Homosexuality vs. Mildew

number10a

First of all, I am not trolling. I have a genuine question. Why is homosexuality condemned by most Christian denominations, yet mildew is not?

I'll elaborate; homosexuality is condemned in Leviticus 18:22. Mildew is also looked down upon with much the same contempt in Leviticus 14:33-57. This is the same book of the Bible. Yet, why is it that nowadays we don't have Christian churches calling upon us to vacate our houses for a week if we find mildew in it and clean it with bird's blood, yet a man cannot sleep with another man? Why is one rule from the same book blatantly ignored, while another one enforced to the letter?

There are other examples of ignored rules from Leviticus, such as the ban on pork and ostrich meat. But the mildew one stands out as one of the most ridiculous rules I've ever come across.

PDN

Oh that we had a Jewish forum.

Most Christians believe that the Jewish rules and regulations were fulfilled in Christ and no longer apply to believers today. Therefore, if you can stand the stink, you are perfectly free to live in a mildewed house, to wear clothing made of mixed fibres, to eat bacon, and you don't have to get circumcised.

Christian views on homosexual behaviour come from the New Testament, not from Leviticus. The only people who don't seem to understand this are Fred Phelps and the occasional drive by atheist poster.

Still, we can be grateful for small mercies, at least you didn't post that pathetic letter about Dr Laura, gays, and shellfish.

Boston

Mildew is pretty disgusting, I wouldn't want to live next door to Mildew nor would I want it raising my babies.

DaraMcG

I think it's important to keep things in perspective...there are many more passages denouncing greed and love of money in the bible than there are homosexuality. There are also passages that tell us not to judge others lest we be judged. It's a very unchristian approach to dismiss or judge another person because of their sins when we are all sinners. The 2nd greatest commandment is love your neighbour as yourself.

philologos

DaraMcG wrote: »

I think it's important to keep things in perspective...there are many more passages denouncing greed and love of money in the bible than there are homosexuality. There are also passages that tell us not to judge others lest we be judged. It's a very unchristian approach to dismiss or judge another person because of their sins when we are all sinners. The 2nd greatest commandment is love your neighbour as yourself.

You're correct. However, this means that we should focus on Biblical morality as a whole, rather than just ignoring morality concerning money, or ignoring morality concerning sexuality. The idea is that we are to aim to higher standards both in how we deal financially, and in sexuality and all aspects of our lives.

It doesn't mean we ignore one thing over another, it means we aim to follow God in all ways in our lives.

What you're essentially arguing is, oh, this commandment's here more, so let's ignore that one. I find that reasoning invalid.

DaraMcG

Jakkass wrote: »

You're correct. However, this means that we should focus on Biblical morality as a whole, rather than just ignoring morality concerning money, or ignoring morality concerning sexuality. The idea is that we are to aim to higher standards both in how we deal financially, and in sexuality and all aspects of our lives.

It doesn't mean we ignore one thing over another, it means we aim to follow God in all ways in our lives.

What you're essentially arguing is, oh, this commandment's here more, so let's ignore that one. I find that reasoning invalid.

What i was actually trying to say was not that we ignore sin, but that you should try not to be judgmental or prejudiced since we're all sinners.
I used the example of greed because it is widespread and much ignored or thought to be normal, and if we're honest we can all identify with greed in our own lives.

DaraMcG

number10a you might be interested to know what the New Testament says on homosexuality ...Ive copied and pasted here some conclusions from an analysis of the passages that mention sexual behaviour but if you look up http://www.religioustolerance.org/hombiblnt.htm you can see info on how conservatives and liberals interpret each passage.
Nowhere is there condemnation of committed relationships of any orientation.

A common conservative conclusion: God's word repeatedly condemns same-sex behavior, either between two men or two women. It delivers a consistent message from Genesis to Jude.

A common liberal conclusion:
There is no passage in the Christian Scriptures that condemns same-sex committed relationships or same-sex marriage.

Romans 1 condemns Christian apostates who apparently had a heterosexual orientation and who engaged in what was for them unnatural sex: engaging in sex with members of the same sex.

