Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

On Homosexuality and Christianity

YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 11:02:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Rec. Joseph Adam Peterson, Ph.D. wrote a book on the issue, and it is available online, for free, because he is an awesome guy:

http://www.dr-joseph-adam-pearson.com...

You can read it in the link above. I will draw from it heavily here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

There needs to be a basic understanding about what churches need to be. This is one of those bigger questions, that frame our discussion of more minute and often political issues. Peterson suggests, and I agree with him, that:

1. Churches need to be open, affirming and reconciling such that they can reach out to people who are gay, and people who have gay relatives; especially those who, as Peterson brilliantly puts it "may have erroneously concluded that God does not desire to have a relationship with them."

Peterson observes, as I have as well, that many gay people and their loved ones have been "driven out of local churches by hateful sermon messages, and some have even been asked to leave by church leaders and congressional members." This is basically the height of hypocrisy, with respect to the extent to which conservative attitudes about homosexuality have blighted the church in the eyes of people whom they are duty bound to minister to.

2. Churches need to be open, affirming and reconciling to reach non-Christians who form opinions of the church and the faith the church practices based on the way the church treats other people. No matter how often, emphatically or otherwise any person who calls himself a Christian may be, if they are a homophobe they transgress their Christian duty to be a light in the world of God's word.

Put more concretely, to the extent that members of the Church turn away, implicitly or explicitly, by acts or omissions, or otherwise poison public perception of the church as would prevent non-believers from seeking God, or worse, as would turn believers from Christ, those people have acted directly against God's will. No, that does not mean that the Church is servient to public opinion. But, the fact that this is occurring should reframe the discussion for every Christian who so identifies because those are the stakes.

The way that I have seen people argue the issue of homosexuality's intersection with Christianity in the forums is incredibly myopic -which is to suggest that they argue it as if theology is the only thing at stake. It is not. The salvation of millions who will never seek God because of the actions or omissions of every homophobic church member is what is at stake.

3. Churches need to be open, affirming and reconciling places to not lose the gay members of their own congregations. The church is, by its nature, a community of people united for a common purpose. That purpose is more important than the theological disagreements of its members. Homophobic acts or omissions by members of congregations make it impossible for the gay members of those congregations to be members of that community, or serve the common purpose. Homophobia, therefore, hinders God's glorification.

There is the idea that some people hold onto, which is false, and we know is false based n overwhelming scientific evidence that there is *no* agency in homosexuality. No one choses to be gay, but there are many members of a variety of denominations who hold fast to the notion that being gay is something that, given the right conditions, one can chose to forgo. The only choice that a person who is gay can make is to not share their lives with someone they love and who loves them because homophobic bigots disprove.

God wrote even as far back in the book of Genesis that it was not good for man to be alone. Adam was one, and that was, in God's eyes, insufficient; it was not enough. So, God made Adam a companion. The reason that God created Eve was not, at least as the account in Genesis describes it, that they may biologically reproduce. The implication, then, is that biology is not destiny. Companionship was the driving factor, because, again, God was not satisfied that Adam was alone. (more on this later)

4. Churches need to be open, affirming, and reconciling to more effectively demonstrate Christian love for the community in which they exist. When the church's message, especially its most or among its most vocal one, is that of hate, that prevents the church from acting with legitimacy in a community. People, and the institutions that people represent, are judged by the actions and choices of the leadership and members of those institutions -yet people who prosthelytize on this issue act as if (a) their actions have no consequences, (b) even if there are consequences, those consequences don't matter, (c) their legitimacy is self-defining, and (d) that their message, because it is consistent with what some people have said before, need not be critically considered.

And the ultimate issue here, and perhaps the most tragic one, is how horribly mistaken most Christians are with respect to the issue of what the Bible actually says about homosexuality...

In this series of posts... I'm going to address the big ones. This will take a few days, because I can't do a sufficient review of everything in less than 8k characters and I don't have the time to do it all in one day. But, before I proceed, I want to specifically address the issue of "arsenokoitai," as it's been so dreadfully mistranslated so many times and the meaning of it has been butchered by those who would circularly reason their way to reaffirming their own, subjective and incorrect, uncritical accounts.

