popsadie said:
Pretty much everything else in the bible I have been able to find a logic to. I admit that I struggle with the logic against homosexuality. It isn't a brutal act and it isn't an inherently selfish act. It doesn't seem to violate the "love God and one another" that Jesus said summed up the ten commandments. The dietary laws in the OT make sense and the ten commandments all make sense. Still, I believe that if I am going to say that I believe in the bible, I have reconcile in someway even the beliefs that don't seem logical.
The problem, though, is that your entire argument here is predicated on the notion that St. Paul actually condemns homosexuality, when he does not. This point is clear enough, from a scholarship POV, that the footnotes of a Catholic Bible actually say so.
"Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes (Greek: "malakos") nor sodomites (Greek: "arsenokoitai") nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
This is not a description of modern homosexuality. It is a description of an archaic Greco-Roman practice known as "pederasty," where a male adult would have sexual relations with a male youth until he reached adulthood, whereupon the relationship would be severed and the former youth would marry a woman. The relationship was not loving, but, instead, exploitative and forced against the youth's will. The Catholic footnotes I referred to corroborate this interpretation:
The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the "cupbearer of the gods," whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated Sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Romans 1:26-27; 1 Tim 1:10.
Do take notice of that Paul's other supposedly anti-gay passages in Romans and 1 Timothy are also referenced in the footnotes as referring to archaic practices that have nothing to do with modern homosexuality.
Romans 1:26-27, in particular, describes a Greco-Roman pagan temple orgy, and, in this instance, was written to horrify the Jewish Christian audience he was trying to convert to Gentile Christianity. However, Paul used this passage as a setup to the point he was ultimately trying to drive across in Romans 2:
"Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things." - Romans 2:1
Paul was, essentially, condemning the self-righteousness of his audience, and, again, used the chapter to set up another point:
"All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it. For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified." - Romans 2:12-13
The Jewish Christian audience of Rome would have interpreted "the law" as referring to Mosaic Law. And Paul has a habit of being purposely ambiguous (this "ambiguity" trick was later played in the Gentile Christian revision of the originally Jewish Christian Gospel of Matthew), so he can drive his ultimate point towards the end of his epistle.
"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.'" - Romans 13:8-10
And here's where he ensnares his audience once and for all. "The law" is defined as "love one another." In short, those who fixate on that verse in Romans 1 is completely missing the message of this epistle, and has nothing to do with modern homosexuality.
You rightfully understand the nuance with Paul's verse that forbids women to instruct over men. Where conservative Christianity's prejudices bear its ugly head is in its steadfast refusal to understand the specific circumstances and nuance behind the supposedly anti-gay passages. They are, both in the OT and NT, condemnations of archaic sexual practices, either in terms of abusive pederasty or idolatrous pagan temple orgies--both of which were completely devoid of any love or meaningful affection. As such, any insistence that the Bible condemns "homosexuality," as understood in a modern context, is completely incorrect.
In many ways, this brings me back to "scientific Thomism," as this is the basis upon which the Roman Catholic Church condemns modern homosexuality, not the Bible. Vatican officials have expressed this openly in the past, and, as such, that's why a homophobic religion like Catholicism has not shied away from modern Biblical scholarship. I find it very unfortunate that the Vatican insists on clinging to this pseudoscience, rather than relying on the spirit of philosophical Thomism to accept the advances of modern science in its entirety.
Unfortunately, as we have seen throughout history, many ancient institutions are "tradition-stubborn." And, equally unfortunately, most conservative Protestants are "tradition-stubborn" on the issue of their Biblical translations, which are riddled with mistranslations.
As such, as I've stated before, "Biblically-based Christians" cannot use the Bible to condemn homosexuality, if they interpret the Bible correctly. This also solves your logic struggle, as well, as condemnations of abusive or idolatrous pagan sexual practices are fully in keeping with "love God and love one another."
