it's His followers I could live without

[BVS]

WRONG....

The Evangelicals I went to college with would classify Catholics as not being true Christians and going to hell.

It's been stated in here a couple of times.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I'd have to look up which translation for it's been awhile, but the scripture states male should not lay with another man in Leviticus and then uses references to sodomy later in scripture(which is a ridiculous translation) both of which don't even touch upon homosexual females. And since lesbian sex doesn't involve intercouse in it's true definition I've heard many say scripture doesn't say anything about lesbianism.

Another inconsistancy I find troubling.

Lesbian relations are indeed mentioned in the New Testament:

Romans 1:26-27
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

 

[Ormus]

Romans 1

An article written by a conservative Christian seminary? So are we surprised that the results he comes up with are precisely what you'd expect from conservative Christian ideology? After all, more than one dissident theologian was booted out of conservative Christian universities (particularly within Southern Baptist universities) from the 1970s onwards. I no longer expect or trust conservative Christian seminaries to be objective, because they cannot and do not tolerate dissent from their established ideology.

I maintain that Paul cannot have referred to modern-day homosexuality, because such a concept did not appear until the 19th century. Of course, unscrupulous Biblical translators wasted no time in putting in terms like "homosexual offenders" into the Bible afterwards.

Understanding Greco-Roman sexuality is to understand a culture with widely different sexual practices than we are accustomed to. Pedophilia/pederasty was expected, upon which reaching adulthood, these young adults were then expected to get married to the opposite sex. But, obviously, for every child, there has to be an adult, and so these now married men then found another child/young adult to continue the cycle forward. Even then, that didn't stop these married couples from sleeping around. Since Greco-Roman religion maintained that sex was the means to get closer to the gods, they had massive temple orgies. The "male temple prostitutes" were the priests of the temple.

"Love is the fulfillment of the law."

Take note, because all of these supposed anti-gay passages have one thing in common: these acts have no regard for love or affection. Prior to the 19th century, it was believed that everyone was heterosexual and that same sex acts occurred amongst disobedient heterosexuals. As such, if you're Paul and you see a society that's sleeping around with everything that moves, preying on children/teenagers, and engaging in mass idolatry, it's no wonder that he's speaking out.

Whether the acts are heterosexual or homosexual are of no consequence. Indeed, the oft forgotten destruction of Gibeah in 19 Judges is the indisputably heterosexual version of Sodom and Gomorrah. A group of people go up to a man's doorstep, wants his house guest, then offers up his female concubine instead. The group accepts, then rapes and dismembers the concubine. God then commands an army to annihilate Gibeah.

So shall we take the destruction of Gibeah, and extrapolate from that that all heterosexual acts are henceforth forbidden, since Gibeah was destroyed on the pretense of a heterosexual act? Now perhaps you understand my analogy regarding how a white racist will interpret a slight from a black man differently than he will from a fellow white man.

"Love is the fulfillment of the law."

Since the modern understanding of homosexuality cannot have existed prior to the 19th century, you have to take the time to understand how previous generations understood the Bible.

Why I mentioned St. Augustine of Hippo earlier is because we owe him and his Manichean beliefs for all the vitriolic anti-sexuality of Christian history, not to mention a bunch of other silly Christian theology. It was because of his ideology that the female priesthood was abolished from Christianity. In fact, Celsus, a second-century Greek opponent of Christianity, derided the religion as a "woman's movement"! It's a crying shame that Christianity has openly lied to people by stating that the priesthood has always been male.

But that's besides the point. If the Bible was referring to homosexuality, the first millennium of the Christian Church certainly didn't believe that.

After this he returned to his hermitage. About 1049, during the pontificate of Pope Leo IX Peter published a scathing treatise on the vices of the clergy, Liber Gomorrhianus, dedicating it to the pope. In this "Book of Gomorrha" Pietro Damiani made an attack on homosexual practices and even masturbation, as subversive disruptions against the moral order occasioned by the madness associated with an excess of lust. It caused a great stir and aroused not a little enmity against its author. Even the pope, who had at first praised the work, was persuaded that it was exaggerated and his coldness drew from Damian a vigorous letter of protest. Meanwhile the question arose as to the validity of the ordinations of simoniacal clerics. Peter Damiani wrote (about 1053) a treatise, the Liber Gratissimus, in favour of their validity, a work which, though much combatted at the time, was potent in deciding the question in their favour before the end of the twelfth century.

