How Do Some Churches Square Their Acceptance of Homosexuality with the Bible?

Because religion makes a bad epistemology. It is all based on belief and not on facts. The bible reflects that. Nothing what can't be interpreted or is contradicted a few pages later. Thus you can have a lesbian, married pastor in one Christian church and you have the Westborrow Baptist Church who also call themselves Christians. Christian is a label without value.

Left Coast said:

Click to expand...

Sorry, but far too long to watch. How about a précis?

.

Skwim said:

.


In light of the Bible's hostility toward homosexual behavior what is the logic behind the acceptance of homosexuals (1) as members, (2) marrying them, and (3) even ordaining them, by some Christian denominations?

The reason I ask is that I wouldn't think any denomination would accept anyone whose continuing life style was deserving of capital punishment.

.

.

Click to expand...

You are speaking of the Mosaic Law, of course.

I'm in the "New Testament" which has no capital punishment as you define it.

Skwim said:

Sorry, but far too long to watch. How about a précis?

.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Spark Notes version:

Genesis 19 - this passage is about the attempted gang rape of two angels, not homosexuality.

Leviticus 18 / 20 - these prohibitions are part of the Torah's litany of hundreds of requirements for Jews in ancient Israel. They don't apply to Christians.

Romans 1 - Three things: 1) the logic of Paul's thought in this chapter is about exchange. The people he refers to exchanged their initial knowledge of God with idol worship, and they similarly exchanged their initial sexuality with the opposite sex for the same sex. But this doesn't apply to gay people, who never exchanged their straight sexuality for gayness. Being gay is "natural" to gay people. 2) Same sex sexual behavior in the ancient world was understood as a symptom of lustful excess, akin to gluttony or greed. Paul is painting a picture here of people who are lost in unbridled lustful passions. But this doesn't apply to loving, gay couples. 3) The terms translated "natural" and "unnatural" refer more to social customs or norms than some sort of inherent created order of things. They are culture-specific, not universal.

1 Corinthians 6 / 1 Timothy 1 - the two Greek terms in question here don't appear to have anything directly to do with homosexuality (which is a very modern concept that didn't exist in the 1st century anyway). One term likely refers to some type of economic exploitation, likely sexual, like prostitution or pimping. The other term, translated as "effeminate" in the KJV, means "soft," and was an insult used to mean weak-willed, lazy, or cowardly, which were traditionally thought to be feminine characteristics.

KenS said:

You are speaking of the Mosaic Law, of course.

I'm in the "New Testament" which has no capital punishment as you define it.

Click to expand...

But in as much as homosexual desires are shameful:


And will prevent one from getting into heaven:


they hardly seem to be activities a Christian denomination would condoned or even excuse.
.

you're using really bad translations of the Bible for your anti LGBT postings

Skwim said:

But in as much as homosexual desires are shameful:

"God abandoned them to their shameful desires," and "men [doing] shameful things with other men"
[Romans 1:26-27 (NLT)]​

And will prevent one from getting into heaven:

9 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, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.
[1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NLT)]​

they hardly seem to be activities a Christian denomination would condoned or even excuse.
.

Click to expand...

i think you just moved the goal post. You said "capital punishment" - as in "while they are on this earth".

So I stand by my statement.

So... what is the context of Romans 1:26-27? And in the light of:

Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Rom 10:8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim:
9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

Left Coast said:

Romans 1 - Three things: 1) the logic of Paul's thought in this chapter is about exchange. The people he refers to exchanged their initial knowledge of God with idol worship, and they similarly exchanged their initial sexuality with the opposite sex for the same sex. But this doesn't apply to gay people, who never exchanged their straight sexuality for gayness. Being gay is "natural" to gay people. 2) Same sex sexual behavior in the ancient world was understood as a symptom of lustful excess, akin to gluttony or greed. Paul is painting a picture here of people who are lost in unbridled lustful passions. But this doesn't apply to loving, gay couples.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but lacking any evidence, your apologetic here is pulling conclusions out of thin air. I'm not buying any of it.

3) The terms translated "natural" and "unnatural" refer more to social customs or norms than some sort of inherent created order of things. They are culture-specific, not universal.

Click to expand...

And just how would this change the fact that Romans 1:26 is talking about women who indulged in sex with each other, which prompted god to abandoned them?

1 Corinthians 6 / 1 Timothy 1 - the two Greek terms in question here don't appear to have anything directly to do with homosexuality (which is a very modern concept that didn't exist in the 1st century anyway).

Click to expand...