"Arsenokoitai" was translated to "sodomite." The word "sodomite" is misleading because of how horribly inaccurate it's usage is, but that is a conversation for another post. But, with respect to "arsenokoitai," in as much as it is NOT a classical greek word, it cannot be translated by conventional methods as there is no extant literature that contains the word "arsenokoitai" as it is specifically used by Paul. The word "existed" but was only used in different contexts. While I disagree in part with Peterson's specific suggested possible translation, he is correct (such that I cannot reasonably disagree) that Paul did not see homosexuality in Ancient Rome as it exists today. It just simply didn't exist.

There were four types of male-male sexual practices in Ancient Rome, listed here in order of their commonality:

1. Sexual slavery between powerful freeborn male citizens and lower class youths whose class status was defined by Roman law. (Most common, most public and most egregious.)

2. Ambisexual encounters in orgies.

3. Male prostitution, most commonly worked by non-freeborn youths.

4. Male temple cult prostitution in pagan temples, which existed in every city, and were most frequently worked by lower-class non-freeborn male youths.

Paul would have seen all of these, and he would not have seen homosexual consenting adults engaging in egalitarian relationships as they exist in modern society because THOSE DID NOT EXIST. So, if we're translating the word "arsenokoitai," to suggest that it refers to contemporary homosexuality is to lie or to, at the very least, speak with negligent regard for the truth. Paul did not speak against homosexuality because there was not, as we understand it, homosexuality in Ancient Rome. There was pedophilia, there was what we understand (though which Paul would not have understood) as pederasty, there was all varieties of egregious sexual inhumanity by contemporary standards. But, there was NOT homosexuality as we understand it. It's just that simple.
Tsar of DDO
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 11:34:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is really well done and informative. I have no argument against homosexuality and so my post is simply to let you know that I like your OP and to keep this thread near the top.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 11:39:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't want to come off as a jerk in saying this, but...

Imagine that the KKK wants to gain more members. Thus, they renounce their racist ideology to draw in more black people. What would you call this?
(I know that being compared to the KKK isn't a good thing, but still.)
That is, even if it gained more members and had a better standing in the eyes of the public, the KKK would lose what it is and what it stands for, and thus for them it'd be a deal that wasn't worth it.
If the Church changes to accommodate the world in order to draw in bigger crowds and look better, it's a terrible trade-off because they are effectively renouncing what they are to accomplish this (in which case, why does it even still exist?).

The Church is the body of Christ, a body which is called to be Holy. Christ will forgive all sins, but that doesn't mean that sinning is okay. Christians are to love all people regardless of what kind of person it is or what that person has done, but that doesn't mean that a Christian should tell somebody his sinful behavior is okay. That is the opposite of what love is. Granted, so is hating said person, but still.

By your logic, the Bible does not condemn stealing. Why? Because the Bible, whenever referring to thieves, was actually only talking about people who stole from the Temple, of course! And obviously Jesus was a thief because He stole a donkey, so stealing's A-okay! How convenient for me!
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 12:25:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree with all of that.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 9:48:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 11:39:38 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I don't want to come off as a jerk in saying this, but...

Imagine that the KKK wants to gain more members. Thus, they renounce their racist ideology to draw in more black people. What would you call this?
(I know that being compared to the KKK isn't a good thing, but still.)
That is, even if it gained more members and had a better standing in the eyes of the public, the KKK would lose what it is and what it stands for, and thus for them it'd be a deal that wasn't worth it.
If the Church changes to accommodate the world in order to draw in bigger crowds and look better, it's a terrible trade-off because they are effectively renouncing what they are to accomplish this (in which case, why does it even still exist?).

The church isn't renouncing what it is.

The Church is the body of Christ, a body which is called to be Holy. Christ will forgive all sins, but that doesn't mean that sinning is okay. Christians are to love all people regardless of what kind of person it is or what that person has done, but that doesn't mean that a Christian should tell somebody his sinful behavior is okay. That is the opposite of what love is. Granted, so is hating said person, but still.

You are proceeding from the notion that homosexuality is a sin, which it is not.

By your logic, the Bible does not condemn stealing. Why? Because the Bible, whenever referring to thieves, was actually only talking about people who stole from the Temple, of course! And obviously Jesus was a thief because He stole a donkey, so stealing's A-okay! How convenient for me!

That is not what I said, and the logic I used isn't analogous to that either. Would you like me to explain why?
Tsar of DDO
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 1:55:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 11:16:10 AM, YYW wrote:
More to come tomorrow...

Could you explain the difference(s) among:

(1) A man who is strongly attracted to a married woman, and acts upon his feelings

versus

(2) A man who is strongly attracted to a man, and acts upon his feelings.