1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 are ambiguous. They might possibly relate to homosexual behavior; but they might well refer to men who sexually abuse boys, or to male gigolos, or to male temple prostitutes. We just don't know. If these passages actually referred to persons with a homosexual orientation, they probably would not refer to loving, consensual same-sex behavior in a committed relationship. Paul was writing before the existence of a homosexual orientation was known. The only forms of homosexual behavior of which he was probably aware would have been males sexually abusing boys, and men engaging in same-sex orgies during Pagan worship

Jude 1:7 appears to refers to the desire by the men of Sodom to engage in bestiality with another species -- angels. There is none of this going on in by either homosexuals or heterosexuals today.

PDN

DaraMcG wrote: »

Romans 1 condemns Christian apostates who apparently had a heterosexual orientation and who engaged in what was for them unnatural sex: engaging in sex with members of the same sex.

That is one of the most convoluted and biased attempts to interpret Scripture that I have ever encountered. If one of my students ignored basic exegetical and hermeneutical principles in that way (irrespective of whether their conclusions were heterodox or orthodox) they would fail their course.

Romans 1 refers to the behaviour of people since the beginning of the world, not Christian apostates. It does not mention anything about orientation. Therefore you produce a nonsensical interpretation (that homosexual acts are fine if you think you're gay, but sinful if you're not gay ).

The problem with these kind of interpretations is that they are produced by people sitting down with a prearranged agenda (how can I interpret these verses in a way that will justify homosexual acts?). Then they proceed to twist and turn to produce a meaning, no matter how unlikely, that supports their agenda. That is what we call eisegesis (reading your meeaning into the text) rather than exegesis (drawing the author's meaning out of the text).

What we should do is sit down with those texts, try to lay aside our preconceived ideas, and ask what the authors really meant. If we do that, then we would never in a million years produce the kind of agenda-driven interpretations you cite above.

Btw, in case anyone accuses me of similarly trying to read my agenda into those texts, I would love it to be the case that the Bible permitted homosexual acts. Not because I'm gay myself (very hetero and happily married for 25 years) but because we have some very nice gay people (and family members) who attend our church services and I would love for them to be able to play a bigger part in the ministries of our church and to become committed members.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Btw, in case anyone accuses me of similarly trying to read my agenda into those texts, I would love it to be the case that the Bible permitted homosexual acts. Not because I'm gay myself (very hetero and happily married for 25 years) but because we have some very nice gay people (and family members) who attend our church services and I would love for them to be able to play a bigger part in the ministries of our church and to become committed members.

Would you say then, that if it were not for the bible you would have no issue with homosexuality?

Ghost Buster

PDN wrote: »

That is one of the most convoluted and biased attempts to interpret Scripture that I have ever encountered. If one of my students ignored basic exegetical and hermeneutical principles in that way (irrespective of whether their conclusions were heterodox or orthodox) they would fail their course.

Romans 1 refers to the behaviour of people since the beginning of the world, not Christian apostates. It does not mention anything about orientation. Therefore you produce a nonsensical interpretation (that homosexual acts are fine if you think you're gay, but sinful if you're not gay ).

The problem with these kind of interpretations is that they are produced by people sitting down with a prearranged agenda (how can I interpret these verses in a way that will justify homosexual acts?). Then they proceed to twist and turn to produce a meaning, no matter how unlikely, that supports their agenda. That is what we call eisegesis (reading your meeaning into the text) rather than exegesis (drawing the author's meaning out of the text).

What we should do is sit down with those texts, try to lay aside our preconceived ideas, and ask what the authors really meant. If we do that, then we would never in a million years produce the kind of agenda-driven interpretations you cite above.

Btw, in case anyone accuses me of similarly trying to read my agenda into those texts, I would love it to be the case that the Bible permitted homosexual acts. Not because I'm gay myself (very hetero and happily married for 25 years) but because we have some very nice gay people (and family members) who attend our church services and I would love for them to be able to play a bigger part in the ministries of our church and to become committed members.