This is simply silly. Just because we never had a name for the kangaroo until 1770 doesn't mean they didn't exist until then.

One term likely refers to some type of economic exploitation, likely sexual, like prostitution or pimping. The other term, translated as "effeminate" in the KJV, means "soft," and was an insult used to mean weak-willed, lazy, or cowardly, which were traditionally thought to be feminine characteristics.

Click to expand...

Of the 51 Bibles I checked 57% used the word "homosexual" in 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 59% used the word "homosexual" in 1 Timothy 1:10. So whether or not a bible uses the word "homosexual," I feel quite comfortable that both verses are talking about homosexuality.

.

.

KenS said:

i think you just moved the goal post. You said "capital punishment" - as in "while they are on this earth".

Click to expand...

Not at all. I never disagreed with your point about capital punishment, but simply went on to address what the NT did have to say about homosexuality.

Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Click to expand...

If this is truly the situation: that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, meaning we're all in need of salvation, why bother enumerating specific sins? To do so really doesn't matter, does it.

Nope!

.

Skwim said:

Not at all. I never disagreed with your point about capital punishment, but simply went on to address what the NT did have to say about homosexuality.

Click to expand...

That's another way of saying "I'm moving the goal post" to a different subject matter.

Skwim said:

If this is truly the situation: that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, meaning we're all in need of salvation, why bother enumerating specific sins? To do so really doesn't matter, does it.

Nope!

Click to expand...

That is why I asked... "what is the context" and in context of the whole of the book lest we cherry pick.

So...

What was the context of Romans 1?

Skwim said:

Sorry, but lacking any evidence, your apologetic here is pulling conclusions out of thin air. I'm not buying any of it.

Click to expand...

It's not my apologetic. It's Matthew Vines' apologetic. Which part do you think lacks evidence? If you're interested in more details, you could watch the video.

And just how would this change the fact that Romans 1:26 is talking about women who indulged in sex with each other, which prompted god to abandoned them?

Romans 1:26
. . . Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.​

Click to expand...

It doesn't change what the verse says, it changes the context and appicability of the verse to modern times.

This is simply silly. Just because we never had a name for the kangaroo until 1770 doesn't mean they didn't exist until then.

Click to expand...

The argument isn't that gay people didn't exist. It's that reading gayness back into the thoughts of a culture that didn't have the concept of gayness is anachronistic.

Of the 51 Bibles I checked 57% used the word "homosexual" in 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 59% used the word "homosexual" in 1 Timothy 1:10. So whether or not a bible uses the word "homosexual," I feel quite comfortable that both verses are talking about homosexuality.

Click to expand...

So nearly half of modern Bible versions (without fact checking that) don't translate the term(s) that way. Given the conservative bent of most Bible translators (especially translators from before a few decades ago) that's pretty stunning if these terms are obviously a reference to the gays.

Do you support gay rights, marriage, etc.? If so, I would think you'd be happy that Christians are increasingly interpreting traditionally anti-gay passages in a different way.

KenS said:

That's another way of saying "I'm moving the goal post" to a different subject matter.

Click to expand...

Going ahead with the subject is hardly moving goal posts. Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other evidence is demanded. As I said, I never disagreed with your point about capital punishment, (dismissed it) but simply went on to address what the NT did have to say about homosexuality.

That is why I asked... "what is the context" and in context of the whole of the book lest we cherry pick.

So...

What was the context of Romans 1?

Click to expand...

And I don't find any context pertinent. If you feel there's some kind of context that mitigates god's abandonment of those with shameful desires and who do shameful things with other men, I'll listen.

.

Left Coast said:

The argument isn't that gay people didn't exist. It's that reading gayness back into the thoughts of a culture that didn't have the concept of gayness is anachronistic.

Click to expand...

And you know this to be a fact because ______________________________________________________________ .

Do you support gay rights, marriage, etc.? If so, I would think you'd be happy that Christians are increasingly interpreting traditionally anti-gay passages in a different way.

Click to expand...

I'm quite pleased, but my pleasure doesn't change what appears to be a rather contrary stance to the Bible's teachings.

.

Skwim said:

In light of the Bible's hostility toward homosexual behavior what is the logic behind the acceptance of homosexuals (1) as members, (2) marrying them, and (3) even ordaining them, by some Christian denominations?

The reason I ask is that I wouldn't think any denomination would accept anyone whose continuing life style was deserving of capital punishment.

Click to expand...

Skwim said:

Going ahead with the subject is hardly moving goal posts. Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other evidence is demanded. As I said, I never disagreed with your point about capital punishment, (dismissed it) but simply went on to address what the NT did have to say about homosexuality.

