Gay tendencies

You know of course that Romans 1:26-27 is not the only scripture that talks of homosexuality. From the beginning to the end the Bible speaks of it unfavorably. 1 Timothy 1:9-10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 merely state, men who lie with males or men who lie with men are not acceptable and say nothing about being violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, clearly the Bible has much to say about the subject none of it good.

Also you mention that Paul used a “clear reference” to the Greco-Roman concept of “natural law” but just the use of a term does not mean that it refers to something else. I’m sure that everyone everyday says something that someone has written or said before and they are not referring to that or even thinking of that or even agree with the whole concept of what the other person was saying. So to say that Paul’s use of the term “natural law” is a “clear reference” to the Greco-Roman concept of “natural law” is just putting words in his mouth.

Also when you say “This was state of the art thinking back then, and it helped to explain why God objected to homosexual conduct.”, surely you are not saying that God is subject to the whims of human philosophy, are you?

 

You mention "men who lie with men", but what Paul actually says is arsenokoitai. You surely know that there's a lot of controversy over what that word means. Literally, arsen=male; koite=bed, so you could make a case that surely this means men who go to bed--men bedders?. Liberal scholars say it conveys exploitation. The previous phrase, which your Bible renders "men kept for unnatural purposes" is a translation of malakoi, literally "soft", with connotations of morally loose. The King James Version renders it "effeminate", suggesting that we should avoid lisps and limp wrists. I suspect that "men kept for unnatural purposes" may be on target, referring to the Greco-Roman practice of pederasty--a relationship between a boy or young man and an older male. I suspect that arsenokoitai and malakoi are referring to men who are on the giving and receiving end of such relationships. To translate either term as "homosexual" , as some translations do, is taking liberties with the text. Do you see the problem of literalness. To do it right, you need to learn Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew.

 

Apart from the argument of the translations of "men kept for unnatural purposes" and "men who lie with men/boys" which I am sure Okie can argue more effectivly than myself I would like to touch on something else. Basically the argument is that Paul refers to man-boy temple prostitution. It is interesting that the "men kept for unnatural purposes" literally means "soft", often translated as effeminate. Luther translated it literally as "weakling". Are people with small muscles an abomination?

Onto my something else:

St Paul writes that adulters nor drunkards will enter the Kingdom. Jesus says that even looking at a woman with "lust" (read: sexual attraction) without being married is lust. Umm, correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't that be nearly every guy. I am not saying that every girl we look at we want to rape because of uncontrollable lust for the flesh. But isn't a sexual attraction before marriage something that draws us into a person, besides personality et al.?

Also the drunkards...what is a drunkard? Does one drink make a drunkard (Jesus was accused of being a drunkard, so obviously he did drink enough to rile up the authorities). Does having one glass of wine a day like many French people make a drunkard.

 

I agree that the men of Sodom and Gomorrah had a lot more problems going for them than homosexuality but it is interesting that those problems manifested themselves in homosexuality.



Also when you say; “same sex love” what kind of love do you speak of? In the Greek there at least four words used for the English word love; aga′pe, phili′a, e′ros and two words drawn from storge′. The Bible uses them all except for e’ros and all of them except e’ros are acceptable forms of same sex love.



As for Jesus speaking of porneia, it would be good to try and understand what the people Jesus was talking to would have understood him to mean.

Take today’s words gay and queer, in fact queer use to be one of my favorite words.

The actual definitions of the words use to be: gay - full of light-heartedness and merriment, brightly colored and having or showing a carefree spirit; queer - not usual or expected or eccentric or unconventional but we all know such usage is archaic and dated and if one is to use the words today most will understand them to mean homosexuality.

So when Jesus spoke of porneia, what did it mean to his listeners?

Jesus was generally speaking the poor and relatively speaking uneducated masses.

When I say uneducated, I mean uneducated in worldly philosophies but in knowledge of what the Bible said they were well educated.