Do you simply mean that it conflicts with your interpretation? The bible is wide open to interpretation, thats the problem in the first place. For a superior being His instruction manual to us is shockingly vague

DaraMcG

PDN wrote: »

That is one of the most convoluted and biased attempts to interpret Scripture that I have ever encountered. If one of my students ignored basic exegetical and hermeneutical principles in that way (irrespective of whether their conclusions were heterodox or orthodox) they would fail their course.

Can I ask then, in your interpretation....does that mean that a homosexual cannot be pleasing to God...even in a committed relationship or marriage?
Since clearly youve studied this Im also curious to know what do you make of that site's assertion that:
"The only forms of homosexual behavior of which he was probably aware would have been males sexually abusing boys, and men engaging in same-sex orgies during Pagan worship"
Do you think that true and if so wouldnt that have also affected the reasoning behind and interpretation of Romans 1?

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

Would you say then, that if it were not for the bible you would have no issue with homosexuality?

And a follow up question if you would: if you don't have any personal problem with homosexuality and your viewing of it as immoral is entirely derived from the bible, do you feel this is a failing on your part, as in do you feel that you should "know in your heart" that homosexuality is immoral in the same way that we all know that murder and rape are immoral?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Romans 1 refers to the behaviour of people since the beginning of the world, not Christian apostates. It does not mention anything about orientation. Therefore you produce a nonsensical interpretation (that homosexual acts are fine if you think you're gay, but sinful if you're not gay ).

Not quite, homosexual acts are fine if you are gay (thus homosexual acts are your "natural use" for your sexual orientation) and done for love rather than lust, but not fine if you aren't and are just doing them for lust

The interpretation is that Romans 1 is arguing again unnatural acts of lust, heterosexuals who leave their men or women and, in lust, lie with others of the same sex. It doesn't cover a loving homosexual relationships.

That is the argument at least. Don't really want to get into an argument about exegetics or what ever, simply pointing out you don't seem to be following the interpretation.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Would you say then, that if it were not for the bible you would have no issue with homosexuality?

I don't think the charge is necessarily that some Christians take issue with homosexuality, more than they don't understand it particularly well.

The argument (and again I'm just explaining) is that the Bible refers to unnatural acts of lust between same sex partners carried out by heterosexual men and women. The sort of prison homosexual type thing (heterosexual people carrying out homosexual acts due to build up of sexual frustration/lust)

If someone views that as what homosexuality actually is (getting into the issue of someone choosing to be a homosexual and all that) then it is easy to see how the Bible would be saying homosexual acts are wrong.

But the argument from the pro-gay Christian lobby, or what ever you want to call it, is that this isn't homosexuality. That is heterosexuals carrying out same sex acts, not homosexuals carrying out same sex acts. One is just lust, the other encompasses love as well.

They argue that proper homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation, that encompasses love between same sex partners. It is not unnatural or lust. As such it is not covered by the Bible at all and thus one cannot say that the Bible condemns it. You then fall back to the general notions of love that the Bible talks about and apply them to loving homosexual relationships just as you would loving heterosexual relationships.

The argument (or at least the one I'm most familiar with) is not that the Bible actually condones homosexuality but that it is silent on the issue of actual relationships between homosexual partners, that the only thing it talks about is heterosexuals carrying out lustful unnatural same sex sexual relations.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think the charge is necessarily that some Christians take issue with homosexuality, more than they don't understand it particularly well.

The argument (and again I'm just explaining) is that the Bible refers to unnatural acts of lust between same sex partners carried out by heterosexual men and women. The sort of prison homosexual type thing (heterosexual people carrying out homosexual acts due to build up of sexual frustration/lust)

If someone views that as what homosexuality actually is (getting into the issue of someone choosing to be a homosexual and all that) then it is easy to see how the Bible would be saying homosexual acts are wrong.

But the argument from the pro-gay Christian lobby, or what ever you want to call it, is that this isn't homosexuality. That is heterosexuals carrying out same sex acts, not homosexuals carrying out same sex acts. One is just lust, the other encompasses love as well.

