Ron Garrett

I spent a lot of time on this issue at seminary. Though a skeptic now, I was then a Christian trying to come to grips with doctrine and dogma that seem to me irreconcilable with a "God of Love." The issue of homosexuality and how it's treated in the community of faith troubled me a lot. I'm not gay, but many people that mattered to me at the time were, and this was one of those issues that eventually made my beliefs about God untenable, prompting me to leave the pulpit and the faith.

I've studied Boswell's exegesis of Romans extensively, as well as the other arguments made here and they are pretty specious as a whole, unfortunately. (And I mean that when I say unfortunately. They just don't stand up at all, as much as I wished they would).I understand why most serious specialists in the field ignored Boswell's work, which was so bad that a if he'd been in first semester Koine they would have failed him. He was making so many leaps of faith without support that I could tell he was coming from the same place as i was, i.e. trying to get conservatives off of the backs of homosexuals.

The problem with trying to bend a linguistic and historical analysis to a soical purpose is that while lay persons may think it all sounds wonderful, academics know the analyst has lost all pretense at objectivity and their misdeeds bring discredit upon the effort as a whole.

Bruce Metzger finally responded to Boswell because the silence of the academic community was being taken as agreement with Boswell when it was really amazement that anyone would embarass themselves like that. I've got Metzger's response in a folder at home. I'll scan it and post it for anyone with the academic interest.

But as a simple example. Take the Genesis passage in context. If all the men of Sodom wanted to do was meet the strangers, why does Lot offer his virgin daughters in their place?

If Malakoi means "unreliable", was is it still the Greek slang term equivalent of "fag.?"

Instead of trying to remake a bunch of superstitition as we would have it be, it's better to ask ourselves what possible use should be made of a book that like the Bible inthe first place. It's not the word of Yahweh or any other deity. It's the word of dozens of peoples of various beliefs and persuasions, some homophobes like Paul who pretty much hates and attacks everyone, some fairly inncuous poets, some PR men for some pretty lowlife politicians, none of it having much to commend it as a rule of life.

We need to put such primitive and unevolved nonsense out of our minds and our culture. Trying to make a dangerous lie relevant to modern life just perpetuates the problem, and the Bible has caused enough trouble.

Le pede

What specifically do you find wrong with Boswell's exegesis? First of all, compared to fundamentalist explanations of some passages, I think he's right on par with them. Secondly, I think people are hard on Boswell because they don't understand his argument. Boswell's argument, about Romans specifically, is confusing because he assumes a homosexual/heterosexual dichotomy in the ancient world. In a sense, he plays by the conservatives' rules instead of questioning the whole idea that Paul even thought of sexuality in the same way we do. This causes his argument to seem unbelievable and far fetched.

As far as "malakoi" is concerned, it means "effiminate" but that term had nothing to do with sexual orientation. In fact, in ancient sources, malakoi was a term that often referred to men who slept with lots of women. Since in the ancient world, women were regarded to be morally weaker than men, calling a man "effiminate" was quite a harsh moral statement. Yes, Paul was using sexist terminology in his moral discourse--he was a man of his times (something Christians have a hard time accepting).

[ July 18, 2001: Message edited by: Le pede ]

Robin Banks

Ron Garrett --

I would very much like to see that refutation to which you referred.

Grumpy

Uh, thank you Les. The men in white coats would like to have a word with you now.

On the topic, I think everyone should know exactly what Jesus said on the subject of homosexuality. That way, we can follow his holy example. What's that? Jesus said *nothing* about homosexuality? (Except for possibly that "now you will become fishers of men" remark. )

[ July 18, 2001: Message edited by: Grumpy ]

Muad'Dib

Please do!

E_muse

There are some useful replies here.

I hope that my comments were not taken as anti-gay (I don't think they were). I was simply responding to the comment that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

Even if I do not agree with homosexual practice I recognise a number of factors:

1. A homosexual does not choose his or her sexual preference any more than I have.
2. As mentioned above, a homosexual tendency does not necessarily lead to moral degredation in every area of life.

Homophobia is another expression of the fear of that which is different.

The point I was making is that a homosexual's subjective sexual preference contradicts their obvious biological function. However, the same must be true of a person who remains celibate in order to serve God - such as a Nun.

Both could be viewed as dysfunctional and, in time, could become extinct!

Evolution is not a moral philosophy but morality must have been produced by the evolutionary process, as are philosophies themselves, and each relies heavily on subjective preference.. However, this is probably for another thread.

[ July 18, 2001: Message edited by: E_muse ]

Waning Moon Conrad

I don't have an opinion on homosexuality, I don't feel the need to have an opinion.

I have an opinion on the bible though, it's merely a collection of myths, laws, prayers, assertions and opinions and nothing more.

Throbert McGee

Dear Moderator:

I wish to submit a nominee for the Internet Infidels Progressive Thinker of the Year medal, but am unclear on the procedure. Please advise.

Regards,

Rob "Really? Holy shit!" McGee

Iconoclast

REally? Damn, I was lied to...LIED to I tell ya. The Homosexual Recruitment Office promised me automatic and full moral degredation in all areas, provided I stayed within 1200ft of my local switching station.

critical thinking made ez

"Let's rephrase, "A tendency toward Christianity does not necessarily lead to moral degradation in every area of life." But it did for me when I was one.

I am now a Christianphobe thanks to Exodus (and the rest of the Bible).