Bible and being gay

edited August 2010 in Religion & Philosophy
I know there are a few verses, such as this:
Romans 1:26-27 said:
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
This seems like explicit condemnation of the it, but how clear is it? This is something I've been considering for some time, and can't come to any solid conclusions. I've read suggestions that Ruth and Naomi, David and Johnathan were gay. Jesus says nothing on the subject. Why accept a verse such as that as literal, and one such as this:
1 Corinthians 4:34-35 said:

As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
s anything but literal?
«13

Comments

  • From my experience, that second one has real merit.
  • Yeah, TS - Bad example, at least with this crowd.
  • Something no one has ever thought in a church: "I wish the women would talk more."
  • said:

    Something no one has ever thought anywhere: "I wish the women would talk more."

    Fixed.
  • said:

    said:

    Something no one has ever thought anywhere: "I wish the women would talk."

    Fixed.
    FTFYA
  • Indeed.

    & people didn't listen to Paul's words to Corinth, so we get this:

    image
  • edited August 2010
    Zuk, you're such a hypocrit! You have no problem with the Bible as solid authority when it suits your preference, then ridicule people who hold it inerrant in its entirety!

    The observation is not strictly biblical.

    Fred Nietsche: A woman is most beautiful just before she speaks. Fred was a virulent anti-christian.
  • Fred was a syphlitic nut, but was not always wrong.

    He noted that men crave danger and play, and therefore want women, who make very dangerous playthings.

    My favorite is the observation that God made women beautiful and foolish. Beautiful so we would love them and foolish so they would love us.
  • On head coverings, NASV:

    1Corinthians: 4Every man who has something on his head while praying or (G)prophesying disgraces his head.

    5But every (H)woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is (I)shaved.

    6For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.

    7For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the (J)image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
  • said:

    Zuk, you're such a hypocrit! You have no problem with the Bible as solid authority when it suits your preference, then ridicule people who hold it inerrant in its entirety!

    The observation is not strictly biblical.

    Fred Nietsche: A woman is most beautiful just before she speaks. Fred was a virulent anti-christian.

    This will come in useful at some point in the future. Looking up the quote I found:

    "A real man wants two things: danger and play. Therefore he wants woman as the most dangerous plaything. Man shall be educated for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly"
  • Zuk, arguing with yourself? :P

    BTW, loving your posts here :D

    Thundersnow, does it matter if Jesus never mentioned homosexuality? He never mentioned bestiality either. For that matter, bestiality isn't mentioned anywhere in the New Testament. You can find prohibitions against it only in the Old Testament. Does that make it okay?

    BTW, Thundersnow, that's 1 Corintians 14:34.

    A strict reading of this passage might suggest women remain absolutely silent at all times in the church. But this view is not only plain silly (should women not sing (Eph 5:19)? What is "church" but the gathering of believers?), the word in question, siago (silence), is never used in such absolute sense in the Bible. It's sense is determined by context. In Luke 9:36, the apostles were instructed by Jesus to "hold their peace" (siago). Jesus did not mean to not talk at all, but to not talk about what they saw on the mountain. In Luke 20:26, after the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus but got pwned by him, "they became silent," i.e., they ceased trying to trap him. Siago is used three times in 1 Corinthians 14. Besides above, if a speaker of tongues has no interpreter, he is to not speak in tongues (keep silent), and if one is speaking and another has a more current revelation, the first is to be silent to let the other talk. Silence is demanded only in the matters being discussed.

    In context, Paul is not saying women should not speak at all, but rather they are not to speak or teach in any way that violates her gender role. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent" (1 Timothy 2:12). She is not to occupy the position of a public teacher, in such a capacity as to stand before the church and function as the teacher (or co-teacher) of a group containing adult men. In assuming this official capacity, she has stepped beyond her authorized sphere, and she violates scripture.

    What is a gender role? That's a whole other topic, but it's clear from scripture that God designed men and women differently, yet still values each equally. Men and women are equal, but men are designed to lead, and women are designed to support, just as a child is to be obedient to his parents and parents are to care, train, and love their children. In neither case are the parties unequal or of lesser value.

    Thought on these roles would be beneficial. Are families where the woman wears the pants healthy? Could the high divorce rates today be a product of ignoring the roles God designed in people.
  • said:


    Thundersnow, does it matter if Jesus never mentioned homosexuality? He never mentioned bestiality either. For that matter, bestiality isn't mentioned anywhere in the New Testament. You can find prohibitions against it only in the Old Testament. Does that make it okay?

    I don't make assumptions about what jesus would like. He doesn't mention condoms either, but I suspect hes ok with them.


    A strict reading of this passage might suggest women remain absolutely silent at all times in the church. But this view is not only plain silly (should women not sing (Eph 5:19)?