In fact, opposition to homosexuality within Christianity is mostly a medieval construction, and we have medieval theologians to thank for homophobia, not the Bible. Considering the nature of medieval Christianity, it is most certainly that the Bible was used as a later justification for their homophobia; and it's from their heritage that we inherited anti-gay sentiments.

"Love is the fulfillment of the law."

Since it's only been about 40 years, at most, that medical institutions and society has been willing to accept that homosexuals are not merely perverted heterosexuals, it is not a surprise to me that the Bible has nothing to say regarding same-sex relationships. But, conversely, that means that they cannot condemn what they did not believe existed.

I do not accept your essentialist notion that isolated Biblical passages mean a blanket condemnation of homosexuality anymore than you'd accept the destruction of Gibeah as a blanket condemnation of heterosexuality. We can quote Bible passages back and forth (and, trust me, I've studied all of them much the same way you have, I'm sure), but the logic still stands that the Bible could not and did not refer to modern understanding of sexuality.

"Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law." - Romans 13:8-10

If this were 1500 years ago, groups arbitrarily excluded from religious ideology would merely have created their own religion. And, indeed, this is why we have Islam.

http://www.time.com/time/2001/jerusalem/islam.html

When the Prophet Muhammad first began to preach in Mecca in about 612, according to the earliest biographies, which are our primary source of information about him, he had his converts prostrate themselves in prayer in the direction of Jerusalem. They were symbolically reaching out toward the Jewish and Christian God, whom they were committed to worshipping, and turning their back on the paganism of Arabia. Muhammad never believed that he was founding a new religion that canceled out the previous faiths. He was convinced that he was simply bringing the old religion of the One God to the Arabs, who had never been sent a prophet before.

Consequently, the Koran, the inspired scripture that Muhammad brought to the Arabs, venerates the great prophets of the Judeo-Christian tradition. It speaks of Solomon's "great place of prayer" in Jerusalem, which the first Muslims called City of the Temple. Only after the Jews of Medina rejected Muhammad did he switch orientation and instruct his adherents to pray facing Mecca, whose ancient shrine, the Kabah, was thought by locals to have been built by Abraham and his son Ishmael, the father of the Arabs.

I do not believe that the gay community needs to go as far as that...yet. A proper understanding of church history and Biblical criticism would reveal that there is room in Christianity for gay Christians. And even if you reject most of my Biblical commentary, you cannot ignore Romans 13 and all the other notions of love in the New Testament. "Whatever other commandment there may be" is summed up in love.

But I'm sure that none of this matters one iota to you.

 

[BVS]

Melon, Romans 2:1-3 is plainly referring to people who judge someone for something they themselves are doing, and is not some generic command not to judge certain actions as sin.

Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things . But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?

Wait, a sin isn't a sin? These "same things" isn't it all sin?

 

[80sU2isBest]

Wait, a sin isn't a sin? These "same things" isn't it all sin?

He was referring to specific sins. Read them; they are in Romans 1: 18-31.

I do agree with you that if someone commits a certain sin, he has no business judging that action as sin for someone else.

However, if we were not to judge anything anyone does as sin, then there is no moral basis for any of our laws. Therefore, it is not sin to murder. It is not sin to cheat on your spouse. It is not sin to steal.

Do you think that God would have us not call sin "sin"?

 

[martha]

However, if we were not to judge anything anyone does as sin, then there is no moral basis for any of our laws. Therefore, it is not sin to murder. It is not sin to cheat on your spouse. It is not sin to steal.

Assuming laws are based on the concept of "sin" and not on the non-Biblical concept of causing harm to someone else.