They argue that proper homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation, that encompasses love between same sex partners. It is not unnatural or lust. As such it is not covered by the Bible at all and thus one cannot say that the Bible condemns it. You then fall back to the general notions of love that the Bible talks about and apply them to loving homosexual relationships just as you would loving heterosexual relationships.

The argument (or at least the one I'm most familiar with) is not that the Bible actually condones homosexuality but that it is silent on the issue of actual relationships between homosexual partners, that the only thing it talks about is heterosexuals carrying out lustful unnatural same sex sexual relations.

I know the arguement for homosexuality WN. I wasn't actually looking to argue about it though. My question is a bit of a spin-off directed specifically at PDN relating to the last paragraph of his post.

marty1985

It's worth noting what Jesus said about homosexuality.



Nothing.



He said a lot about love and charity though.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I know the arguement for homosexuality WN. I wasn't actually looking to argue about it though. My question is a bit of a spin-off directed specifically at PDN relating to the last paragraph of his post.

Don't worry, neither am I.

I just made the post to clarify that PDN's statement about not being agenda driven because he wishes homosexuals could be Christians is some what missing the point.

wolfsbane

marty1985 wrote: »

It's worth noting what Jesus said about homosexuality.



Nothing.



He said a lot about love and charity though.

He didn't say anything about bestiality or paedophilia either, so they must be OK too?

No, for He spoke in the context of the morality God had already revealed - the OT. So He did not need to specifically mention all sins for them to be sin.

_________________________________________________________________
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;

PDN

wolfsbane wrote: »

He didn't say anything about bestiality or paedophilia either, so they must be OK too?

Based on past experience in these fora, it may not be long before some illiterate moron accuses you (falsely, of course) of equating homosexuality with bestiality or paedophilia.

PDN

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Do you simply mean that it conflicts with your interpretation? The bible is wide open to interpretation, thats the problem in the first place. For a superior being His instruction manual to us is shockingly vague

No, I don't mean anything of the kind. And the fact you ask that question is quite depressing in that it makes me wonder why bother posting stuff in a forum if people don't bother reading it before they respond to it.

When it comes to the New Testament, or indeed any other text of a comparable age, there are standard interpretative principles that historians and biblical scholars (Christians, Jews, atheists, and agnostics) follow. There are, of course some passages where various legitimate interpretations are suggested and argued over. But for many passages the intent of the author is abundantly clear - and in those cases differing interpretations are generally produced by those seeking justification for their agendas rather than genuinely seeking to understand what the author really meant.

Btw, the Bible isn't an instruction manual. It's more a correspondence between lovers (God and His Bride which is the Church). That's why it's expressed in stories, poetry, pieces of history, promises, shared disappointments etc. - even memories of past quarrels that are now thankfully resolved. It's pretty well the way that a married couple build up their relationship. I think this is where many non-Christians tie themselves up in knots - they want a document written like a legal contract rather than something that expresses love and devotion.

JimiTime

^^Good post.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Based on past experience in these fora, it may not be long before some illiterate moron accuses you (falsely, of course) of equating homosexuality with bestiality or paedophilia.

Yeah, isn't it really anoying when people do things like that?

PDN

DaraMcG wrote: »

Can I ask then, in your interpretation....does that mean that a homosexual cannot be pleasing to God...even in a committed relationship or marriage?

I believe a homosexual (I presume you're using the word in its popular sense of someone who feels a certain orientation) can be pleasing to God provided they don't act engage in homosexual acts.

Since clearly youve studied this Im also curious to know what do you make of that site's assertion that:
"The only forms of homosexual behavior of which he was probably aware would have been males sexually abusing boys, and men engaging in same-sex orgies during Pagan worship"
Do you think that true and if so wouldnt that have also affected the reasoning behind and interpretation of Romans 1?

No, I disagree with that. The site is probably correct that the most common forms of homosexual behaviour in the First Century were paedophilia, temple prostitution and the rape of slaves. They were the forms, amazingly enough, that were most accepted by society! However, if that website is claiming that consensual same-sex relationships never occurred in the First Century, then I would find that claim just as unbelievable as the Iranian President's assertion that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

Paul had visited Corinth and lived there for a while. Corinth was known throughout the ancient world as an "anything goes" kind of city in all things sexual. The idea that Paul could have spent time in Corinth and somehow remained oblivious to the fact that there were gay couples is, to be honest, unsustainable.