    "silly" because it doesn't fit our societal norms. I doubt women yapped in Corinth. I'm not sure what you are getting from Eph 5:19 btw:
    said:

    8Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. 19Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, 20always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

    It says nothing about church or women.


    What is "church" but the gathering of believers?), the word in question, siago (silence), is never used in such absolute sense in the Bible. It's sense is determined by context. In Luke 9:36, the apostles were instructed by Jesus to "hold their peace" (siago). Jesus did not mean to not talk at all, but to not talk about what they saw on the mountain. In Luke 20:26, after the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus but got pwned by him, "they became silent," i.e., they ceased trying to trap him. Siago is used three times in 1 Corinthians 14. Besides above, if a speaker of tongues has no interpreter, he is to not speak in tongues (keep silent), and if one is speaking and another has a more current revelation, the first is to be silent to let the other talk. Silence is demanded only in the matters being discussed.

    Siago means silent, and Paul clearly tells women to be silent here. It seems fairly unambiguous to me.


    In context, Paul is not saying women should not speak at all, but rather they are not to speak or teach in any way that violates her gender role. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent" (1 Timothy 2:12). She is not to occupy the position of a public teacher, in such a capacity as to stand before the church and function as the teacher (or co-teacher) of a group containing adult men. In assuming this official capacity, she has stepped beyond her authorized sphere, and she violates scripture.

    Really, I don't see how you get this from that scripture. He says women should remain silent in churches. That seems simple, and we are using contortions to make it seem otherwise.


    What is a gender role? That's a whole other topic, but it's clear from scripture that God designed men and women differently, yet still values each equally. Men and women are equal, but men are designed to lead, and women are designed to support, just as a child is to be obedient to his parents and parents are to care, train, and love their children. In neither case are the parties unequal or of lesser value.

    Thought on these roles would be beneficial. Are families where the woman wears the pants healthy? Could the high divorce rates today be a product of ignoring the roles God designed in people.

    Decent topic, gender roles. I think we need to use our spiritual strengths in our relationship, not societally defined gender roles.
  • I notice this leaves aside the entire question of whether the Bible (either testament) is the actual word of God or simply men putting words in God's mouth.
  • said:

    Decent topic, gender roles.

    The hive agrees.

    image
  • image






    *Miss Holloway, could you come in here please...bring a pot of coffee*
  • Yes. Mad Men is awesome.
  • So are we. In fewer than 20 posts, we took a thread about homosexuality and the Bible and made it all about the opposite of both. That's some high quality work, gentlemen. Take the rest of the day off.
  • Starting with the OP premise... Jesus never made a negative statement concerning homosexual issues. He did, however, make positive statements concerning the marriage of one man and one woman. Jesus also stated very clearly that He did not come to overthrow OT law, i.e., the Law handed down by Moses or the laws handed down by covenant activity by God (Noah, Abraham, etc.). The inference in context then is that anything other than the model of sexual behavior found in Genesis 1, 2, and in the various laws of the OT remain in force, and homosexual activity was absolutely and utterly banned under OT law. As was noted above, Paul picked up on this subject and carried the implications into a new era and a new church expression where the law was not emphasized in the exact same way as the OT, yet was also not set aside, it being our "schoolmaster" to point out our sin and our need for a Savior.

    I can post a number of passages that leave no doubt if that is required.

    There are several reasons that homosexuality is forbidden by God in Scripture:
    * It goes against the created order
    * It is un-natural, in that the body parts are not intended to function in that regard
    * It is non-procreative in nature (not that all sexual acts need to be procreative, but the possibility must exist to be "natural"
    * It is promiscuous by nature
    * It elevates sexual expression to the highest order, trumping all else including God
    * It denies the "goods" of marriage as instituted by God
    * It is a disease-ridden sexual expression
    * It is "ritually unclean" activity
    * It substitutes something good for something perfect
    * It is addictive
    * It is degrading to humans created in the image of God
    * It is called "sin" by God
    * It is a form of rebellion against God and fellow human
    * It is forbidden activity
  • axe
    edited August 2010
    said:

    * It goes against the created order
    * It is un-natural, in that the body parts are not intended to function in that regard
    * It is non-procreative in nature (not that all sexual acts need to be procreative, but the possibility must exist to be "natural"
    * It is promiscuous by nature
    * It elevates sexual expression to the highest order, trumping all else including God
    * It denies the "goods" of marriage as instituted by God
    * It is a disease-ridden sexual expression
    * It is "ritually unclean" activity
    * It substitutes something good for something perfect
    * It is addictive
    * It is degrading to humans created in the image of God
    * It is called "sin" by God
    * It is a form of rebellion against God and fellow human
    * It is forbidden activity

    I was going to single out the ridiculous points in here, but it turns out they're all ridiculous.