 

[Ormus]

And there is no evidence that Paul "reviled" Jewish Christians. He opposed the Judaisers who taught that you had to keep the law in order to be saved, but I would hardly call opposition "revile". Not only that, but not all Jewish Christians were Judaisers.

History says to the contrary. Acts depicts the rivalry between the two competing religious sects, and their attempt to unify and reach a compromise in Acts 15 is left with the unspoken reality that Paul flat out ignored it. The Jewish Christian Church of Jerusalem (led by the apostles St. Peter and St. James) and Paul's Gentile Christian Church of Antioch never reconciled and the two fought until the Church of Jerusalem's eventual disappearance in the second century A.D. Do notice that it is Paul who deems himself one of Jesus' apostles. It was his way of asserting historical legitimacy and a direct connection with Jesus. It was very effective.

As such, the Christian Church that propagated throughout the Roman Empire onwards was completely Gentile Christian in nature.

As For Romans 1 being "flame bait", that's a nice spin, but where is your proof of that?

The first half of Romans is meant to appeal to Jewish Christian ritual sensibilities. The second half is meant to rip them to pieces by his assertion that faith alone is necessary for salvation. This epistle was not meant to convert pagans to Christianity, but to convert Jewish Christians to his brand of Christianity.

 

[Ormus]

I do agree with you that if someone commits a certain sin, he has no business judging that action as sin for someone else.

Looks like everyone's favorite Christian hypocrite, Ted Haggard, is going to rot in hell then. Looks like he forgot the spirit of Matthew 7:

"Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye." - Matthew 7:1-5

I think there's plenty of Christians who would be best to remember this too.

 

[BVS]

Lesbian relations are indeed mentioned in the New Testament:

Romans 1:26-27
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

But other translations don't:

"Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
and the males likewise gave up the natural use of women and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity."

Why doesn't it say anything about women with women, just "unnatural", yet it's very specific about men?

"the natural use of women", sounds so loving doesn't it?

Another translation specifically calls them pagan women and pagan men.

Inconsistancy...

None of which in context really says anything about homosexuality in general.

 

[BVS]

He was referring to specific sins. Read them; they are in Romans 1: 18-31.

I do agree with you that if someone commits a certain sin, he has no business judging that action as sin for someone else.

However, if we were not to judge anything anyone does as sin, then there is no moral basis for any of our laws. Therefore, it is not sin to murder. It is not sin to cheat on your spouse. It is not sin to steal.

Do you think that God would have us not call sin "sin"?

That's a big leap in logic. I know telling a lie is sin, but I've lied before.

 

[Ormus]

He was referring to specific sins. Read them; they are in Romans 1: 18-31.

You'd be best to pay attention to Romans 1:22-24.

"While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes."

And this precedes the supposed anti-gay verse. It is a blatant and obvious description of a Roman pagan temple orgy and to use this as an example of a blanket condemnation of all homosexuality is linguistically sloppy.

Unless you're willing to concede that the destruction of Gibeah, due to heterosexual rape, bans every and all heterosexual acts.

 

[AEON]

We can quote Bible passages back and forth (and, trust me, I've studied all of them much the same way you have, I'm sure), but the logic still stands that the Bible could not and did not refer to modern understanding of sexuality.

And this is the very essence of our disagreement. I do not see how you can come to this conclusion – that Paul and the other writers in the Bible would not have been aware that it was possible for homosexuals to have monogamous, cherishing relationships. Certainly humans have not changed all that much – that is what makes the Bible timeless.

If this conclusion is false (which it is) - your entire argument self destructs. And I certainly do not see any evidence to assume that Christ, Paul, Moses, or any other writer in the Bible would somehow be left in the dark about this “unique” homosexual experience that you are claiming. At our core, there is nothing “modern” about the condition of the human heart. The only thing “new” occurs when Christ enters it and begins the transformation process. What seems as new to us (modern psychology giving a behavior a new name or change of status) was not new to Christ or Paul.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Assuming laws are based on the concept of "sin" and not on the non-Biblical concept of causing harm to someone else.

Score one for rational minds, in the absence of theology rationalism has a chance of prevailing.