So when Jesus was speaking of porneia, then the whole weight of the Law and the Prophets would come to bear on the subject in the minds of his listeners which would mean that homosexual acts would be included in what would break the marriage vows and thus Jesus did speak out against homosexual acts, if only in an indirect way.

In any case Jesus would have agreed with what the Law and the Prophets had said about the subject.

 

So you say that it's talking about; referring to men who are on the giving and receiving end of such relationships? Isn't that sexual acts between people of the same sex?

 

From beginning to end, the Bible has much to say about slavery, none of it bad, but I really don't take that as a basis for my moral views on the subject. Besides, you're not getting my point, that the Bible is dealing not generally with homosexual practices but with particular kind of homosexual practices. I've already dealt with 1 Corinthians in another post. 1 Timothy, considered pseudograhical by many scholars, contains a similar list of vices including arsenokoitai (but not the malakoi also mentioned in Corinthians). As I explained in another post, that term probably refers to a male in a dominant relationship of pederasty. So when the Bible condemns homosexual gang rapists, arsenokoitai, and malakoi I don't jump to the conclusion that it is condemning loving relationships between men, which I define as involving genuine affection and concern for one's partner as a person rather than a sex object.

No, I'm just saying Paul was.

 

Yes, in a mutually exploitative relationship.

 

Quite honestly, do you really think Paul is talking about people with weak muscles?

Also Paul, not being one to mince words, if he mean temple prostitution instead of simply men who lie with men, don’t you think he would have said temple prostitution instead of just men who lie with men?

First, lust is not just sexual attraction, lust goes a bit beyond that.

Next, what Jesus said at Matthew 5:27-28 was; “YOU heard that it was said, ‘You must not commit adultery.’ But I say to YOU that everyone that keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

So Jesus was not condemning having an attraction for a women but if you are married and keep looking at another woman, who is not your wife, so as to build up a passion for her, that is something you should not be doing.

Even so there is a difference between being an adulterer and committing adultery in your heart, the first is something you are condemned for the other is something you need to try and remove from your heart.

Most people know what a drunkard is. No, it’s not just having a drink or even two, as Paul said a little wine is good for the digestion but if you drink to the point of impairment and do it on a regular basis, then yes you are a drunkard!

 

Exploitative, interesting.

 

I'm thinking gay counterpart of relationship between kept woman and her sugar daddy: reciprocal exchange between social unequals.

 

No, but my point was that your translation fails. The word means "soft", literally. Jesus used it in reference to robes of royal people cf Matt 4:23, 9:35. 10:1

Because that is where men had homosexual intercourse, in pagan temples.


Interesting article: http://jesuslovesgays.blogspot.com/2008/02/1-corinthians-69-10.html

How's that. As I understand, "Lust" is from the Greek for "strong desire". If you desire to have sex with a woman (if you are unmarried) is that what Jesus speaks of?

Jesus never brings up marriage in the verses. He is clear: If you lust for a woman, you are an adulterer. Period. It is a sin; it is condemable. Almost as clear as he is about what happenes during the celebration of the Eucharist, but that is another can of worms.

This is where I got the drunkard things from: http://www.covenantnetwork.org/FAQ-pdfs/brawley.pdf The point it is making is that St Paul isn't clear on what makes a drunkard. Does drinking to excess once in a while make a drunkard. How frequent do the intoxications need to be to be damned? That being said, it is hard to translate the terms malakoi and arsenokoitai into terms today because they deal with ancient, arguably dead languages (Konie Greek), that don't really have an exact reference today. Simple homosexual attraction doesn't really work. Neither do all sorts of homosexual sex (what about if a man recieves fellatio whilst standing...he is not lying down). Also ladies are not mentioned. Is female-female sex not included because it isn't like arsenokoitai?

 

What do you think the definition of adultery is?
The definition of adultery is voluntary sexual relations between a married person and somebody other than his or her spouse.

