Please Explain: "Gay Christian"

[sojourner]

Here's one for you: Paul said that there is no longer male or female, for all are one. That's good news for our transgendered friends!



you're welcome!

 

[sojourner]

Seriously, the boat everyone here is missing is that, sure, the bible does speak in limited places condemning the homosexual act. What hasn't been mentioned is that, in the ancient world, they didn't understand homosexuality as an orientation -- that is, as a normal and healthy expression of sexuality. Since they had no concept of orientation, of course they thought the homosexual act was wrong.

Additionally, some of those passages do refer to slaveboy sex, battlefield rape, and other acts of violence, which are morally reprehensible.

But speaking about normal and healthy sexual relationships? The bible doesn't condemn it whether it's hetero or homo.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Seriously, the boat everyone here is missing is that, sure, the bible does speak in limited places condemning the homosexual act.

I'm not sure about that.

What hasn't been mentioned is that, in the ancient world, they didn't understand homosexuality as an orientation -- that is, as a normal and healthy expression of sexuality. Since they had no concept of orientation, of course they thought the homosexual act was wrong.

Additionally, some of those passages do refer to slaveboy sex, battlefield rape, and other acts of violence, which are morally reprehensible.

But speaking about normal and healthy sexual relationships? The bible doesn't condemn it whether it's hetero or homo.

I totally agree. :yes:

 

[idav]

But speaking about normal and healthy sexual relationships? The bible doesn't condemn it whether it's hetero or homo.

seriously? your either a liar or you've lost your mind

He is absolutely correct. It is in 1 Corinthians.

 

[samosasauce]

Women who whistle consider themselves Christians. Is that an oxymoron as much as this?

 

[Ingledsva]

He is absolutely correct. It is in 1 Corinthians.

Are you referring to 1 Co 6:9?


1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


That "effeminate" is actually "Malakoi" meaning soft - Dandy - Ne'er-do-well.

Someone that overindulges in fine food, alcohol, sex, and fine clothing, etc.

Lazy spoiled rich people would be an example.

It does not mean homosexual. See # 15.


Luke 7:25 uses the same word. They are talking about John the Baptist.


Luke 7:25 But what did you go out to see? A man who had been dressed in soft garments? Behold, those in expensive clothing and being in luxury are in the house of king's.


*


That "nor abusers of themselves with mankind," is actually "arsenokoitai" which again does not mean homosexual. See # 45.

Arsenokoitai is found used with both men and women.


For instance when Zeus kidnaps and rapes Ganymede.


"...Some even do it with their own mothers, and others with foster sisters or goddaughters. In fact, many men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives.”

John the Faster, Penitential, about AD 575.


I found a reference to arsenokoitai as Temple prostitutes (who were quite often sold to the temple, or givin/dedicated by a family,) but more specifically to the Greek custom of an older "HETEROSEXUAL" man, an erastes taking an eromanos, an adolescent boy as a student. The man teachs hunting, warfare, and adult male customs to the boy, and has SEX with him! Greek males also used subordinate males for sex. Also the fact that "HETEROSEXUAL" males in both the Greek and Hebrew worlds could keep male slaves and use them for sex!

In this case it would mean a "HETEROSEXUAL male dominating/using/raping usually younger or subordinate males/slaves/temple prostitutes"


It seems clear that arsenokoites does not refer to mutually respecting gay relationships, but to a powerful aggressor subjugating a weaker individual, whether in the context of culture, rape, or slave trading, or temple prostitutes.



*

 

[sojourner]

He is absolutely correct. It is in 1 Corinthians.

The bible cannot condemn the unknown.

 

[McNap]

(I find it interesting that only male homosexuality was condemned in the Bible, though).

Yes I see.
And it's true what you say.

First of all girls naturally look prettier than boys. (It's harder to condemn a pretty person)

Another psychological explanation was given to me by my dutch gay brothers. They say boys naturally want more seks than girls.
For instance: when a straight couple live together the boy will be drawing his girl to do seks more often, while the girl actually does the opposite by putting her boy on a brake. They both have to sacrifice something: the boy gets a little less than he desires and the girl gives a little more to keep him satisfied. They are affecting eachother.
But when it comes to a gay couple those two boys won't have this brake influence, so they are going to give eachother a lot. When male straight people find out about it, they might get jealous.
A lesbian couple on the other hand will have few seks which may be seen as more glorious in comparison with other couples.

When you're not lesbian I advice you not to talk about your seks life except with your partner or else people WILL devalue.

 

[McNap]

I'll get to that, but I should also mention that in Leviticus chapter 20 it does not say, in relevant part, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman..."

Although it IS casting some doubt you not getting to that right away.
I mean, what if it DOES say "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman..."?
I find you a bit suspicious since you don't yet know what it does say and nevertheless you claim KJV-translation is wrong. As if you say: "I first need to investigate my own language."
It's just that you don't seem seriously to me.
Or just very insecure eitherway.