 

[Ormus]

And this is the very essence of our disagreement. I do not see how you can come to this conclusion – that Paul and the other writers in the Bible would not have been aware that it was possible for homosexuals to have monogamous, cherishing relationships. Certainly humans have not changed all that much – that is what makes the Bible timeless.

Well, I'm sorry, but you're blatantly ignoring a large part of history here. Ancient sexuality did not leave open the possibility of homosexual monogamy, but nor was monogamy necessary to engage in homosexual relations anyway. The people of the Old Testament were aware of pagan temple orgies, which were bisexual in nature, and the Greco-Roman world maintained those temple customs. More than one Roman emperor professed their undying love to a male slave...but this was always in the context of them being already married to a woman and with children. As such, it would have been in the view of Paul and his contemporaries that these were terribly lustful people whose lack of monogamy and faithfulness to their marriage was blatantly sinful.

It was revolutionary to state that homosexuality was actually a part of someone back in the 19th century. Prior to that, it was flat out believed by everyone that these acts were carried out by deviant heterosexuals as acts of rebellion or defiance against God.

In fact, much of conservative Christianity carries on their legacy by refusing to acknowledge that gay people exist; that they are just sinners who haven't prayed hard enough to God. Why else would we have pseudoscientific "conversion camps"?

Jesus, Paul, Moses and every other writer in the Bible were human (yes, Jesus is 100% divine, but He is also 100% human. He was not granted the power of infinite knowledge of the past, present, and future of human civilization). They wrote exactly to their contemporary cultural experiences and contemporary understanding of morality. It cannot be expected that they would be granted an understanding that everyone else did not remotely have.

Regardless, evidence of Christian social practices in the first millennium shows that they did not have these homophobic prejudices that later medieval and modern conservative Christianity holds (the Christian church was noted to have a large body of homoerotic literature up to the eighth century A.D.), so it more than lends to the idea that the supposed anti-gay Biblical passages are merely an early example of revisionism in light of the repressive Puritanical beliefs of St. Augustine of Hippo and later "church doctors."

 

[BVS]

And I certainly do not see any evidence to assume that Christ, Paul, Moses, or any other writer in the Bible would somehow be left in the dark about this “unique” homosexual experience that you are claiming. At our core, there is nothing “modern” about the condition of the human heart. The only thing “new” occurs when Christ enters it and begins the transformation process. What seems as new to us (modern psychology giving a behavior a new name or change of status) was not new to Christ or Paul.

Paul couldn't even see women as being worthy of teaching in the church, is that timeless?

I've asked before, do you uphold Paul's "command"?

 

[martha]

Paul couldn't even see women as being worthy of teaching in the church, is that timeless?

I've asked before, do you uphold Paul's "command"?

Keep asking.

Although I'm kind of afraid of the answer.

 

[Ormus]

Paul couldn't even see women as being worthy of teaching in the church, is that timeless?

I've asked before, do you uphold Paul's "command"?

Kind of laughably, I've heard from conservative Christians that that passage was--get ready--"misinterpreted" and "taken out of context."

Good to know that they'll accept historical and cultural context in some instances, at least.

 

[AEON]

Keep asking.

Although I'm kind of afraid of the answer.

I already discussed this months ago -

It was not until my study of Romans 7 did it all come into focus for me. For those who do not know, it is Paul’s famous treatise of the Law and it’s relation to us as Christians.

To wrap this up, I essentially learned on what Melon already touched on. A great deal of flexibility is found in the use of the term “law” in the New Testament. A few of the uses are as follows. Some cut and paste from study materials is mixed into this.

1. This term is used of the entire Old Testament (John 10:34; 12:34; 1 Cor. 14:21). John 10:34 is a quotation from Psalm 82:6, and 1 Corinthians 14:21 is a quote from Isaiah 28:11-12. Technically neither the Psalms nor Isaiah are a part of the Old Testament “law,” but sometimes the term “law” was applied to the entire Old Testament because it constituted God’s special revelation of instruction for Israel and ultimately for man.

2. It is used with such terms as the prophets, and writings, again as a title for the entire Old Testament Scripture, but in this way it looks at them in their division (Luke 24:27, 44).