Click to expand...

1) Your interpretation was "hostility towards a lifestyle" - which I addressed that we are all in the same boat... so your interpretation was wrong - thus my question (which you didn't answer) - what is the context

no hostility but rather salvation for all (If you read all of Romans and not cherry pick)

2) You said "deserving of capital punishment" is Mosaic law and thus not applicable to your first statement and thus my question (which you didn't answer) - what is the context of Romans 1

Skwim said:

And I don't find any context pertinent. If you feel there's some kind of context that mitigates god's abandonment of those with shameful desires and who do shameful things with other men, I'll listen.

Click to expand...

So... what is the context of Romans one when God didn't abandon anybody? He sent His son for all.

So, what is your understanding in light of the other 15 chapters that opens up the salvation to all (including those who have chosen a homosexual lifestyle - heterosexual lifestyle - or any other lifestyle you would like to enumerate)?

Skwim said:

And you know this to be a fact because ______________________________________________________________ .

Click to expand...

Homosexuality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Do you have any evidence that, say, ancient Greek or Roman culture had the concept of sexual orientation and/or homosexuality?

KenS said:

1) Your interpretation was "hostility towards a lifestyle" - which I addressed that we are all in the same boat... so your interpretation was wrong - thus my question (which you didn't answer) - what is the context

Click to expand...

There is no special context that addresses his hostility toward homosexual behavior. His hostility is apparent in his singling it out for mention, and the lack of any specific context makes it always wrong.

no hostility but rather salvation for all (If you read all of Romans and not cherry pick)

Click to expand...

Sure there is, I find god's decision that "They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." to be quite hostile. Maybe you don't, but I do.

2) You said "deserving of capital punishment" is Mosaic law and thus not applicable to your first statement and thus my question (which you didn't answer) - what is the context of Romans 1

Click to expand...

This may be your position, but it certainly isn't the position of all Christians. Don't feel OT pronouncements are applicable, fine; but many Christians do.

So... what is the context of Romans one when God didn't abandon anybody? He sent His son for all.

Click to expand...

Nah you have to address to my request first: If you feel there's some kind of context that mitigates god's abandonment of those with shameful desires and who do shameful things with other men, I'll listen.

Now if what you would tell me is that OT pronouncements no longer mattering, fine. I believe I'm done here.

.

Skwim said:

Sure there is, I find god's decision that "They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." to be quite hostile. Maybe you don't, but I do.

Click to expand...

Now we go in circles or circular thinking... you are talking about the Mosaic Law and not the NT

Skwim said:

This may be your position, but it certainly isn't the position of all Christians. Don't feel OT pronouncements are applicable, fine; but many Christians do.

Click to expand...

For sure... you can find anything in the kaleidoscope of possibilities. There are even atheists that have a church.

Skwim said:

Nah you have to address to my request first: If you feel there's some kind of context that mitigates god's abandonment of those with shameful desires and who do shameful things with other men, I'll listen.

Now if what you would tell me is that OT pronouncements no longer mattering, fine. I believe I'm done here.

Click to expand...

Again... back to full circle.

KenS said:

So... what is the context of Romans 1:26-27? And in the light of:

Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Rom 10:8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim:
9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

Click to expand...

sun rise said:

Why pick homosexuality instead of, for example, wearing clothes made from wool and linen or sowing fields with seeds from different species? Or for that matter not murdering Wicca practitioners?

Click to expand...

It makes sense, since homosexuality is condemned in the so-called NT also.

Skwim said:

So, what was Jesus's message about accepting practicing homosexuals as church members, marrying them, ordaining them, AND not putting them to death as god wanted?

.

Click to expand...

Jesus is not currently ruling the earth, so putting them to death, will come at that time.
In the meantime, I don't know of any teaching in the Bible that allows for accepting practicing homosexuals as church members, marrying them, or ordaining them.
To the contrary, the letters to the congregations gave orders to put out any unrepentant, willful practicer of immorality. 1 Corinthians 5.

In my opinion, religion is all made up anyway. It's prescriptions are only generally built on a rational/logical foundations, with departures and randomness thrown in everywhere due to ancient zeitgeist injections that no one seems willing to part with because "tradition" or "sacrosanctity."

So, because it is made up, making up a little bit more, or even changing things around, isn't actually going to hurt anything. Not at all. In fact... people do it all the time. Where is God with the ruler to beat these people over the knuckles? Nowhere. He's nowhere.