As for me, I believe the Bible condemns them both - not for feelings that they cannot totally control - but for acting out based upon them.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 2:57:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
That1User
Posts: 1,064
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 3:04:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 11:02:00 PM, YYW wrote:
I agree with this OP. The mission of the Christian Church is to have everyone accept the Gospel of Jesus. In order to maximize believers of Jesus, the Church ought to be more accepting of homosexuals.
"Our life is what our thoughts make it."
R13; Marcus Aurelius
"When you arise in the morning, think of what a precious privilege it is to be alive - to breathe, to think, to enjoy, to love." -Marcus Aurelius
"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire
"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do. "-Voltaire
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 4:18:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 11:39:38 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I don't want to come off as a jerk in saying this, but...

Imagine that the KKK wants to gain more members. Thus, they renounce their racist ideology to draw in more black people. What would you call this?
(I know that being compared to the KKK isn't a good thing, but still.)
That is, even if it gained more members and had a better standing in the eyes of the public, the KKK would lose what it is and what it stands for, and thus for them it'd be a deal that wasn't worth it.
If the Church changes to accommodate the world in order to draw in bigger crowds and look better, it's a terrible trade-off because they are effectively renouncing what they are to accomplish this (in which case, why does it even still exist?).

The Church is the body of Christ, a body which is called to be Holy. Christ will forgive all sins, but that doesn't mean that sinning is okay. Christians are to love all people regardless of what kind of person it is or what that person has done, but that doesn't mean that a Christian should tell somebody his sinful behavior is okay. That is the opposite of what love is. Granted, so is hating said person, but still.

By your logic, the Bible does not condemn stealing. Why? Because the Bible, whenever referring to thieves, was actually only talking about people who stole from the Temple, of course! And obviously Jesus was a thief because He stole a donkey, so stealing's A-okay! How convenient for me!

The bible does not condemn homosexuality. <.<
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 4:30:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 1:55:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 11:16:10 AM, YYW wrote:
More to come tomorrow...

Could you explain the difference(s) among:

(1) A man who is strongly attracted to a married woman, and acts upon his feelings

versus

(2) A man who is strongly attracted to a man, and acts upon his feelings.

As for me, I believe the Bible condemns them both - not for feelings that they cannot totally control - but for acting out based upon them.

1 is a sin, but 2 is not.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 4:41:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 4:30:35 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/1/2015 1:55:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 11:16:10 AM, YYW wrote:
More to come tomorrow...

Could you explain the difference(s) among:

(1) A man who is strongly attracted to a married woman, and acts upon his feelings

versus

(2) A man who is strongly attracted to a man, and acts upon his feelings.

As for me, I believe the Bible condemns them both - not for feelings that they cannot totally control - but for acting out based upon them.

1 is a sin, but 2 is not.

So one single man can screw another single man in the a$$, and God is fine with it? Is that what you believe the Bible teaches?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 4:44:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 4:41:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:30:35 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/1/2015 1:55:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 11:16:10 AM, YYW wrote:
More to come tomorrow...

Could you explain the difference(s) among:

(1) A man who is strongly attracted to a married woman, and acts upon his feelings

versus

(2) A man who is strongly attracted to a man, and acts upon his feelings.

As for me, I believe the Bible condemns them both - not for feelings that they cannot totally control - but for acting out based upon them.

1 is a sin, but 2 is not.

So one single man can screw another single man in the a$$, and God is fine with it? Is that what you believe the Bible teaches?

What two men in a loving, monogamous marriage?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 4:45:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 4:41:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:30:35 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/1/2015 1:55:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 11:16:10 AM, YYW wrote:
More to come tomorrow...

Could you explain the difference(s) among:

(1) A man who is strongly attracted to a married woman, and acts upon his feelings

versus

(2) A man who is strongly attracted to a man, and acts upon his feelings.

As for me, I believe the Bible condemns them both - not for feelings that they cannot totally control - but for acting out based upon them.

1 is a sin, but 2 is not.

So one single man can screw another single man in the a$$, and God is fine with it? Is that what you believe the Bible teaches?

As long as they use condoms and lubrication. And as long as they don't use sex to undergo some pagan worship ritual (Romans 1 and the writings of Philo). The condoms and lubricants are to make sure no self harm is to come from one another.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 4:49:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 4:45:06 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:41:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:30:35 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/1/2015 1:55:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 11:16:10 AM, YYW wrote:
More to come tomorrow...

