• The KillerFrogs

Another Gay Thread

IronSkillet

New Member
I really don't intend to fan the flames again, but I was discussing the biblical condemnation of homosexuality with a friend tonight. It's been a while since I've read the bible all the way through so I set out looking for a review of all biblical mentions of sexual (mis)conduct. I found Rev. Walter Wink's essay to be a very good summation of biblical sexual ethic found in scripture and a conclusion similar to my own. The article is a little too long to post in its entirety, but this part was of particular interest to me:

The Problem of Authority

These cases are relevant to our attitude toward the authority of Scripture. They are not cultic prohibitions from the Holiness Code that are clearly superseded in Christianity, such as rules about eating shellfish or wearing clothes made of two different materials. They are rules concerning sexual behavior, and they fall among the moral commandments of Scripture. Clearly we regard certain rules, especially in the Old Testament, as no longer binding. Other things we regard as binding, including legislation in the Old Testament that is not mentioned at all in the New. What is our principle of selection here?

For example, virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting: incest, rape, adultery, and intercourse with animals. But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors which we generally allow: intercourse during menstruation, celibacy, exogamy (marriage with non-Jews), naming sexual organs, nudity (under certain conditions), masturbation (some Christians still condemn this), birth control (some Christians still forbid this).

And the Bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not. Likewise, the Bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn: prostitution, polygamy, levirate marriage, sex with slaves, concubinage, treatment of women as property, and very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13).

And while the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it. In short, of the sexual mores mentioned here, we only agree with the Bible on four of them, and disagree with it on sixteen!

Surely no one today would recommend reviving the levirate marriage. So why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices? Obviously many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary. Mormon polygamy was outlawed in this country, despite the constitutional protection of freedom of religion, because it violated the sensibilities of the dominant Christian culture. Yet no explicit biblical prohibition against polygamy exists.

If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these biblical sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit. We cannot then take even what Paul himself says as a new Law. Christians reserve the right to pick and choose which sexual mores they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing just that. And this is as true of evangelicals and fundamentalists as it is of liberals and mainliners.

The complete essay is available here: http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink
 

The Dude

New Member
I really don't intend to fan the flames again, but I was discussing the biblical condemnation of homosexuality with a friend tonight. It's been a while since I've read the bible all the way through so I set out looking for a review of all biblical mentions of sexual (mis)conduct. I found Rev. Walter Wink's essay to be a very good summation of biblical sexual ethic found in scripture and a conclusion similar to my own. The article is a little too long to post in its entirety, but this part was of particular interest to me:

The Problem of Authority

These cases are relevant to our attitude toward the authority of Scripture. They are not cultic prohibitions from the Holiness Code that are clearly superseded in Christianity, such as rules about eating shellfish or wearing clothes made of two different materials. They are rules concerning sexual behavior, and they fall among the moral commandments of Scripture. Clearly we regard certain rules, especially in the Old Testament, as no longer binding. Other things we regard as binding, including legislation in the Old Testament that is not mentioned at all in the New. What is our principle of selection here?

For example, virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting: incest, rape, adultery, and intercourse with animals. But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors which we generally allow: intercourse during menstruation, celibacy, exogamy (marriage with non-Jews), naming sexual organs, nudity (under certain conditions), masturbation (some Christians still condemn this), birth control (some Christians still forbid this).

And the Bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not. Likewise, the Bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn: prostitution, polygamy, levirate marriage, sex with slaves, concubinage, treatment of women as property, and very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13).

And while the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it. In short, of the sexual mores mentioned here, we only agree with the Bible on four of them, and disagree with it on sixteen!

Surely no one today would recommend reviving the levirate marriage. So why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices? Obviously many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary. Mormon polygamy was outlawed in this country, despite the constitutional protection of freedom of religion, because it violated the sensibilities of the dominant Christian culture. Yet no explicit biblical prohibition against polygamy exists.

If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these biblical sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit. We cannot then take even what Paul himself says as a new Law. Christians reserve the right to pick and choose which sexual mores they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing just that. And this is as true of evangelicals and fundamentalists as it is of liberals and mainliners.

The complete essay is available here: http://www.soulforce...ble-walter-wink

Its o.k,...........you can feel comfortable in coming out of the closet here.......:unsure:, or if not we understand that too.


