Romans 1::26-28?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Judaism, Christians and Islam Rejects Homosexuality
- Thread starter Servant_of_the_One1
- Start date
Romans 1::26-28?
You're welcome to do some reading: Judaism, Christians and Islam Rejects Homosexuality | ReligiousForums.com
gsa
Well-Known Member
I'm glad, I think? lol
You know, it's weird. I've often wondered ...why would a god who created the universe, care about homosexuality? Or sex outside of 'marriage?' Man seems to impose his 'ideas' of morality upon a god. It seems wrong to me. This is what I like about Deism, mostly. It sets a person free from the trappings of religion, and let's you determine for yourself...right from wrong. And I tend to think that something is 'immoral,' if it hurts another person willfully, and maliciously. (exception, self defense or if one's life is in danger, that goes without saying)
But, it just seems like an odd thing, why would a god care if two consenting men fall in love, or have sex? (so long as they are not hurting anyone)
I'm sincerely wondering if anyone has a plausible answer to that question?
If you think humans were made out of dust or clay and fashioned into pairs, that God gives dominion over women to men and that femininity is degrading, I can see where homosexuality would be an issue. Lesbianism is not as transgressive under these conditions.
One of the many reasons that I left the RCC (Christianity in general) is that the Bible segregates people...and there are 'chosen' ones who are seen as less immoral than others. Homosexuality is seen as a sin in Scripture. I looked at one of the links, and no interpretation, no historical opinion, and no number of 'studies' will ever erase that Biblical Scripture and Islam is very precise about its disdain for homosexuality and any sexual acts (including heterosexual) that are outside of a female/male marriage. You have to follow what you feel is right for you, but I (personally) couldn't keep playing all the mental gymnastics games that are required in order for a person to accept the tough passages of the Bible. I choose to view the Bible as man made...most likely by a bunch of celibate, misogynistic men who wanted control over ...well, everyone else.
To be honest, I don't really understand your stance. It's like you prefer to have a negative view of the Bible, even in light of historical and contextual research by scholars that really illuminates these topics and makes seemingly problematic passages much easier to understand and digest. Shouldn't you be happy that research shows that the Bible isn't as horrible as you paint it to be? I don't get it. If you're going to hate the Bible, at hate it from a realistic position.
Let me ask you, do you believe that the Bible is the word of God? If it is, how come it can be interpreted so very many different ways?
I don't believe it's the word of God. I don't hate it, I just don't believe it's the word of any god at all.
I won't follow man and pretend it's God directing the show. That's all.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The bible doesn't address homosexuality, because homosexuality, as an orientation, was unknown to the ancients who wrote the texts. According to the Hebraic understanding, two things leap to mind:
1) One's salvation and claim to immortality cam through one's offspring. When a woman was barren, she was, in most biblical cases, cursed or abandoned by God. One claimed immortality when one's name was remembered by one's children. The purpose of sex was to procreate. Homosexual relationships were not procreative.
2) Honor and shame were embodied in sexual identity: men embodied honor -- women embodied shame. For a man to "bend over and take it like a woman" entailed acting like a woman -- with shame.
It is the act of homosexual relations that is prohibited by Leviticus, not homosexuality, itself. And for the reasons I've outlined above. Now that salvation and immortality are no longer based on procreation, and now that honor and shame are no longer understood to be embodied in sexual identity, the prohibition of homosexual contact is null and void.
I actually don't like calling the Bible the "word of God", because Christ is truly the Word of God. God did not directly write the Bible. I view the Bible as a story of humanity trying to understand and draw closer to God. Sometimes they succeed and sometimes they don't. It's the spiritual history and journey of humanity. It's our story. The Bible was written by flawed humans but that's okay, because we're all flawed. But there are deep truths, triumphs and transfigurations therein, along with fears and failings.
We all have to build on the foundations of those who came before when it comes to religion. You're no different. There's nothing new under the sun. You get your concepts of God from somewhere outside of yourself, like we all do.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No, they're not as clear as you think they are. Yes. The bible is not "God's words."
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Thanks for the heads-up. I've been away from the computer for a few days.
*
Most Christians have at least a modicum of discernment and conscience that goes well beyond their scriptures.
To their undeniable merit, let it be very clear.
If more people thought this way, there'd be less problems in the world, and more peace when it comes to religion. I like how you put this.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
EXPAND HIS TEXT -
There are no actual verses against homosexuality in the Bible. There are only people using mistranslated verses, claiming such.
*
Last edited:
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Thanks.
I mean, in some ways the Bible is the word of God because I do believe that God speaks to us through it. I've heard the Bible described as God's love song to us. You have to view it from the bigger picture of the themes of the Bible. We fail so many times but God is always there to forgive us and pick us up when we've fallen.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Why should they do that - when there are no verses saying they can't be homosexual?
*
Vishvavajra
Active Member
Well, as someone who can read the original, I can attest to that. Ancient Greek does not go easily into modern English, and a lot of cultural assumptions and doctrinal interpretations inevitably come along for the ride.
In that one sentence from 1 Corinthians, there are several words that don't correspond exactly to words in modern English. For example, πόρνοι doesn't really mean fornicators, nor is μοιχοί really adulterers, nor μαλακοί homosexuals exactly. It literally refers to prostitutes, men who have unauthorized relations with a woman who is subject to the guardianship or ownership of another man, and effeminate men. The first and second are tied up with ancient sexual mores that don't neatly map onto modern attitudes. The third is tied up with what people back then didn't understand about intersex and transgendered people--they thought certain behaviors would actually cause a man's masculinity to wane, so that he could end up developing female traits, not just in personality but also in body. We know now that isn't true.
In fact, pretty much all of the anti-homosexual talk in Paul's epistles comes from false ideas people used to have about how gender was determined--and just plain old social stigma that came from being less than perfectly masculine. He was not trying to write a medical text; he took for granted that the beliefs of the day on that subject were correct. And it's not very instructive to take something written from the point of view of the ignorance of the day and call it God's commandment. Paul was doing the best he could with the knowledge he had, but it was imperfect, as even he would tell you.
Last edited:
Thanks.
You know, there are times when I read your posts and I scoff to myself. And then...there are moments like these, when I have tears in my eyes. For you sound like my grandmother once did, and maybe I stayed for as long as I did in the RCC because of both her and my father. I have so many good memories wrapped up in my days as a Catholic. I always had doubts, and always believed in equality for everyone, and that Jesus loved everyone...equally. But, life was simpler before I began questioning. So, if I come across as a (fill in the blank lol)...I don't mean to. Forgive me. It is because sometimes, your posts take me back to another place I've tried to forget.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Yep, and others.
1Sa 18:1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.1Sa 18:2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.
1Sa 18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
1Sa 18:4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
1Sa 18:21 And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the twain. (Twain is actually TWICE.)
(Geneva)1Sa 20:30 Then was Saul angrie with Ionathan, and sayde vnto him, Thou sonne of the wicked rebellious woman (perverted rebelliousness,) do not I know, that thou hast chosen the sonne of Ishai(Jesse, Davids father) to thy confusion, and to the confusion and shame of thy mother?
At Jonathan's death - 2Sa 1:26 I am pining for thee, my other, Jonathan: especially delightful thy affections, wondrously surpassing the love of women.
*