@WELL... apparently all of the people in here.

I'm tired of fighting all the battles. I could dispute your claims, but it's rarely worth it, so in just a few words, I disagree. If you choose prejudice over love, if you're willing to justify all such statements in the authority of the Church, if you will automatically discredit what people have to say simply because it does not echo your own beliefs - it is not okay. But there is nothing I can do about it. So I'll leave you alone.

@Holy Cannoli

(6 - and last.)

I just thought I'd add this, though. I'm sorry if I've offended you through any of this. It was not my intention. See, that's one of the reasons this type of discrimination makes me angry - it makes people fling hurtful words at one another.

@Holy Cannoli

(5)

“Nobody has condemned anybodyexcept for you condemning straights who care about basic survival essentials such as their car, house, money etc. etc."

Well – “nobody has condemned anybody” – I wouldn’t exactly say that. Historically, many people and institutions have discriminated against homosexuals. But you and I already know this.

I guess I wasn’t clear enough, in my critique of the middle class. I want to clarify that I mean no harm against people who “care about basic survival/living essentials.” All humans in the world do that. I just don’t think Jesus approves of people who only care about themselves and about their stuff, and don’t care to do something to remedy the great poverty and injustice there is in the world.

While you’re driving your new Cadillac around, do think of how many people that money could’ve fed and clothed.

And incidentally – why have you insulted me repeatedly throughout your reply to my comment? I didn’t insult you. Only, if you’re one of those people who don’t care about the rest of the world, I’d say you maybe need to rethink what you’re doing, and ask yourself whether your lifestyle really matches the message of God. Or whether you’re just being a sodomite, in Ezekiel’s terms (16:48-49).

@Holy Cannoli

(4)
"...some theologians do argue that Christ approved the union of two homosexual men, among other gay-affirming things.Put up or shut up. Site chapter and verse that proves Christ approved of homosexual unions."

Matthew 19:10-12

www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/…/gay_couple.html

I’ll explain that, too, if you really want me to. Just message me and I’ll do that.

@Holy Cannoli

(3)

Now for 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. “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 nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

The context first, then. What is Paul doing? He’s scolding the Corinthian Church because they’re messing up badly and failing to observe the most basic of Christian principles: love your brother as yourself (sound familiar?). Hence this list of behaviors that are damaging their community’s spirituality.

The version of the Bible you’ve cited uses the word “sodomites.” Do you know the history behind this word choice? The original Greek term is probably a word that Paul himself coined – it appears only once more, in Timothy: “arsenokoitai.”

And I think the history of what we’ve done with this word has already been very effectively explained by Rev. Mel White:

“As for arsenokoitai, Greek scholars don't know exactly what it means -- and the fact that we don't know is a big part of this tragic debate. Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to the customers of ‘the effeminate call boys.’ We might call them ‘dirty old men.’ Others translate the word as ‘sodomites,’ but never explain what that means.”

Here I interject to point out that the Bible speaks very clearly of what a sodomite really is: “This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes.” (Ezekiel 16:48-49)

Okay. Back to White’s summary:

“In 1958, for the first time in history, a person translating that mysterious Greek word (arsenokoitai) into English decided it meant homosexuals, even though there is, in fact, no such word in Greek or Hebrew. But that translator made the decision for all of us that placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time.

In the past, people used Paul's writings to support slavery, segregation, and apartheid. People still use Paul's writings to oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in society.
Now we have to ask ourselves, ‘Is it happening again?’ Is a word in Greek that has no clear definition being used to reflect society's prejudice and condemn God's gay children?

We all need to look more closely at that mysterious Greek word arsenokoitai in its original context. I find most convincing the argument from history that Paul is condemning the married men who hired hairless young boys for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose.”

*sigh* There.

If there are any other passages that you think are anti-gay, please let me know and I’ll produce an answer from the very neglected depths of theology.

@Holy Cannoli

(2)

So! Keeping all that in mind, let’s take a look at Romans 1:26-27:“Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females 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.”

First off, the context. Who/what is this passage talking about? It’s talking about “all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness” (Romans 1:18). The phrase “burned with lust” tells us what kind of wickedness it is: sexual depravity. And that affects how we should read the homosexual acts depicted in this passage: homosexual acts in the context of depravity.

We must bear in mind that Paul wrote this section of his letter as a reaction to the rampant paganism that he witnessed in his missionary tour of the Mediterranean. Everywhere there were temples devoted to Aphrodite and other (fake) entities that were supposed to be the gods of fertility, sex, and pleasure. The people who practiced these ungodly religions did sexually immoral things, such as having same-sex coitus with male and female temple prostitutes, having orgies, etc.

Now, THAT is depravity.

I seriously doubt that these temple prostitutes, or the men and women who had sexual relations with them, were homosexual by a pre-natal predisposition. They were having sex with one another because they lived for pleasure. And that was the kind of act Paul was trying to protect the Church of the Romans from, since they lived in close proximity to these sexually-minded pagans.

Also, note that he says, “females exchanged natural relations for unnatural.” But, just as most humans seem to have a natural sexual attraction for members of the opposite sex, others do have an equally natural sexual attraction for members of the same sex. We share this trait with other 1,500 mammal species, including all the great apes. And, among all the people who identify as homosexual, at least some of these have come to think of themselves in this way because they genuinely have a genetically-determined, natural attraction for same-sex humans.