One of the things we see in the New Testament is that when Old Testament laws or ceremonies were no longer applicable then that was usually explicitly stated. This happens with regard to circumcision, dietary laws, temple sacrifices, sabbath observance etc.

Other OT laws are reinforced and restated as Christian principles in the NT (but without the penalty attached to them in the OT since the Christians no longer lived in a desert theocracy). So Christrians are still enjoined to honour their parents, not to steal, not to worship idols, not to commit adultery etc.

Now, when it comes to homosexual behaviour, there are no verses that say anything remotely like, "Hey! These restrictions against same-sex activities were just shadows that are fulfilled in Christ aand now the saints can rodger whoever they want." What we do have are a number of verses that speak of homosexual activities in a negative way, and none that speak of them in a positive way. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no warrant for some kind of special pleading that redefines every NT verse on the subject to try and pretend they don't include consensual gay sex, and then simultaneously expects us to believe that God changed his mind about men having sex with other men but somehow forgot to mention it in the NT.

I believe such interpretations are fundamentally flawed. If you try hard enough you can twist the Bible to support any view point (eg white supremacists, UFO conspiracies, the British people being the lost tribes of Israel etc.) but to do so you have to abandon the principles of textual interpretation that are recognised by most classicists, historians and biblical scholars in the academic world.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Would you say then, that if it were not for the bible you would have no issue with homosexuality?

Very unfortunate double entendre there, James.

The idea of men having sex with other men does not personally appeal to me, just as I find the idea of anyone eating prunes to be rather nauseating. But, if it weren't for the Bible I would probably view homosexual acts as I view prunes - not my thing, but not immoral.

As it is, because of the biblical teaching, I see homosexual acts as being incompatible with practising Christianity.

If non-Christians are consenting adults they can, as far I'm concerned, engage in gay sex, bisexual activities, threesomes foursomes, or whatever they want - and I'll defend their legal right to do so. If they're determined to reject Christ then eternity's not looking pretty for them - so they might as well squeeze as much fun as they can now. I have zero interest in trying to tell unbelievers that they should live by Christian standards or morality - with the added proviso, of course, that they shouldn't harm others.

Sam Vimes wrote:

And a follow up question if you would: if you don't have any personal problem with homosexuality and your viewing of it as immoral is entirely derived from the bible, do you feel this is a failing on your part, as in do you feel that you should "know in your heart" that homosexuality is immoral in the same way that we all know that murder and rape are immoral?

I don't actually agree that we all know that murder and rape are immoral. You and I might know it, but history demonstrates that it doesn't take much to make large numbers of people vengage in rape and murder with seemingly little or no conscience.

I believe that there is an inherent sense of right and wrong in our hearts - but our sinfulness has, to a greater or lesser degree, distorted our morality.

LookingFor

I'm curious how one supposes there's really only one way to interpret certain parts of the bible when various denominations have reached differing conclusions on the interpretations to be made and the context within which to place certain parts of the bible (including those relating to homosexuality). Different groups have invested significantly in study and deliberation of these issues and come to different conclusions, and I'm not just talking about some tiny splinter denomination formed by gay people, but some big denominations who - whether you agree with them or not - invest considerable attention and time into their study of the bible.

Ditto mentioning historians...I've seen many historians place certain aspects of the bible 'in context' in a way that would probably be displeasing - no offence - to someone like PDN.

I really don't think you can say there's a single-minded consensus or agreement on how the bible is to be approached, or in particular how specific parts (such as those relating to the topic) are interpreted.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

He didn't say anything about bestiality or paedophilia either, so they must be OK too?

That is sort of the point. We have non-Biblical reasons why bestiality and pedophilia are immoral.

What is the non-Biblical reason against homosexual partnerships?