3. It is especially used of the first five books of the Old Testament or the Mosaic Law (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). (Compare Luke 2:23; John 8:5; 1 Cor. 9:9; Gal. 3:10).

4. The term is used of the entire specific Mosaic code given to the nation Israel to govern and guide their moral, religious and secular life, and covers parts of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy (Deut. 4:8, 44-45).

5. The term is used of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:3-17).

6. Law is used of a principle, force or influence that impels one to action or behavior (Rom. 7:21, 23a, 25).

7. It is used of law in general (Rom 3:27 and possibly Rom. 5:13b).

It is the Mosaic Law that causes the most controversy and can be broken down into 3 parts:
• Part 1: The Moral Law or the Ten Commandments. This part of the Law governed the moral life giving guidance to Israel in principles of right and wrong in relation to God and man (Exodus 20:1-17).
• Part 2: The Judgments, or the Social Law. This part of the Law governed Israel in her secular, social, political, and economic life (Exodus 21:1–23:13).
• Part 3: The Ordinances or the Ceremonial Law. This was the religious portion of Law which guided and provided for Israel in her worship and spiritual relationship and fellowship with God. It included the priesthood, tabernacle and sacrifices (Exodus 25:-31: Leviticus).

However, at the end of the day – the Law has only one purpose - to show man his total helpless and hopeless condition before a righteous and just God.

Several passages of Scripture clearly establish that the coming of Christ has brought an end to the Mosaic Law. Paul specifically states that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:4). This instituted a new law or principle of life, i.e., the law of the Spirit, the one of liberty and grace (Rom. 8:2, 13).

This fact was also clearly settled by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. (Melon already discussed this) A council was convened in the church at Jerusalem to look into the issue of the Law and its place in the life of believers because some were saying “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved,” and because even certain of the Pharisees who had believed were also saying “It is necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and to order them to observe the law of Moses.” The conclusion of the council, consisting of apostles and elders, was to reject the concept of placing New Testament believers under the yoke of the Law (15:6-11).

The only thing the Jerusalem Council asked was that Gentile believers control their liberty in matters that might be offensive to Jewish believers, but they did not seek to place the believers under the yoke of the Law for they realized the Law had come to an end.

Finally, the book of Hebrews demonstrates that the old covenant of the Mosaic Law was only temporary and has been replaced by the coming of Christ whose ministry is based on (1) a better priesthood, one after the order of Melchizedek which is superior to Aaron’s, and (2) a better covenant with better promises (see Heb. 7-10). The old covenant was only a shadow of heavenly things, and if it had been able to make men perfect before God there would have been no occasion for a second or new covenant (see Heb. 7:11-12; 8:1-13). This change in the priesthood also necessitates a change in the Law. Such a change shows the Law has been terminated or done away.

So what are Christians to do regading the Mosaic Law?

Part of the purpose of the Law was to point men to the coming Savior through its shadows and types. Through the moral law, man could see God’s holy character as well as his own sinfulness and the infinite gulf that separates God and man. Through the ceremonial part of the Law (the priesthood, sacrifices, and tabernacle), man could find the solution to his sin by faith in what this part of the Law represented, a suffering Savior, one who would die as the Lamb of God. But even though no one could perfectly keep the Law, it was also designed for Israel’s immediate blessing by setting forth righteous principles that would show them how to love God and their fellow man. This would produce a stable and secure society as well as a testimony to the nations (Deut. 4:6-8).

Thus, in 613 commands the Mosaic Law represented an ethical code given by God to Israel to govern the nation until the coming of Messiah, but at their heart, they represented the moral law of God—righteous principles vital to humanity. Today, we are not under this code, but many of its righteous principles, the eternal laws of God, have been carried over and are part of the law of the Spirit of life in Christ (Rom. 8:2) or the law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2). In this, some of the former commands are carried over (Rom. 13:9), some new commands and guidelines are added (Eph. 4:11f; 1 Tim. 3:1f; 4:4), and some have been revised, as in the case of capitol punishment which is to be exercised by human government (Rom. 13:4).