Could you explain the difference(s) among:

(1) A man who is strongly attracted to a married woman, and acts upon his feelings

versus

(2) A man who is strongly attracted to a man, and acts upon his feelings.

As for me, I believe the Bible condemns them both - not for feelings that they cannot totally control - but for acting out based upon them.

1 is a sin, but 2 is not.

So one single man can screw another single man in the a$$, and God is fine with it? Is that what you believe the Bible teaches?

As long as they use condoms and lubrication. And as long as they don't use sex to undergo some pagan worship ritual (Romans 1 and the writings of Philo). The condoms and lubricants are to make sure no self harm is to come from one another.

Out of curiosity, what if a single man and single women decided to get together and have sex. What does the NT teach about that?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 4:51:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 4:44:04 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:41:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:30:35 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/1/2015 1:55:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 11:16:10 AM, YYW wrote:
More to come tomorrow...

Could you explain the difference(s) among:

(1) A man who is strongly attracted to a married woman, and acts upon his feelings

versus

(2) A man who is strongly attracted to a man, and acts upon his feelings.

As for me, I believe the Bible condemns them both - not for feelings that they cannot totally control - but for acting out based upon them.

1 is a sin, but 2 is not.

So one single man can screw another single man in the a$$, and God is fine with it? Is that what you believe the Bible teaches?

What two men in a loving, monogamous marriage?

There is no such thing. There is no case in the entire Bible of two men marrying each other. If you know of one, please inform me.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 7:52:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 4:49:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:45:06 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:41:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:30:35 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/1/2015 1:55:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 11:16:10 AM, YYW wrote:
More to come tomorrow...

Could you explain the difference(s) among:

(1) A man who is strongly attracted to a married woman, and acts upon his feelings

versus

(2) A man who is strongly attracted to a man, and acts upon his feelings.

As for me, I believe the Bible condemns them both - not for feelings that they cannot totally control - but for acting out based upon them.

1 is a sin, but 2 is not.

So one single man can screw another single man in the a$$, and God is fine with it? Is that what you believe the Bible teaches?

As long as they use condoms and lubrication. And as long as they don't use sex to undergo some pagan worship ritual (Romans 1 and the writings of Philo). The condoms and lubricants are to make sure no self harm is to come from one another.

Out of curiosity, what if a single man and single women decided to get together and have sex. What does the NT teach about that?

Sex before marriage? I'd see it as a sin, but not an unforgivable one.
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 8:28:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 1:55:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 11:16:10 AM, YYW wrote:
More to come tomorrow...

Could you explain the difference(s) among:

(1) A man who is strongly attracted to a married woman, and acts upon his feelings

versus

(2) A man who is strongly attracted to a man, and acts upon his feelings.

As for me, I believe the Bible condemns them both - not for feelings that they cannot totally control - but for acting out based upon them.

A man who is strongly attracted to a man and who acts upon his feelings could begin to enter into a loving, committed, monogamous relationship.

A man who covets another's wife and acts upon his feelings endeavors to commit adultery.
Tsar of DDO
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 8:59:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 7:52:12 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:49:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:45:06 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:41:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:30:35 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/1/2015 1:55:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 11:16:10 AM, YYW wrote:
More to come tomorrow...

Could you explain the difference(s) among:

(1) A man who is strongly attracted to a married woman, and acts upon his feelings

versus

(2) A man who is strongly attracted to a man, and acts upon his feelings.

As for me, I believe the Bible condemns them both - not for feelings that they cannot totally control - but for acting out based upon them.

1 is a sin, but 2 is not.

So one single man can screw another single man in the a$$, and God is fine with it? Is that what you believe the Bible teaches?

As long as they use condoms and lubrication. And as long as they don't use sex to undergo some pagan worship ritual (Romans 1 and the writings of Philo). The condoms and lubricants are to make sure no self harm is to come from one another.

Out of curiosity, what if a single man and single women decided to get together and have sex. What does the NT teach about that?

Sex before marriage? I'd see it as a sin, but not an unforgivable one.

So sex before marriage between a man and a woman is a sin, but sex between two unmarried men is not?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 9:00:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 8:28:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/1/2015 1:55:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 11:16:10 AM, YYW wrote:
More to come tomorrow...

Could you explain the difference(s) among:

(1) A man who is strongly attracted to a married woman, and acts upon his feelings

versus

(2) A man who is strongly attracted to a man, and acts upon his feelings.