If you discover the absence of a moral objection against genuine homosexual partnerships, rather than lust driven heterosexual same sex partnerships, as the authors of the passages above believe they have, then you are left with no other reason why homosexual partnerships based on love and companionship are immoral according to God.

PDN

LookingFor wrote: »

I'm curious how one supposes there's really only one way to interpret certain parts of the bible when various denominations have reached differing conclusions on the interpretations to be made and the context within which to place certain parts of the bible (including those relating to homosexuality). Different groups have invested significantly in study and deliberation of these issues and come to different conclusions, and I'm not just talking about some tiny splinter denomination formed by gay people, but some big denominations who - whether you agree with them or not - invest considerable attention and time into their study of the bible.

Ditto mentioning historians...I've seen many historians place certain aspects of the bible 'in context' in a way that would probably be displeasing - no offence - to someone like PDN.

I really don't think you can say there's a single-minded consensus or agreement on how the bible is to be approached, or in particular how specific parts (such as those relating to the topic) are interpreted.

There is indeed honest and legitimate debate and disagreement over many biblical passages. But then there are other interpretations that, for anyone who makes any attempt to be impartial, are obviously agenda-driven.

Yes, it is quite true that certain major denominations have indeed chosen to adopt interpretations that ignore the clear biblical teaching on homosexual behaviour. But, yet again, they are agenda driven.

A number of mainline Protestant denominations (primarily in the US) have an agenda in that they mistakenly think that endorsing certain activities will make them seem more tolerant and therefore arrest their quite alarming numerical decline. Ironically the opposite is true. People want to belong to a movement that actually stands for something. That is why the churches that are growing are those that are conservative in terms of doctrine and biblical morality.

I once heard a gay person say, "I wanted to join one of those churches that are accepting of gays - but then I discovered that the reason they are accepting of gays is because they don't actually believe anything that's in the Bible anyway, which defeats the point of wanting to be a Christian in the first place."

Or, as Dogbert once put it in a Dilbert comic strip: "I decided to start a discount religion. The tithing would only be 5% and I’d let people sin as much as they wanted. ........... The only problem is that I don’t want to spend time with anyone who would join that sort of religion!"

LookingFor

PDN wrote: »

There is indeed honest and legitimate debate and disagreement over many biblical passages. But then there are other interpretations that, for anyone who makes any attempt to be impartial, are obviously agenda-driven.

Yes, it is quite true that certain major denominations have indeed chosen to adopt interpretations that ignore the clear biblical teaching on homosexual behaviour. But, yet again, they are agenda driven.

I think that's a bit arrogant and diminishes the quite exhaustive deliberation that many people go through around this.

You can say there is consensus among 'Christians according to PDN', but to say there is consensus in general, across theologians and academia, is not true. At all.

PDN wrote: »

I once heard a gay person say, "I wanted to join one of those churches that are accepting of gays - but then I discovered that the reason they are accepting of gays is because they don't actually believe anything that's in the Bible anyway, which defeats the point of wanting to be a Christian in the first place."

Wow. I'd love to meet this person.

The suggestion you're offering here is that only way a Christian religion could be not anti-gay is if they don't believe 'the rest' either?

If a Christian belief falls apart in the absence of an anti-homosexual element then it's flakey to say the least. There is plenty of value in Jesus Christ and the Bible beyond an anti-gay teaching, that I simply would marvel at someone saying that it rings hollow without such teaching.

I do not, either, see what's so special about disagreement over this matter vs disagreement over so many matters across the Christian world, that it defines a denomination of worth vs one of non-worth, or serves as a litmus test for disingenuous study or bible interpretation. I know some people very hung up about homosexuality, but really.

PDN

LookingFor wrote: »

I think that's a bit arrogant and diminishes the quite exhaustive deliberation that many people go through around this.

To be honest, the interpretations suggested earlier in this thread show little evidence of 'exhaustive deliberation' at all. I have offered some reasons, for example, why the interpretation of Romans 1 didn't hold water. I would love to hear some theologically literate responses to that - rather than just "Oh well, other people say different things".

You can say there is consensus among 'Christians according to PDN', but to say there is consensus in general, across theologians and academia, is not true. At all.