It needs to be emphasized that the end of the Mosaic law, including the Ten Commandments, does not cancel or detract one iota from the eternal moral law of God. The moral principles of the ten laws did not begin with Sinai but are as eternal and immutable as the character of God. To understand this should dispel the fears of those who think the abolition of the Mosaic law leaves only a state of lawlessness.

The moral principles embodied in the law of Moses Paul calls “the righteousness of the law” (Rom 8:4), and shows that such principles are the goal of the Spirit-directed life in the same context in which he teaches the believer is not under the Mosaic law (Rom 6—8).

(Not my words but I love the analogy) This should be no more difficult to understand than the fact that a citizen of the United States is not under the laws of Canada, even though the moral principles underlying the laws of the two countries are the same. When a citizen of the United States becomes a citizen of Canada he does not remain under ten of the best laws of the United States. Nor does the fact that some of the laws of the United States are quite similar to some of the laws of Canada confuse or compromise his new exclusive responsibility to Canada. So the believing Jew of the first century moved entirely from the Mosaic economy of law into the new economy of grace instituted by Jesus Christ (John 1:17).

 

[nathan1977]

It's disheartening to see how this thread has gone. I know there's a lot of anger at Christians over this subject. It seems like this thread throws more logs on the fire.

Here's where I struggle with this whole conversation: context. No discussion of scripture can be divorced from interpretation, for interpretation is all we have. We don't know the specific issues the Corinthian church faced, since we don't have the letters they wrote to Paul asking for his guidance. Therefore, Melon's arguments, as radical as they may be when compared to more conservative interpretations, are certainly no more or less valid than those of 80s, AEON, or whatever. All interpretation is valid of its own accord -- this is the beauty of having a Bible we can actually read and interpret for ourselves. (A relatively new phenomenon, that.)

However, interpretation is ultimately justified or not based on its role in a larger context. It's the larger context of this issue of sexuality as it applies to the entire Bible that seems to be getting lost here. If -- and I say if, since not everyone on this thread believes God was the author of the Bible, writing through man -- but let's say, for the sake of argument, that it's so -- then you have look at the holistic treatment of sexuality throughout the entire scripture. When you do, it seems pretty clear that one man/one woman is the promoted ideal. (God's choice at creation, Jesus' first miracle being performed at a wedding, Paul's advice against other sexual practices in Romans and 1 Corinthians, the picture in Ephesians of Christ and the church being reflected in the husband/wife relationship). Arguing that silence on an issue gives license for that issue is a mistake, as there are a host of social issues we have to grapple with today that aren't dealt with explicitly in the Bible, but which when the principle is applied. (Is God for or against the mass production and distribution of assault weapons? I don't know, but I do know "thou shalt not murder" and "turn the other cheek" are good places to start.) It's the principle of the thing that seems most important, and when scriptures repeatedly endorse the idea of marriage as one man/one woman, for the sake of order, it seems like you have to work pretty hard and do a lot of reinvention to shoe-horn other interpretations to fit.

To address martha's and BVS' comment, you have to do the same thing with the role of women and female leadership. Given the prominence that women enjoy in both Old and New Testaments -- Ruth, Esther, Deborah, Rachel, off the top of my head in the OT; Priscilla, Lidia, Euodia, Syntyche, John Mark's mother Mary (who bankrolled the early church), Dorcas (who was raised from the dead), Mary, the mother of Jesus, to name just a few -- to take Paul's advice to a group of disruptive women in the Corinthian church and say that it applies to all churches is a gross distortion of scripture, given the prominent female leaders Paul worked with and the role of female deacons and prophetesses he himself endorsed. This seems to show a much more nuanced role of women in the church than casual stereotypes might allow... one that ultra-conservative Christians should probably take into consideration.

 

[Ormus]

Arguing that silence on an issue gives license for that issue is a mistake, as there are a host of social issues we have to grapple with today that aren't dealt with explicitly in the Bible, but which when the principle is applied. (Is God for or against the mass production and distribution of assault weapons? I don't know, but I do know "thou shalt not murder" and "turn the other cheek" are good places to start.)