As for me, I believe the Bible condemns them both - not for feelings that they cannot totally control - but for acting out based upon them.

A man who is strongly attracted to a man and who acts upon his feelings could begin to enter into a loving, committed, monogamous relationship.

LOL He acts out first, then begins to enter into a "loving, committed, monogamous relationship"?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 9:05:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 8:59:35 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 7:52:12 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:49:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:45:06 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:41:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:30:35 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/1/2015 1:55:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 11:16:10 AM, YYW wrote:
More to come tomorrow...

Could you explain the difference(s) among:

(1) A man who is strongly attracted to a married woman, and acts upon his feelings

versus

(2) A man who is strongly attracted to a man, and acts upon his feelings.

As for me, I believe the Bible condemns them both - not for feelings that they cannot totally control - but for acting out based upon them.

1 is a sin, but 2 is not.

So one single man can screw another single man in the a$$, and God is fine with it? Is that what you believe the Bible teaches?

As long as they use condoms and lubrication. And as long as they don't use sex to undergo some pagan worship ritual (Romans 1 and the writings of Philo). The condoms and lubricants are to make sure no self harm is to come from one another.

Out of curiosity, what if a single man and single women decided to get together and have sex. What does the NT teach about that?

Sex before marriage? I'd see it as a sin, but not an unforgivable one.

So sex before marriage between a man and a woman is a sin, but sex between two unmarried men is not?

You never said the men were not married. If the men were, then it wouldn't be. Sex of gay or straight proportions is sinful if it's before marriage. But it's not unforgivable.
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 7:09:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I lack the mental energy to make another substantive post tonight. This will have to be pushed back for another day when I am not exhausted.
Tsar of DDO
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 10:30:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 11:02:00 PM, YYW wrote:
2. Churches need to be open, affirming and reconciling to reach non-Christians who form opinions of the church and the faith the church practices based on the way the church treats other people. No matter how often, emphatically or otherwise any person who calls himself a Christian may be, if they are a homophobe they transgress their Christian duty to be a light in the world of God's word.

Put more concretely, to the extent that members of the Church turn away, implicitly or explicitly, by acts or omissions, or otherwise poison public perception of the church as would prevent non-believers from seeking God, or worse, as would turn believers from Christ, those people have acted directly against God's will. No, that does not mean that the Church is servient to public opinion. But, the fact that this is occurring should reframe the discussion for every Christian who so identifies because those are the stakes.

The way that I have seen people argue the issue of homosexuality's intersection with Christianity in the forums is incredibly myopic -which is to suggest that they argue it as if theology is the only thing at stake. It is not. The salvation of millions who will never seek God because of the actions or omissions of every homophobic church member is what is at stake.


Basically, conservatives who hold a theological position about homosexuality should relent and accept it because it causes unbelievers to dislike the church?

I highly doubt any of them will agree that this is the correct solution.

4. Churches need to be open, affirming, and reconciling to more effectively demonstrate Christian love for the community in which they exist. When the church's message, especially its most or among its most vocal one, is that of hate, that prevents the church from acting with legitimacy in a community. People, and the institutions that people represent, are judged by the actions and choices of the leadership and members of those institutions -yet people who prosthelytize on this issue act as if (a) their actions have no consequences, (b) even if there are consequences, those consequences don't matter, (c) their legitimacy is self-defining, and (d) that their message, because it is consistent with what some people have said before, need not be critically considered.

And the ultimate issue here, and perhaps the most tragic one, is how horribly mistaken most Christians are with respect to the issue of what the Bible actually says about homosexuality...


There were four types of male-male sexual practices in Ancient Rome, listed here in order of their commonality:

1. Sexual slavery between powerful freeborn male citizens and lower class youths whose class status was defined by Roman law. (Most common, most public and most egregious.)

2. Ambisexual encounters in orgies.

3. Male prostitution, most commonly worked by non-freeborn youths.

4. Male temple cult prostitution in pagan temples, which existed in every city, and were most frequently worked by lower-class non-freeborn male youths.


Ahh this argument again. If this were true, then there would be zero evidence of homosexual couples, as it would only be found in these four forms. The argument need only be refuted by finding examples of it being present.