Not that theres anything wrong with that.......:biggrin:

curb09_29tvs425.jpg
 

Anny

Member
My issue is with the interpretation of the bible. If you look at the original greek, the word that has been accepted as homosexual was a word that meant men diddling little boys, not wholesale homosexuality. In the 60's was when folks decided to translate that word into homosexual, so, for myself, I am unclear whether Paul was actually talking about homosexuality, or men who diddle little boys. Being unable to go back in time, I don't know what Paul was talking about. And I, for one, am unwilling to condemn folks whom are homosexual because in my opinion it is how they were made via genetic phenotypical expression.
 

The Dude

New Member
And yet both Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. As far as I know those angels that the sodomites wanted to " KNOW" were not young boys.
 

The Dude

New Member
I was once told in here that the main reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was not because of the sin of homosexuality,.......but because they were inhospitable! :eek:hmy: You gotta be kidding me.

Gee,..........pretty sure being anally raped by a bunch of homosexuals is probably about as inhospitable as it gets! :laugh:


Thats like saying the act of MURDER isnt a sin,.......its the act of being inhospitable as its considered quite RUDE to murder someone! LMAO
 

Anny

Member
the issue with Sodom and Gomorrah was rape....... not homosexuality. Whether a person rapes a man or a woman, it is still rape, and very wrong.
 

Anny

Member
To IronSkillet:

What I found the most interesting in this essay is that Paul is actually contradicting Jesus doncha think? In which case, I think we should follow what Jesus said, and not what Paul said. Hence, the only scripture in the New Testament potentially admonishing homosexuality (I say potentially, because the greek word for homosexuality was not used in this text, but rather a word that means a guy diddling a little boy--which is pedophilia and not homosexuality) was written by Paul, and since he already contradicted the Son of God, we should disregard those words anyhow.
 

burford

New Member
To IronSkillet:

What I found the most interesting in this essay is that Paul is actually contradicting Jesus doncha think? In which case, I think we should follow what Jesus said, and not what Paul said. Hence, the only scripture in the New Testament potentially admonishing homosexuality (I say potentially, because the greek word for homosexuality was not used in this text, but rather a word that means a guy diddling a little boy--which is pedophilia and not homosexuality) was written by Paul, and since he already contradicted the Son of God, we should disregard those words anyhow.
Jesus said guys diddling guys was cool? Sure would like to see that.
 

IronSkillet

New Member
I was once told in here that the main reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was not because of the sin of homosexuality,.......but because they were inhospitable! :eek:hmy: You gotta be kidding me.

Gee,..........pretty sure being anally raped by a bunch of homosexuals is probably about as inhospitable as it gets! :laugh:


Thats like saying the act of MURDER isnt a sin,.......its the act of being inhospitable as its considered quite RUDE to murder someone! LMAO

It's obvious you didn't read the essay because this was actually addressed. There is an argument to be made that the cities were destroyed due to their failure to exhibit hospitality, and I think you should be able to find that in the text if you look critically, bearing in mind the cultural norms of the time. Focusing on the topic of this thread though, your assertion that the cities were destroyed primarily due to the homosexual behavior of their inhabitants is a widely held opinion. I agree with Rev. Wink, however for a number of reasons that this passage is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

"Some passages that have been advanced as pertinent to the issue of homosexuality are, in fact, irrelevant. One is the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Gen. 19:1-29). That was a case of ostensibly heterosexual males intent on humiliating strangers by treating them "like women," thus demasculinizing them. (This is also the case in a similar account in Judges 19-21.) Their brutal behavior has nothing to do with the problem of whether genuine love expressed between consenting adults of the same sex is legitimate or not."

To IronSkillet

What I found the most interesting in this essay is that Paul is actually contradicting Jesus doncha think? In which case, I think we should follow what Jesus said, and not what Paul said. Hence, the only scripture in the New Testament potentially admonishing homosexuality (I say potentially, because the greek word for homosexuality was not used in this text, but rather a word that means a guy diddling a little boy--which is pedophilia and not homosexuality) was written by Paul, and since he already contradicted the Son of God, we should disregard those words anyhow.

Perhaps he did. As I am not a Christian, and am more interested in this topic for its anthropological implications, I am not burdened with making the choice of which passage to adhere to. This would be one of a number of seeming contradictions in the bible's proscriptions regarding sexual behavior.

No one has yet addressed the true focus of the article, though. I am very interested to hear from Christians about their justification in adhering to selective "sexual mores" and ignoring others that are unequivocally established in the scripture. Anybody?
 