 

[Pegg]

I hate the term "queer". In my generation, that was the epitome of an insult to a gay. It was synonymous with "Pervert" and "Freak". I attempt to change with the times, but that term evokes such emotion, it is extremely difficult to be rational. We are not "queer". We are not odd or strange. We are not freaks or perverts. We are as natural and normal as our heterosexual neighbors. We are just gay, homosexual or transgender. I have great difficulty adapting to that term.

With my venting done and my opinion stated, I won't speak on that further, regardless of which word you feel comfortable with.

In looking into cultural contexts, I have found this consistency, from Sicily to Iceland: Invariably, the one who preferred the "feminine" position were invariably scorned. Based on these findings, I conclude that these versus meant exactly what they meant; if not for both men, but for the man in the feminine position. Have you found evidence I have missed? If so, I would be interested in viewing it.

The Old Testament, I can easily dismiss. When it comes to the few versus in the New Testament, Paul's letters, who believes they have been "mistranslated and removed from their cultural context" and based on what evidence? Of course, I'm not hoping for an entire dissertation; but a point in the right direction?

(I find it interesting that only male homosexuality was condemned in the Bible, though).

female homosexuality is also condemned as is incest and beastiality. Any form of sex outside of Gods design is condemned because it is outside of Gods design.

As the creator, he has the right to put us in our respective postions. When we take ourselves out of that position and put ourselves in another situation, it is sin.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Seriously, the boat everyone here is missing is that, sure, the bible does speak in limited places condemning the homosexual act. What hasn't been mentioned is that, in the ancient world, they didn't understand homosexuality as an orientation -- that is, as a normal and healthy expression of sexuality. Since they had no concept of orientation, of course they thought the homosexual act was wrong.

Additionally, some of those passages do refer to slaveboy sex, battlefield rape, and other acts of violence, which are morally reprehensible.

But speaking about normal and healthy sexual relationships? The bible doesn't condemn it whether it's hetero or homo.

Something just occurred to me: while you're right in pointing out that the Bible doesn't condemn monogamous, consenting same-sex relationships between equals, the Bible also doesn't portray marriage as a monogamous, consenting relationship between equals in the first place.

The Bible is the product of a deeply sexist age (ages, really). The type of marriage it envisions is one where at best there's an asymmetrical power dynamic and at worst the wife is merely the property of the husband. Biblical marriage is not a relationship between equals; it's an unequal relationship where whether you're the "top" or "bottom" is determined by sex.

Since the Bible assumes this power imbalance in marriage, and since the power imbalance is based on a difference of sex, I don't think the Biblical model of marriage could ever be made to apply to a same-sex marriage. The Epistles say that a husband rules over his spouse the way Christ rules over his church. A marriage between two men, then, would be like two Christs both trying to rule over each other.

So the more I think about it, the more I think same-sex marriage is incompatible with the Bible... not because the Bible condemns homosexuality, but because Biblical marriage assumes sex-based subjection that just doesn't work in a same-sex relationship.

 

[sojourner]

Something just occurred to me: while you're right in pointing out that the Bible doesn't condemn monogamous, consenting same-sex relationships between equals, the Bible also doesn't portray marriage as a monogamous, consenting relationship between equals in the first place.

The Bible is the product of a deeply sexist age (ages, really). The type of marriage it envisions is one where at best there's an asymmetrical power dynamic and at worst the wife is merely the property of the husband. Biblical marriage is not a relationship between equals; it's an unequal relationship where whether you're the "top" or "bottom" is determined by sex.

Since the Bible assumes this power imbalance in marriage, and since the power imbalance is based on a difference of sex, I don't think the Biblical model of marriage could ever be made to apply to a same-sex marriage. The Epistles say that a husband rules over his spouse the way Christ rules over his church. A marriage between two men, then, would be like two Christs both trying to rule over each other.

So the more I think about it, the more I think same-sex marriage is incompatible with the Bible... not because the Bible condemns homosexuality, but because Biblical marriage assumes sex-based subjection that just doesn't work in a same-sex relationship.

Yes, but this is an old argument. Good observation, and well-thought out. My take-away from this is this: biblical marriage does. not. work. today. Whether we like to think so or not, we redefined biblical marriage a long, long time ago -- and we continue to do so. it wasn't so very long ago in this country that women could not own property and wives were socially inferior to their husbands. It really hasn't been all that long since we've adopted the concept of "equal marriage." And so, it is in THAT context -- and not in the context of "biblical marriage" -- that we have to work. And in that context, partners are equal, whether hetero or homo.

 

[idav]

Are you referring to 1 Co 6:9?

*

It is after that.

7
1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

He doesn't disagree with that statement but offers marriage as a resolution. So in other words sex is the issue cause its a sin. Marriage is an out that he happens to only give to heteros but not before condemning sex all together, lol.

 

[viole]

female homosexuality is also condemned as is incest and beastiality. Any form of sex outside of Gods design is condemned because it is outside of Gods design.

If the Bible has to be read literally, then incest was necessarily a part of God's design. Think of Adam and Eve or Noah family. Not to speak of the animals after the flood.

As the creator, he has the right to put us in our respective postions. When we take ourselves out of that position and put ourselves in another situation, it is sin.

Positions? What positions?