"Although in general the Romans regarded marriage as a heterosexual union for the purpose of producing children, in the early Imperial period some male couples were celebrating traditional marriage rites in the presence of friends. Same-sex weddings are reported by sources that mock them; the feelings of the participants are not recorded. Both Martial and Juvenal refer to marriage between men as something that occurs not infrequently, although they disapprove of it.[119] Roman law did not recognize marriage between men, but one of the grounds for disapproval expressed in Juvenal's satire is that celebrating the rites would lead to expectations for such marriages to be registered officially.[120] As the empire was becoming Christianized in the 4th century, legal prohibitions against gay marriage began to appear.[121]

Various ancient sources state that the emperor Nero celebrated two public weddings with men, once taking the role of the bride (with a freedman Pythagoras), and once the groom (with Sporus); there may have been a third in which he was the bride.[122] The ceremonies included traditional elements such as a dowry and the wearing of the Roman bridal veil.[123] In the early 3rd century AD, the emperor Elagabalus is reported to have been the bride in a wedding to his male partner. Other mature men at his court had husbands, or said they had husbands in imitation of the emperor.[124] Although the sources are in general hostile, Dio Cassius implies that Nero's stage performances were regarded as more scandalous than his marriages to men.[125]

The earliest reference in Latin literature to a marriage between men occurs in the Philippics of Cicero, who insulted Mark Antony for being a slut in his youth until Curio "established you in a fixed and stable marriage (matrimonium), as if he had given you a stola," the traditional garment of a married woman.[126] Although Cicero's sexual implications are clear, the point of the passage is to cast Antony in the submissive role in the relationship and to impugn his manhood in various ways; there is no reason to think that actual marriage rites were performed.[127]
"
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Additional sources are contained within the wiki page itself.

Just because it was not as common or culturally accepted as the acts you described, does not negate the fact that homosexuality did exist, and it sometimes was in the expression of a couple.

Not to mention the fact that Paul also mentions female homosexuality, which doesn't fall into any of these categories, and he uses very general terms as does the Hebrew Scriptures.

Within the Jewish community, the Oral Law was understood that a person was only put to death if they were found committing the act of anal sex. No distinction was made regarding the "type of homosexuality," but rather the sexual act itself was grounds for being put to death.

There is no evidence for why Paul would dissent from this understanding, and contradict centuries of understanding regarding the Leviticus passages as well as the Oral Law, which tells us how they understood Leviticus.

Paul would have seen all of these, and he would not have seen homosexual consenting adults engaging in egalitarian relationships as they exist in modern society because THOSE DID NOT EXIST. So, if we're translating the word "arsenokoitai," to suggest that it refers to contemporary homosexuality is to lie or to, at the very least, speak with negligent regard for the truth. Paul did not speak against homosexuality because there was not, as we understand it, homosexuality in Ancient Rome. There was pedophilia, there was what we understand (though which Paul would not have understood) as pederasty, there was all varieties of egregious sexual inhumanity by contemporary standards. But, there was NOT homosexuality as we understand it. It's just that simple.

The ignorance of YYW's position is found in that he simply thinks of Paul the Roman Citizen, and not Paul the Jew, who represented the views and morals of that community found in his understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures.

To say that Paul would have approved of modern day homosexuality, which still involves anal sex, and not the present primary Roman expression reveals a profound ignorance as to Paul's place in Jewish thinking. That he would use very general terms, that even closely resemble that of the OT, and not explicitly state anything related to pederasty, or anything else YYW mentioned. However, very generally prohibited homosexual practices.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 10:41:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 11:02:00 PM, YYW wrote:
Rec. Joseph Adam Peterson, Ph.D. wrote a book on the issue, and it is available online, for free, because he is an awesome guy:

http://www.dr-joseph-adam-pearson.com...

You can read it in the link above. I will draw from it heavily here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

There needs to be a basic understanding about what churches need to be. This is one of those bigger questions, that frame our discussion of more minute and often political issues. Peterson suggests, and I agree with him, that:

1. Churches need to be open, affirming and reconciling such that they can reach out to people who are gay, and people who have gay relatives; especially those who, as Peterson brilliantly puts it "may have erroneously concluded that God does not desire to have a relationship with them."

Peterson observes, as I have as well, that many gay people and their loved ones have been "driven out of local churches by hateful sermon messages, and some have even been asked to leave by church leaders and congressional members." This is basically the height of hypocrisy, with respect to the extent to which conservative attitudes about homosexuality have blighted the church in the eyes of people whom they are duty bound to minister to.