Now let’s bring love into consideration. Let’s ask ourselves this: does this passage declare that two people (who owe their homosexual tendencies mostly to pre-natal factors) cannot spend their lives together in a context of love, commitment, growth, and mutual respect?

No, it doesn’t. This passage is not concerned with that at all. It doesn’t say anything about that particular type of homosexual relationship because it’s a warning against libertinage. Of the kind both heterosexual and homosexual people might indulge in.

So, Paul condemns only certain forms of homosexual acts in Romans 1:26-27. Just as other parts of the Bible condemn certain forms of heterosexual sex.

@Holy Cannoli

Oh, boy. Well, um... I have a reply for you, but it's a long answer. I guess I'll just have to split it up into a few smaller ones.

(1)

Actually, I am familiar with the Scriptures.I’ve done a lot of research about this. I’m quite familiar with what the Bible has to say about homosexuality. I’m not going to analyze every single one of the clobber passages for you, but if you want to dwell on those two, then let’s do that.

Just a few notes before we start, though. When we study the Bible, it’s not enough to just read it and let the isolated quotes do all the talking. This example should help me show you what I mean:

“Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” (Lev 19:19)

So how many of us only wear stuff that is 100% cotton?

Another example:

“Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.” (Lev 19:27)

So does this mean that it’s sinful to cut your hair? Do men sin every single time they shave?

These quotes can be very confusing if you just take them at face value. Which is why, when we read them, we need to interpret them in the light of two things: 1) super importantly, the context. What was the text’s original audience? Its original intention? To what extent might it apply to us? And 2) God’s immense, all-consuming love for us. If we read things that way, we’ll probably come much, much closer to what God’s actual message is.

Then we’ll know these two quotes I’ve cited above are part of what is typically called the Holiness Code: a set of principles in Leviticus by which God was trying to give his people a sense of identity – which they would gradually foster by having all these customs and rules in common. By having traditions and rules different from those of all the other nations around them, the Israelites would become a distinct, unique, separate group. And that was important to God, because he wanted to keep them from mixing with other cultures and bringing over foreign customs that would contaminate the seeds of Christianity.

And of course we’ll also know these principles don’t apply to us anymore. Paul himself says so: take a peek at Galatians 3:23-25.

So, bottom line. Like I said. We’re not supposed to let the isolated quotes do all the talking.

*sigh*

Right. So let's assess all this stuff. Easiest first, I'm guessing. So--

@JTLiuzza

First off, I gotta tell you I'm a communist. ;p

Second, no one holds monopoly as to what the Word of God truly is about. No one. Centuries of history have revealed to us that the Church has made mistakes. Popes have made mistakes. And big ones, too.

Okay. You know what? I'm seriously getting sick of Christians thinking that God forbids homosexuality. A deep, serious assessment of the 'clobber passages' most commonly employed to condemn homosexual people will reveal that they say NOTHING that condemns homosexual relationships as we understand them now. The Bible is silent about them - although some theologians do argue that Christ approved the union of two homosexual men, among other gay-affirming things.

Why on earth do we even insist on condemning homosexual people? These are people who, above all things, are just that - people. Having a particular sexual preference doesn't make them a different species of human. It doesn't make them bad.

You know who we should be condemining and posting these kinds of stuff about? All those rich upper- and middle-class people who don't do ANYTHING to solve the problems of the world, those who only care about their money and their jobs and their car and their stuff and buying a better house and buying a better computer. Now, those have a MUCH higher chance of going to hell. Seriously. Ask Christ. Pray. Read the Bible with the spirit that it was written in: that of loving your brother as yourself. (Instead of rejecting and condemning people based on something as stupid and unimportant as sexual preference.)

I hope they marry. I really, reeeally hope they do.

Homophobia is NOT okay.

@holyrope3

No offense, mate. But the studies that you are citing don't clearly state that homosexuality has a clear social cause. It's mostly speculation written by people who happen to share your opinion. You've cited it yourself: stuff CAN foster same-sex attraction. It CAN, but how can you state with 100% conviction that it does?

I think that it's pretty much impossible to cite a specific, exact cause for homosexuality. One's social circumstances may contribute to it, but there is also a strong biological factor. Around 1500 animal species practice homosexuality, and we are no exception. So there is a very blurry line between the social and biological origin for homosexuality in any particular individual.

Also, I think homophobia is rather harsh. Just based on its etymology alone, homophobia means that you reject/abhor people who have a same-sex attraction. Why do you do this, if people who are homosexual aren't necessarily heterophobic (that is, they don't reject/abhor those who aren't homosexual)? If you've read James's book in the New Testament, you will find that he says,

"My dear brothers and sisters, how can you claim to have faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ if you favour some people over others? ... Yes indeed, it is good when you obey the royal law as found in the Scriptures: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' But if you favour some people over others, you are committing a sin. You are guilty of breaking the law. ... So whatever you say or whatever you do, remember that you will be judged by the law that sets you free. There will be no mercy for those who have not shown mercy to others. But if you have been merciful, God will be merciful when he judges you."

So to all you people who satanize homosexuals - don't judge. Don't reject. If you must abhor vice somewhere, abhor it in yourself and change your own conduct for the better. Peace, brothers.