And that's where I cite the wisdom of Romans 13, which I shall repeat again for simplicity's sake:

"Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law." - Romans 13:8-10

There are many issues that we will encounter in life that were not issues within the Bible, and there are many issues within the Bible that are no longer issues in today's society (true idolatry in any form amongst Judeo-Christians, for instance, has long not been an issue).

I believe that the concept of same-sex love and unions are one of those issues that the Bible was not meant to address specifically, if only because it could not be fathomed in the narrow culture that formed the Bible. However, through the lens of love, I feel that the Bible does not even need to address it. "Love does no evil to the neighbor. Love is the fulfillment of the law."

As such, I think it is quite unfortunate that many modern Christians cannot lift their veil of traditional prejudice against homosexuality, much in the same way that they have been able to lift it to no longer justify slavery, anti-Semitism, and the oppression of women. All three offenses are clearly violations against Jesus' law of love, regardless of the fact that the Old Testament allows for slavery or whether Paul tells slaves to be obedient to their masters. Or whether Paul believes that women should never teach over men. Looks like centuries of female teachers in co-ed or personal tutor environments will be rotting in hell!

I believe that all of these works are part of the continuing fruits of the Holy Spirit, who I believe still works today to lift the veil of this last major prejudice amongst Christians. That is ultimately my enduring prayer for humanity.

 

[martha]

I believe that all of these works are part of the continuing fruits of the Holy Spirit, who I believe still works today to lift the veil of this last major prejudice amongst Christians. That is ultimately my enduring prayer for humanity.

Melon, this was really moving to read, especially with Window in the Skies playing in the background.

 

[BVS]

Here's where I struggle with this whole conversation: context.

Nice post. And just like you pointed out interpretation is all we have and context is key.

I obviously asked the question to AEON and 80's about divorce and women in the church obviously knowing the answer, but to show the dangers of their logic. The logic that anything said by Paul is something directly from God's mouth or that Jesus had to say SPECIFICALLY say something for it to ever be true. The fact that heterosexual relationships were the promoted ideal doesn't mean there aren't other relationships that can be recognized by God. There are no mentions of mixed racial marriages, except those scriptures in the OT that have been interpreted to be against. How many mentions of widows who've gotten remarried, heterosexual couples who didn't have children, how many mention of relationships between divorced couples.

Or do we need to stick with the natural use of women?

Narrow culture requires narrow talk. It's just a fact of life.

 

[redhotswami]

And that's where I cite the wisdom of Romans 13, which I shall repeat again for simplicity's sake:

"Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law." - Romans 13:8-10

There are many issues that we will encounter in life that were not issues within the Bible, and there are many issues within the Bible that are no longer issues in today's society (true idolatry in any form amongst Judeo-Christians, for instance, has long not been an issue).

I believe that the concept of same-sex love and unions are one of those issues that the Bible was not meant to address specifically, if only because it could not be fathomed in the narrow culture that formed the Bible. However, through the lens of love, I feel that the Bible does not even need to address it. "Love does no evil to the neighbor. Love is the fulfillment of the law."

As such, I think it is quite unfortunate that many modern Christians cannot lift their veil of traditional prejudice against homosexuality, much in the same way that they have been able to lift it to no longer justify slavery, anti-Semitism, and the oppression of women. All three offenses are clearly violations against Jesus' law of love, regardless of the fact that the Old Testament allows for slavery or whether Paul tells slaves to be obedient to their masters. Or whether Paul believes that women should never teach over men. Looks like centuries of female teachers in co-ed or personal tutor environments will be rotting in hell!

I believe that all of these works are part of the continuing fruits of the Holy Spirit, who I believe still works today to lift the veil of this last major prejudice amongst Christians. That is ultimately my enduring prayer for humanity.

Melon, I think that was by far the most beautiful post I have ever read. You said everything I believe too...though way more articulate than I ever could have.

Bless you! It is so affirming to know that there are others who believe what I do. In a world where there is so much discrimination and misunderstanding, it warms my heart and gives me hope to know that there is someone else out there who believes in what I do.