 

I find it most interesting that in giving out scriptures to be read, it seems that this one was conveniently left out:
(Jesus' words) Luke 17:34: "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left."
If "two men lying together" was SUCH A BIG SIN - why would BOTH not be left as this is referring to the end of days?!?
Furthurmore, it seems Genesis 18 needs to be re-read and note how many different times/ways Abraham implored God to give him yet another chance to find "righteous" men. God was beginning his judgement THERE - in Chapter 18. It wasn't until Chapter 19 that the angels came and the men of the city wanted to gang-rape the newcomers (angel men); but the Judgement of Sodom had ALREADY happened at this point. The angel/newcomers were there to aid Lot and his family to get the heck out of dodge, and the would-be gang-rapists were "smote with blindness". (not that it did Lot's stupid wife any good).
Furthurmore, I've also seen you refer to sodomites as men having sex with men - well, what about all of the women having anal sexual intercourse? They are sodomites, too, right? And since there is nothing new under the sun, there just MUST have been women participating in this - yet, I don't see this addressed, OWB.

 

Conveniently left out?

Well yes, I guess you could say that, in fact I personally, conveniently left out a lot of scriptures, mostly for the sake of space but the scripture you point out was not one of them.

That’s mainly because Luke 17:34 is probably talking about poverty but not homosexuality.

Since a form of the Greek word “arsenokoitai”, which Strong’s Concordance indicates has a connotation of sodomy and is used in both 1 Timothy 1:9-10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and is translated as men who lie with men but “arsenokoitai” is not found in any form at Luke 17:34 so the connotation of sodomy does not seem to be there.

I really don't think homosexuality is "SUCH A BIG SIN".

There really is only one “BIG SIN” and that is as Matthew 12:31 says: “. . .Every sort of sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the spirit will not be forgiven.. . .”.

As for Men lying with men, it’s just one of several things lumped together that will not allow someone to inherit God’s kingdom.

I don’t believe I ever said that the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah hadn’t already taken place but I did say that homosexuality was not the only problem that they had but yes, it was the homosexuality that was “the straw that broke the camel’s back” so to speak.

As for this, I believe that Romans 1:26-27 that I quoted earlier that says: “That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.”, at least to my way of thinking seems to cover this point.

 

A kept woman and her sugar daddy? Also something the Bible seems to frown upon.

 

Yeah, I guess my argument that it includes all sexual attraction outside of marriage fails unless we look at the Greek.

Oh well. You won that one...

 

Tain't looking to win or lose, just like talking.

Turning in now, talk to you later,
OWB

 

I HAVE tried to not be gay , in fact , I been with my husband 29 years now and have 4 grown kids.
But , there is a part of me that is missing , and luckily my husband understands this.
Its almost like , your pretending to be like everyone else , but you know deep inside that this isnt all you are , that you want to be yourself so bad , and its just not fair.
I started off gay , I knew when I was 6 years old that i was " different"...I even thought for awhile that I would magically turn into a boy when I got older.
I never felt attraction for males , but I wanted babies , I wanted the same things that everyone wanted.

So , I have honestly tried to be what the preachers and their congregations say Im supossed to be , and I have even lived the celibate lifestyle.
But , lonliness is a horrible thing , and sometimes you just need a kiss and a hug , and someone to love you.
Im talking about Love , not sex.

 

If you can just keep it to "a kiss and a hug, and someone to love you" I don't know of anything in scripture that would prohibit that. There's nothing in the Bible that says: "Thou shalt not have homosexual tendencies!" And I think even OlderWater Brother would agree that the Bible is talking about sexual activity, not "homosexuality" as an orientation. The challenge would be to find such a relationship that wouldn't lead to sex, lust, etc., which is hard to do in our society--particularly as a result of homophobia. Loneliness is a horrible thing, and Christians who thump their Bibles against gays should work harder to come up with alternatives.

 

I cant help but wonder about that" Lust" thing.
I spent part of my childhood in this strict sounthern baptist church thanks to a well meaning aunt , and they preached that sex even between married people was sinful , and only to be done for procreation.
so , lusting after your wife or husband was also a sin...
???????????
I grew up in a mix of Baptist , Pentacostal , and Mormonism..........

now its just me and the Bible and God.