2. Churches need to be open, affirming and reconciling to reach non-Christians who form opinions of the church and the faith the church practices based on the way the church treats other people. No matter how often, emphatically or otherwise any person who calls himself a Christian may be, if they are a homophobe they transgress their Christian duty to be a light in the world of God's word.

Put more concretely, to the extent that members of the Church turn away, implicitly or explicitly, by acts or omissions, or otherwise poison public perception of the church as would prevent non-believers from seeking God, or worse, as would turn believers from Christ, those people have acted directly against God's will. No, that does not mean that the Church is servient to public opinion. But, the fact that this is occurring should reframe the discussion for every Christian who so identifies because those are the stakes.

The way that I have seen people argue the issue of homosexuality's intersection with Christianity in the forums is incredibly myopic -which is to suggest that they argue it as if theology is the only thing at stake. It is not. The salvation of millions who will never seek God because of the actions or omissions of every homophobic church member is what is at stake.

3. Churches need to be open, affirming and reconciling places to not lose the gay members of their own congregations. The church is, by its nature, a community of people united for a common purpose. That purpose is more important than the theological disagreements of its members. Homophobic acts or omissions by members of congregations make it impossible for the gay members of those congregations to be members of that community, or serve the common purpose. Homophobia, therefore, hinders God's glorification.

There is the idea that some people hold onto, which is false, and we know is false based n overwhelming scientific evidence that there is *no* agency in homosexuality. No one choses to be gay, but there are many members of a variety of denominations who hold fast to the notion that being gay is something that, given the right conditions, one can chose to forgo. The only choice that a person who is gay can make is to not share their lives with someone they love and who loves them because homophobic bigots disprove.

God wrote even as far back in the book of Genesis that it was not good for man to be alone. Adam was one, and that was, in God's eyes, insufficient; it was not enough. So, God made Adam a companion. The reason that God created Eve was not, at least as the account in Genesis describes it, that they may biologically reproduce. The implication, then, is that biology is not destiny. Companionship was the driving factor, because, again, God was not satisfied that Adam was alone. (more on this later)

4. Churches need to be open, affirming, and reconciling to more effectively demonstrate Christian love for the community in which they exist. When the church's message, especially its most or among its most vocal one, is that of hate, that prevents the church from acting with legitimacy in a community. People, and the institutions that people represent, are judged by the actions and choices of the leadership and members of those institutions -yet people who prosthelytize on this issue act as if (a) their actions have no consequences, (b) even if there are consequences, those consequences don't matter, (c) their legitimacy is self-defining, and (d) that their message, because it is consistent with what some people have said before, need not be critically considered.

And the ultimate issue here, and perhaps the most tragic one, is how horribly mistaken most Christians are with respect to the issue of what the Bible actually says about homosexuality...

In this series of posts... I'm going to address the big ones. This will take a few days, because I can't do a sufficient review of everything in less than 8k characters and I don't have the time to do it all in one day. But, before I proceed, I want to specifically address the issue of "arsenokoitai," as it's been so dreadfully mistranslated so many times and the meaning of it has been butchered by those who would circularly reason their way to reaffirming their own, subjective and incorrect, uncritical accounts.

"Arsenokoitai" was translated to "sodomite." The word "sodomite" is misleading because of how horribly inaccurate it's usage is, but that is a conversation for another post. But, with respect to "arsenokoitai," in as much as it is NOT a classical greek word, it cannot be translated by conventional methods as there is no extant literature that contains the word "arsenokoitai" as it is specifically used by Paul. The word "existed" but was only used in different contexts. While I disagree in part with Peterson's specific suggested possible translation, he is correct (such that I cannot reasonably disagree) that Paul did not see homosexuality in Ancient Rome as it exists today. It just simply didn't exist.

There were four types of male-male sexual practices in Ancient Rome, listed here in order of their commonality:

1. Sexual slavery between powerful freeborn male citizens and lower class youths whose class status was defined by Roman law. (Most common, most public and most egregious.)

2. Ambisexual encounters in orgies.

3. Male prostitution, most commonly worked by non-freeborn youths.

4. Male temple cult prostitution in pagan temples, which existed in every city, and were most frequently worked by lower-class non-freeborn male youths.

Paul would have seen all of these, and he would not have seen homosexual consenting adults engaging in egalitarian relationships as they exist in modern society because THOSE DID NOT EXIST. So, if we're translating the word "arsenokoitai," to suggest that it refers to contemporary homosexuality is to lie or to, at the very least, speak with negligent regard for the truth. Paul did not speak against homosexuality because there was not, as we understand it, homosexuality in Ancient Rome. There was pedophilia, there was what we understand (though which Paul would not have understood) as pederasty, there was all varieties of egregious sexual inhumanity by contemporary standards. But, there was NOT homosexuality as we understand it. It's just that simple.