 

[nathan1977]

As such, I think it is quite unfortunate that many modern Christians cannot lift their veil of traditional prejudice against homosexuality, much in the same way that they have been able to lift it to no longer justify slavery, anti-Semitism, and the oppression of women. All three offenses are clearly violations against Jesus' law of love, regardless of the fact that the Old Testament allows for slavery or whether Paul tells slaves to be obedient to their masters. Or whether Paul believes that women should never teach over men. Looks like centuries of female teachers in co-ed or personal tutor environments will be rotting in hell!

One of my mentors once made it pretty clear to me that there are certain issues that are central to Christianity -- and then there are others that will be debated throughout time. As CS Lewis pointed out, sexuality isn't the central sin issue of Christianity -- pride is. So know that as important as these issues are (and I do think they are, for reasons I'll get to in a second), they are ultimately secondary to the sacrifice of Jesus and His offer of life abundantly to those who would deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow Him. (A call to heterosexuals, homosexuals, etc.) So I think the female teachers you talked about will be okay.

At the same time, 1 Cor does make it clear that sexual sins are different from others ("All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."). We don't have to look far to see religious people with sexual brokenness (addiction, abusiveness, pedophilia, etc), so at the very least we have to deal with sexuality, because it's so central to our identity as human beings. I'm not saying there's an easy answers, but to say, "what's the big deal about sex?", seems to undercut the idea that sex -- no matter your take on it -- is a big deal, whether you accept the passage in 1 Cor, Freud's analysis, or what we see on the news...

 

[Dreadsox]

Lesbian relations are indeed mentioned in the New Testament:

But are there pictures? I mean just mentioning it is not good for me...I am a visual learner.

 

[BVS]

("All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.")

So how are gluttony, addiction, or drunkeness defined?

 

[Ormus]

At the same time, 1 Cor does make it clear that sexual sins are different from others ("All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."). We don't have to look far to see religious people with sexual brokenness (addiction, abusiveness, pedophilia, etc), so at the very least we have to deal with sexuality, because it's so central to our identity as human beings. I'm not saying there's an easy answers, but to say, "what's the big deal about sex?", seems to undercut the idea that sex -- no matter your take on it -- is a big deal, whether you accept the passage in 1 Cor, Freud's analysis, or what we see on the news...

Accepting that same-sex love and unions can exist does not negate the responsibilities that are entailed in any relationship. Addiction, abusiveness, pedophilia, etc. are issues that affect heterosexuality as much as homosexuality; but for people to brashly assume that homosexuality is nothing but abuse and victimization (as has been done in society and history) is quite wrong.

 

[BorderGirl]

As such, I think it is quite unfortunate that many modern Christians cannot lift their veil of traditional prejudice against homosexuality, much in the same way that they have been able to lift it to no longer justify slavery, anti-Semitism, and the oppression of women. All three offenses are clearly violations against Jesus' law of love, regardless of the fact that the Old Testament allows for slavery or whether Paul tells slaves to be obedient to their masters. Or whether Paul believes that women should never teach over men.

"How numerous the slaves were in Roman society when Christianity made its appearance, how hard was their lot........what Christianity has done for slaves and against slavery, first in the Roman world and lastly in the modern world".

This offfers good perspective of what Paul was dealing with. Paste link:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm

 

[Ormus]

"How numerous the slaves were in Roman society when Christianity made its appearance, how hard was their lot........what Christianity has done for slaves and against slavery, first in the Roman world and lastly in the modern world".

This offfers good perspective of what Paul was dealing with. Paste link:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm

I don't deny that Christians had their hand in ending slavery in America, for instance. Their role in the abolitionist movement cannot be denied. However, they were the "liberal Christians" of their time, and it took many years of hard work and dedication to get their cause into the mainstream. You can say much of the same about the ending of segregation, as well.

 

[BVS]

I already discussed this months ago -

I think you missed the point of my question, for your cut and paste job pretty much avoided the question all together. I think if you see the discussion between Melon, Nathan, and I you will see what I was asking...