That isn't true. Consensus does not mean 100% agreement. My experience, as someone actively involved in teaching theology at third level, is that very few historians or bibical scholars (except those with an axe to grind) would agree with the kind of interpretations offered earlier in this thread.

(Of course if you're demanding 100% agreement among academics before you allow for a consensus then there is no consensus among scientists that evolution is true )

Wow. I'd love to meet this person.

Come to church then.

The suggestion you're offering here is that only way a Christian religion could be not anti-gay is if they don't believe 'the rest' either?

No, and that isn't what I said.

There are generally two kinds of churches that are believe homosexual acts to be acceptable for Christians.

a) The Rainbow Metropolitan Churches which are self-consciously 'gay churches'. In these congregations being gay is seen as the most important characteristic of the church, with everything else being seen through that perspective. For example, look at this website: http://rainbowcathedral.wordpress.com/ It's not difficult to see what is most important in their ethos.

b) Mainline Protestant Churches that are theologically liberal. Such churches tend to hold to a low view of biblical inspiration, see Christ as one of many ways to God, and sometimes even deny key Christian doctrines such as the atonement, the resurrection and the second coming of Christ. Now, you may or may not like the sound of that, but the statistical evidence is clear and has been so for 40 years - churches that adhere to such liberal theology are declining numerically. People are, in general, attracted more to churches that offer certainty, have confidence in their beliefs, and believe in the power of Christ to offer radical personal transformation.

If a Christian belief falls apart in the absence of an anti-homosexual element then it's flakey to say the least.

No, you've got it back to front. Flakey beliefs mean you're ready to ignore clear biblical teaching on sexual morality.

There is plenty of value in Jesus Christ and the Bible beyond an anti-gay teaching, that I simply would marvel at someone saying that it rings hollow without such teaching.

Indeed there is plenty of value - such as the saving power of Jesus Christ, our receipt of new life through the resurrection, living life in the power of the Holy Spirit, and looking forward to the wonderful return of Christ.

The tragedy is that those who try to arresty their numerical decline by endorsing homosexual behaviour have often already abandoned these things of value.

I do not, either, see what's so special about disagreement over this matter vs disagreement over so many matters across the Christian world, that it defines a denomination of worth vs one of non-worth,

It doesn't - and nobody says that it does. So put that straw man back in your pocket.

or serves as a litmus test for disingenuous study or bible interpretation.

Nobody said that either.

I know some people very hung up about homosexuality, but really.

Indeed some people are hung up about it. I just wish they'd stop posting threads about it in the Christianity Forum. Then we wouldn't have to waste our time answering them and could get down to what we'd really like to do in this forum - discussing Christian issues.

LookingFor

PDN wrote: »

To be honest, the interpretations suggested earlier in this thread show little evidence of 'exhaustive deliberation' at all.

I wasn't referring to those but others with significant 'academic investment' in the study of the bible, for want of a better phrase, including a number of denominations.

PDN wrote: »

That isn't true. Consensus does not mean 100% agreement. My experience, as someone actively involved in teaching theology at third level, is that very few historians or bibical scholars (except those with an axe to grind) would agree with the kind of interpretations offered earlier in this thread.

There's two things here. 1) interpretation of intended meaning and 2) context and significance. I think you'll find greater consensus on the former than the latter. On the latter I've found much diversity of opinion among a broader range of academics (vs theologians).

PDN wrote: »

No, and that isn't what I said.

There are generally two kinds of churches that are believe homosexual acts to be acceptable for Christians.

a) The Rainbow Metropolitan Churches which are self-consciously 'gay churches'. In these congregations being gay is seen as the most important characteristic of the church, with everything else being seen through that perspective. For example, look at this website: http://rainbowcathedral.wordpress.com/ It's not difficult to see what is most important in their ethos.

b) Mainline Protestant Churches that are theologically liberal. Such churches tend to hold to a low view of biblical inspiration, see Christ as one of many ways to God, and sometimes even deny key Christian doctrines such as the atonement, the resurrection and the second coming of Christ.