Ciao

- viole

 

[RabbiO]

Although it IS casting some doubt you not getting to that right away.
I mean, what if it DOES say "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman..."?
I find you a bit suspicious since you don't yet know what it does say and nevertheless you claim KJV-translation is wrong. As if you say: "I first need to investigate my own language."
It's just that you don't seem seriously to me.
Or just very insecure eitherway.

I would not be so eager to engage in the character assassination of someone you don't know.

I added my comment in regard to the 20th chapter of Leviticus because it, as well as the verse in the 18th chapter of that book, are the two verses that are trotted out to justify the proposition that Hebrew scripture contains a blanket condemnation of homosexual activity and I want to address both.

Just so you know, as a rabbi who did not enter the rabbinate until an age when many rabbis are about to enter retirement, I do not have a full time rabbinical position and so I continue to work a secular job as well. That means that the time demands I deal with sometimes intrude on the time I have to spend on this forum.

Now if you want to deal with the family that I spent time with yesterday following an unexpected loss in their family, go ahead and I'll have the time to more quickly move ahead with this thread.

Otherwise, sit down and shut up.

 

[Ingledsva]

It is after that.



He doesn't disagree with that statement but offers marriage as a resolution. So in other words sex is the issue cause its a sin. Marriage is an out that he happens to only give to heteros but not before condemning sex all together, lol.

Ahhh, I always forget about his condemnation of all sex. LOL!



*

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It has always confounded me: the idea of sex being an inherently evil, counterproductive or undesirable thing that seems to come from many religions.

 

[starlite]

Evidently Jesus' view was transmitted through human writers of the Bible.

At Corinthians 6:9,10 it reads...
9 Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality, 10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom. 11 And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean; you have been sanctified; you have been declared righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.

May I draw your attention to verse 11 which says..."that is what some of you were". So it appears that an individual would stop such practices and exercise faith in the sacrifice of Jesus.

 

[viole]

It has always confounded me: the idea of sex being an inherently evil, counterproductive or undesirable thing that seems to come from many religions.

It is not so strange if we postulate that religion, or the idea of morality originating from God, is an evolutionary adaptation.

For instance, the value given to (female) virginity and sexual restrictions by Christianity has an obvious biological reason; to reduce the risks of the cuckoo effect: raising a child that is not yours, biologically, if you are a male. And if a particular religion is very male centric, then the conclusion follows inescapably.

Human females are pretty unique amongst other primate species in not giving any visual signs about their current state of fertility. If we completely turned red during our fertile days, like other primate females, there would be no need to give value to virginity or overly control sexual freedom: all you have to do would be to keep us home a couple of days per month during those days, to be sure about paternity.

So, all those moral familiar pseudo-values highjacked by religion are ultimately explainable by us not having particular rashes during fertility periods. And this applies to any (human) moral imperative: it is mainly biological.

Ergo, sexual morality coming from religion serves evolutionary pressure: optimizes energy consumption so that it is used only for your own genes ... in most cases

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ingledsva]

I would not be so eager to engage in the character assassination of someone you don't know.

I added my comment in regard to the 20th chapter of Leviticus because it, as well as the verse in the 18th chapter of that book, are the two verses that are trotted out to justify the proposition that Hebrew scripture contains a blanket condemnation of homosexual activity and I want to address both.

Just so you know, as a rabbi who did not enter the rabbinate until an age when many rabbis are about to enter retirement, I do not have a full time rabbinical position and so I continue to work a secular job as well. That means that the time demands I deal with sometimes intrude on the time I have to spend on this forum.

Now if you want to deal with the family that I spent time with yesterday following an unexpected loss in their family, go ahead and I'll have the time to more quickly move ahead with this thread.

Otherwise, sit down and shut up.

Welcome back. I'm also curious about your translation of the two Leviticus verses.


I know Lev 18:22 is about Sacred Temple Sex with the Qadesh, because it switches to Molech worship at 18:21, and is still talking about that sex worship in 23, But most people are not sure about the actual translation of 22.


Lev 18:21 And your seed you shall not give through copulation to he, Molech, nor shall you profane the Name/honor of your Elohiym; I am YHVH.

Lev 18:22 ............. Idolatry it is.

Lev 18:23 And hence/also with any beasts don’t lay carnally, defiling yourself. As/thus also woman shall not be ordained/employed/made to serve beasts in copulation! Unnatural/Bestiality it is!



So 22 is part of 21 and 23, and is talking about Sacred Sex with the Sacred Prostitutes of Molech. It is NOT talking about homosexuals.



1 Sa 2:22 Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto Israel; and how they had sex with the women that waited at the entrance of the Tabernacle of the congregation.

Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

Lev 20:3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.


In Lev 20:13 - as you know - there is no "as with a" woman.


I've noted in Strong's, that they split ZAKAR into two - 2142 (commemorative, etc.,) and 2145 (male) - and they put different accents on them. - However - they tell us 2145 is from 2142, and there were no accents when these texts were written. So, using that, and no "as with a," it could be saying something more like -


Lev 20:13 And if a Man also lies down for commemorative sex (Sacred Sex) with a women, both have committed IDOLATRY, they shall die; their blood shall be upon them.


*