Christians have no idea that most of them are antichrists who hate the Truth and His thoughts. They don't know that God created homosexuals to deceive HIs people.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 10:43:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 4:44:04 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:41:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:30:35 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/1/2015 1:55:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 11:16:10 AM, YYW wrote:
More to come tomorrow...

Could you explain the difference(s) among:

(1) A man who is strongly attracted to a married woman, and acts upon his feelings

versus

(2) A man who is strongly attracted to a man, and acts upon his feelings.

As for me, I believe the Bible condemns them both - not for feelings that they cannot totally control - but for acting out based upon them.

1 is a sin, but 2 is not.

So one single man can screw another single man in the a$$, and God is fine with it? Is that what you believe the Bible teaches?

What two men in a loving, monogamous marriage? Also, Leviticus, which they embraced as their Scripture during the time of Paul's writings was even more explicit.

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Leviticus 20:13 (ESV)

Looking to the other examples as well, the author doesn't note, "well if the son in law and mother in law really love each other and get married then it is okay." It is simply a basic prohibition of these practices, and no special note or nuance can be found in this passage to make it "shrine prostitution."

Jewish culture and Christian culture had very strong views on sexual issues, and they were quite clear on their views of homosexuality. Sorry you can't deal with ancient men disagreeing with you on this matter.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 10:49:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
As we live in the 21st century one would hope people would have more enlightened views on homosexuality than they had in Biblical times.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 10:50:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 10:43:01 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:44:04 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:41:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:30:35 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/1/2015 1:55:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 11:16:10 AM, YYW wrote:
More to come tomorrow...

Could you explain the difference(s) among:

(1) A man who is strongly attracted to a married woman, and acts upon his feelings

versus

(2) A man who is strongly attracted to a man, and acts upon his feelings.

As for me, I believe the Bible condemns them both - not for feelings that they cannot totally control - but for acting out based upon them.

1 is a sin, but 2 is not.

So one single man can screw another single man in the a$$, and God is fine with it? Is that what you believe the Bible teaches?

What two men in a loving, monogamous marriage? Also, Leviticus, which they embraced as their Scripture during the time of Paul's writings was even more explicit.

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Leviticus 20:13 (ESV)

Looking to the other examples as well, the author doesn't note, "well if the son in law and mother in law really love each other and get married then it is okay." It is simply a basic prohibition of these practices, and no special note or nuance can be found in this passage to make it "shrine prostitution."

Jewish culture and Christian culture had very strong views on sexual issues, and they were quite clear on their views of homosexuality. Sorry you can't deal with ancient men disagreeing with you on this matter.

You assume far too much about my position. I can deal just fine with ancient men disagreeing with me on this matter. It's always open to me to just saying they were wrong (just like some were wrong when they thought God told them to commit genocide on an entire people group), but then, again, I don't think they had in mind what I had in mind when they talk about prohibitions. So, nice try.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 10:51:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 10:43:01 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:44:04 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:41:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 4:30:35 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/1/2015 1:55:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/1/2015 11:16:10 AM, YYW wrote:
More to come tomorrow...

Could you explain the difference(s) among:

(1) A man who is strongly attracted to a married woman, and acts upon his feelings

versus

(2) A man who is strongly attracted to a man, and acts upon his feelings.

As for me, I believe the Bible condemns them both - not for feelings that they cannot totally control - but for acting out based upon them.

1 is a sin, but 2 is not.

So one single man can screw another single man in the a$$, and God is fine with it? Is that what you believe the Bible teaches?

What two men in a loving, monogamous marriage? Also, Leviticus, which they embraced as their Scripture during the time of Paul's writings was even more explicit.

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Leviticus 20:13 (ESV)

Looking to the other examples as well, the author doesn't note, "well if the son in law and mother in law really love each other and get married then it is okay." It is simply a basic prohibition of these practices, and no special note or nuance can be found in this passage to make it "shrine prostitution."

Jewish culture and Christian culture had very strong views on sexual issues, and they were quite clear on their views of homosexuality. Sorry you can't deal with ancient men disagreeing with you on this matter.

Every Christian has been disobeying the commandments of God so therefore, they will all be put to death.