Anny

Member
It's obvious you didn't read the essay because this was actually addressed. There is an argument to be made that the cities were destroyed due to their failure to exhibit hospitality, and I think you should be able to find that in the text if you look critically, bearing in mind the cultural norms of the time. Focusing on the topic of this thread though, your assertion that the cities were destroyed primarily due to the homosexual behavior of their inhabitants is a widely held opinion. I agree with Rev. Wink, however for a number of reasons that this passage is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

"Some passages that have been advanced as pertinent to the issue of homosexuality are, in fact, irrelevant. One is the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Gen. 19:1-29). That was a case of ostensibly heterosexual males intent on humiliating strangers by treating them "like women," thus demasculinizing them. (This is also the case in a similar account in Judges 19-21.) Their brutal behavior has nothing to do with the problem of whether genuine love expressed between consenting adults of the same sex is legitimate or not."



Perhaps he did. As I am not a Christian, and am more interested in this topic for its anthropological implications, I am not burdened with making the choice of which passage to adhere to. This would be one of a number of seeming contradictions in the bible's proscriptions regarding sexual behavior.

No one has yet addressed the true focus of the article, though. I am very interested to hear from Christians about their justification in adhering to selective "sexual mores" and ignoring others that are unequivocally established in the scripture. Anybody?

I am what is termed a "Red Letter Christian" which means I just believe and practice what Jesus said. Since Jesus said the law was no more, I take him at his word. I have no condemnation for gay folks. Since I am a red letter Christian, I feel free to eat crab meat and all that foul stuff, and I have even had sex during my period!
 

An-Cap Frog

Member
I am what is termed a "Red Letter Christian" which means I just believe and practice what Jesus said. Since Jesus said the law was no more, I take him at his word. I have no condemnation for gay folks. Since I am a red letter Christian, I feel free to eat crab meat and all that foul stuff, and I have even had sex during my period!
Bernie Madoff likes this...
 

sous vide

Member
I am what is termed a "Red Letter Christian" which means I just believe and practice what Jesus said. Since Jesus said the law was no more, I take him at his word. I have no condemnation for gay folks. Since I am a red letter Christian, I feel free to eat crab meat and all that foul stuff, and I have even had sex during my period!

TMI
 

IronSkillet

New Member
I am what is termed a "Red Letter Christian" which means I just believe and practice what Jesus said. Since Jesus said the law was no more, I take him at his word. I have no condemnation for gay folks. Since I am a red letter Christian, I feel free to eat crab meat and all that foul stuff, and I have even had sex during my period!

Interesting take, and as defensible as any, I suppose. that raises a number of other questions, but to avoid (further) detailing the thread ill save them.
 

weklfrog

New Member
It's obvious you didn't read the essay because this was actually addressed. There is an argument to be made that the cities were destroyed due to their failure to exhibit hospitality, and I think you should be able to find that in the text if you look critically, bearing in mind the cultural norms of the time. Focusing on the topic of this thread though, your assertion that the cities were destroyed primarily due to the homosexual behavior of their inhabitants is a widely held opinion. I agree with Rev. Wink, however for a number of reasons that this passage is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

"Some passages that have been advanced as pertinent to the issue of homosexuality are, in fact, irrelevant. One is the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Gen. 19:1-29). That was a case of ostensibly heterosexual males intent on humiliating strangers by treating them "like women," thus demasculinizing them. (This is also the case in a similar account in Judges 19-21.) Their brutal behavior has nothing to do with the problem of whether genuine love expressed between consenting adults of the same sex is legitimate or not."



Perhaps he did. As I am not a Christian, and am more interested in this topic for its anthropological implications, I am not burdened with making the choice of which passage to adhere to. This would be one of a number of seeming contradictions in the bible's proscriptions regarding sexual behavior.

No one has yet addressed the true focus of the article, though. I am very interested to hear from Christians about their justification in adhering to selective "sexual mores" and ignoring others that are unequivocally established in the scripture. Anybody?
The anti-gay crowd criticizes the gays-can-be Christians crowd for being selective in their biblical beliefts, that they ignore the anit-gay bible passages. They decry the "buffet" approach to Christianity, that you can pick and choose what beliefs you want to follow. But it seems as though, with all of the contradictions in the Bible, you cannot do otherwise.
 
Top