Indeed there is plenty of value - such as the saving power of Jesus Christ, our receipt of new life through the resurrection, living life in the power of the Holy Spirit, and looking forward to the wonderful return of Christ.

The tragedy is that those who try to arresty their numerical decline by endorsing homosexual behaviour have often already abandoned these things of value.

I think that's certainly a shame if true, but it need not be the case. If there's a correlation between rescinding of anti-homosexual teachings and other more fundamental aspects of mainstream christian faith, then I think it leaves room for denominations 'in between', so to speak. Even among the most conservative denominations, there's room for changes in their doctrine and teachings - even if only small ones - that would be positive for gay people, and still respect their conservative interpretation of scripture.

Perhaps there your gay friend would feel more at home at such a church.

PDN wrote: »

It doesn't - and nobody says that it does. So put that straw man back in your pocket.


Nobody said that either.

It wasn't clear to me in your original post, but I'm glad you agree it is not in itself a hallmark of a discredited line of thinking.

PDN wrote: »

Indeed some people are hung up about it. I just wish they'd stop posting threads about it in the Christianity Forum. Then we wouldn't have to waste our time answering them and could get down to what we'd really like to do in this forum - discussing Christian issues.

Well, I didn't start the thread. But there are homosexual christians who would I'm sure appreciate you not discouraging the discussion of their relationship with their religion, or critical discourse of the treatment of homosexuality within their religion. These things are 'christian issues' I think. These discussions aren't welcome in the LGB forum, AFAIK, and probably rightfully so, since they are more specifically about one religion.

Ghost Buster

PDN wrote: »

To be honest, the interpretations suggested earlier in this thread show little evidence of 'exhaustive deliberation' at all. I have offered some reasons, for example, why the interpretation of Romans 1 didn't hold water. I would love to hear some theologically literate responses to that - rather than just "Oh well, other people say different things".

That isn't true. Consensus does not mean 100% agreement. My experience, as someone actively involved in teaching theology at third level, is that very few historians or bibical scholars (except those with an axe to grind) would agree with the kind of interpretations offered earlier in this thread.

(Of course if you're demanding 100% agreement among academics before you allow for a consensus then there is no consensus among scientists that evolution is true )

Come to church then.

No, and that isn't what I said.

There are generally two kinds of churches that are believe homosexual acts to be acceptable for Christians.

a) The Rainbow Metropolitan Churches which are self-consciously 'gay churches'. In these congregations being gay is seen as the most important characteristic of the church, with everything else being seen through that perspective. For example, look at this website: http://rainbowcathedral.wordpress.com/ It's not difficult to see what is most important in their ethos.

b) Mainline Protestant Churches that are theologically liberal. Such churches tend to hold to a low view of biblical inspiration, see Christ as one of many ways to God, and sometimes even deny key Christian doctrines such as the atonement, the resurrection and the second coming of Christ. Now, you may or may not like the sound of that, but the statistical evidence is clear and has been so for 40 years - churches that adhere to such liberal theology are declining numerically. People are, in general, attracted more to churches that offer certainty, have confidence in their beliefs, and believe in the power of Christ to offer radical personal transformation.

No, you've got it back to front. Flakey beliefs mean you're ready to ignore clear biblical teaching on sexual morality.


Indeed there is plenty of value - such as the saving power of Jesus Christ, our receipt of new life through the resurrection, living life in the power of the Holy Spirit, and looking forward to the wonderful return of Christ.

The tragedy is that those who try to arresty their numerical decline by endorsing homosexual behaviour have often already abandoned these things of value.


It doesn't - and nobody says that it does. So put that straw man back in your pocket.


Nobody said that either.


Indeed some people are hung up about it. I just wish they'd stop posting threads about it in the Christianity Forum. Then we wouldn't have to waste our time answering them and could get down to what we'd really like to do in this forum - discussing Christian issues.[/QUOTE

Hi lited in red is the very crux of the problem. It isnt clear. The word "interpretation" has been to subject of many postings here. If it was all so clear there would be no need of theologans, biblical scholars and regular Joe Soaps spending time interpreting parts of the bible.