in my heart required of me as someone who in fact is seaking a living relationship with a living God. I have put up the blockers not God. I can do the same with anything else in my life.
I have never picketed.... I have never slandered anyone... I do not feel it is Christ like eather to yell at people about it.... or to be nasty... God loves people where they are.... 100%....
But, we have to let go .... of self... of things... in order to go where he wants to take us in the here and now and later.
I have studied much into this topic. I used to live a homosexual life as well! And I have now come to believe that ultimately it is not a sin to "be" gay; it is a sin to participate in gay acts. Just as it is not a sin for us to have a sinful nature; it is a sin for us to participate in that sinful nature.
i do not beleive being gay is a sin. i am fine with people who think otherwise. sinners do get to heaven we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of god. so either way, sin or no sin, any homosexual who beleives in god goes to heaven. that is all i wished to say.
In response to Ryan: It is not the specific act that condemns one to hell -- it is the disobedience (rebellion) against God! God commands, we must obey. It doesn't matter if it seems trivial or unimportant or innocent.