    ETA: My personal favourite is "it's addictive".
  • said:

    So are we. In fewer than 20 posts, we took a thread about homosexuality and the Bible and made it all about the opposite of both. That's some high quality work, gentlemen. Take the rest of the day off.

    It usually takes less than 10, so you should be proud of everyone's good behavior.
  • said:

    ETA: My personal favourite is "it's addictive".

    How do you know it isn't? Have you tried it?

    Afraid to, aren't you!?!

    Ha!

    image
  • said:

    said:

    ETA: My personal favourite is "it's addictive".

    How do you know it isn't? Have you tried it?

    Afraid to, aren't you!?!

    Ha!

    This is the same reason why bacon was forbidden in the OT.
  • said:

    Starting with the OP premise... Jesus never made a negative statement concerning homosexual issues. He did, however, make positive statements concerning the marriage of one man and one woman. Jesus also stated very clearly that He did not come to overthrow OT law, i.e., the Law handed down by Moses or the laws handed down by covenant activity by God (Noah, Abraham, etc.). The inference in context then is that anything other than the model of sexual behavior found in Genesis 1, 2, and in the various laws of the OT remain in force, and homosexual activity was absolutely and utterly banned under OT law. As was noted above, Paul picked up on this subject and carried the implications into a new era and a new church expression where the law was not emphasized in the exact same way as the OT, yet was also not set aside, it being our "schoolmaster" to point out our sin and our need for a Savior.

    Jesus didn't come to abolish the law, which I agree. However didn't he want to keep the ten commandments rather than all law? To wit, should we still stone our children (deut 21:18-12), rape requires a couple of dollars penance (deut 22:28), etc?
  • Also, guy, what about women yapping in church?
  • said:

    Also, guy, what about women yapping in church?

    I think that it probably isn't addictive to anyone who might have to listen.
  • said:

    Also, guy, what about women yapping in church?

    Buho dealt with that sufficiently. It was a cultural thing, and also a deal with women in authority over men stemming back to Adam and Eve in the garden. There was not a de-valuing of women as is often suggested. One must realize that in that culture a woman virtually never had a voice at all -- ever. The church stood that cultural practice on its ear, and women were speaking often. Enough so, so that it became a problem that Paul had to solve with his corrective about proper authority.

    Thundersnow, your points make no sense because you fail to grasp what Jesus came to do with and through the law. Yes, a new covenant was instituted, as promised through several prophets, Jeremiah being the clearest. Jesus fulfilled the law, in that He was the perfect and complete atoning sacrifice for all the sins against the law that ever were or ever could be committed. It is now (as it was before) through faith in Messiah who became our sin (against the law, against God, and against each other) and in place imputed to us His righteousness. We cannot keep the law and gain salvation. Neither could anyone before Christ. The law was given (says the Apostle Paul) to show us our sin before God. That it does... As far as the modern interpretation of the law, the new law set down by Christ is more difficult, for it goes beyond the specific action to the attitude of the heart. Thinking about sin is akin to sin now. Before you had to actually do something, which the first century Jewish leaders had down to a science. They could walk just so far, drop an article, call that home, then walk farther, and so on... That misses the point of the law, a corrective Jesus applied to all humanity in His Sermon on the Mount.

    Oh, and I really don't expect you to have a clue what I'm talking about... If you do, cool, but most people don't get it.
  • As far as what sin is I certainly understand that. As far as Jesus fulfillig the law that too I get. However, I don't see the above as addressing the finer points of law sic as requirin stoning and rape requiring monetary penance. The women in church bit seems like a conplete skirting of the issue. Women had never been allowed to do much in churn or gods temple, and Paul continues that. So now we say, well that's a cultural thing. Yet with homosexuality we say no, that Parthia literal. Its peculiar and immediately comes across as allowing the bible to be a tool for personal perjudice. I've read and am familiar with the argument that it was cultural or just for the people of Corinth. So why not other parts, or why not take the whole thing as it is and silence women?
  • said:

    I know there are a few verses, such as this:

    said:

    26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

    When I read this passage in the context of the rest of the passage, it reads like this is a punishment given to those who worship false gods. It reads more like "those who rejected God were made homosexual" instead of "the homosexuals are those who rejected God."
  • said:

    I notice this leaves aside the entire question of whether the Bible (either testament) is the actual word of God or simply men putting words in God's mouth.

    It does, though I think they may be part and parcel. I'm not sure what my take on this is, though it leads toward Devine revelation with the exception of Paul.
  • Yeah but....lesbians can't be against natural order can they?
Sign In or Register to comment.