noah

Yeah that's interesting. There does seem to be a divergence of views on this issue among "believers". I was doing a little research on the Southern Baptists (SBs) and it turns out that you can be gay and still avoid going to hell if you are abstinent. Being abstinent allows for one to lead a moral life. If you are not abstinent then you can't lead a moral life. As far as I can tell sexually active homosexuals are sinners and consequently do go to hell.
Homosexuality is not considered an unpardonable sin which I think is the worst sin according to SBs. However, SBs reject the idea of homosexuals becoming ministers. They say it's a contradiction in terms.
For all that they appear rather moderate on this issue they announced a campaign at one of their conferences a few years ago (2003) to convert homosexuals to the straight lifestyle.

Gamera

Paul's only clear reference to homosexuality is Romans 1, which is obscure to say the least. It involves, strangely, the idea that homosexuality was a punishment (not a sin) for the sin of ignoring God, sometime in the indefinite past. Then in Romans 2, he says, "Therefore," we've all sinned so don't judge people. Thus, the passage has the exact opposite meaning as used by religous rightwingers.

As to Paul's other references to "homosexuality," they are illusory. The word Paul uses is arsenakoites, which is probably best translated as pederast -- as it was a familiar practice of the time for powerful men to abuse boys. That was what Paul would have understood as "gay sex," not gay couples living down the street. There were no gay couples living down the street in Paul's time, and sexuality simply wasn't conceived of as heterosexual and homosexual, as Foucault's "History of Sexuality" shows.

In short, the anti-gay tirades of the religious right have nothing to do with the New Testament and are a complete fabrication, clearly for political purposes (or the result of latency issues)

noah

The problem with hiding behind the New Testament solely in deciding whether homosexuality is a sin is that it's unbiblical. All the bible must be considered when deciding on the sinful nature (or lack thereof) of homosexuality.
Paul himself states in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is inspired and useful for instruction in righteousness and formulation of doctrine:
2 Timothy was written before the NT was put together so we know it's referring to the OT. That means you have top look at the OT in order to properly consider homosexuality.
What does the OT say? You guessed it. Homosexuality is depraved and sinful:
Right off the bat god is telling us to engage in heterosexual sex. Genesis 1 states be fruitful and multiply. Do you suppose it's possible that God meant that you could be gay as long as you procreated? No. Later on we encounter two strongly worded declarations against homosexuality:
Leviticus 18:22 statesthen

Leviticus 20:13 Then there's the story of Sodom and Gomorrah which conservative Christians say is anti-homosexual.

As for Paul's statment that everyone has sinned, well Paul contradicts himself here:
Romans 5:14 So I don't know whether it's a good idea to be quoting Paul in any of this or any other topic frankly.

Gamera

[QUOTE=noah]Yep, but you'll notice that Paul says rather vociferously that the Law is defunct, and the biblical proscriptions against homosexuality are in the Law. Thus Paul specifically argues that prescriptions against homosexuality are unchristian, since they depend on the Law.

Don't confuse the Law with scripture. The Law is just a subset. Paul understand that the Hebrew Scriptures are filled with useful narrative, but the Law per se was finished.

Needless to say, Paul would disagree with you about following Leviticus.

It isn't. That's pure religious right claptrap. Here's what God himself (according to Ezekeil) says about Sodom:

Ezekiel: 16:49-50
As I live, says the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. 49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50

Of course, learning that God destroyed Sodom because of greed and mistreatment of the poor is the last thing the religious right wants to hear. But there it is in plain language.


That's irrelevant to Romans 2, which claims to explain Romans 1, which is the topic of discussion.

noah

Nice try. Paul uses the word ALL. ALL means all. We don't need to go to a dictionary for that one do we Gamera?

Sophistry. The scripture is the law. The law is scripture. The law is a part of scripture. Scripture is the word used for the bible. ALL of it.

Meaningless unbiblical distinction. Your God says his laws are eternal and perfect. Period. How do eternal and perfect laws become subsets or cast out of scripture?
Please tell me where your god says his laws are just a subset (grabbing popcorn).

Really? Says who? I missed the part where your god say his perfect and eternal laws will become obsolete or set aside. Please point me to the verses in Psalms, Ezekiel, Deuteronomy, Isaiah and Mathew for example where your God says his perfect and eternal laws are finished.

Or are you contending that Paul is God. Do you worship Paul?

Of course he would. He's a renegade. Most of what he says about your God's laws are violations of your God's laws.

That's one Christian heard from. So much for being filled with the unifying spirit of Jesus.
If you're all filled with the Holy Spirit or Jesus or whatever it is, why can't you agree on anything?

Hardly. The issue is Paul's credibility on this and any other topic for that matter. Paul can't be trusted to overwrite or set aside the law when he's a babbling idiot.

Diogenes the Cynic

Strangely enough, I'm going to agree with Gamera here. First, Paul didn't write 2 Timothy, so I don't think it can be construed as representing his own views. Secondly, a declaration that Scripture is "God-breathed" does not amount to a position that all of its laws still need to be followed. Paul would not have disputed that the law was given to Moses by God but he did indeed declare the law defunct and said it was superceded by the crucifixion. He explicitly claimed that circumcision and dietary laws no longer needed to be followed. Those are both 'God-breathed" laws and there isn't any question that Paul believed they were no longer binding.

The question of whether Paul had the authority to declare those laws defunct rests on a faith-belief that Paul received this knowledge by personal revelation from Christ. Obviously, I'm not going to try to argue that this actually happened but from a Christian perspective, Paul was speaking on God's authority, not his own.

An argument can also be made that the Levitical proscriptions against homosexuality originally alluded to Canaanite cultic practices, not all homosexual activity per se. I won't attempt to argue that one way or the other but there is definitely some exegetical dispute over what those verses really prohibit.

Gamera is also correct both about the passage from Romans (homosexuality is a result of idol worship, not condemned as sin per se) and the meaning of the word arsenokoitai, which most probably referred to pederasty and was exceedingly unlikely to have been intended to refer to homosexuality in general because the suffix -koites (there are a number of other compounds which used it, such as "whore-bedder," "horse-bedder," etc. It was pretty much like saying "_____ fucker") was always used to denote only the penetrative partner in a sexual act, not the passive.

There are also a couple of attestations for the the word being used to refer to heterosexuals. John the Faster even used it in reference to men with their wives.

There really is no clear condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testament, largely because the whole concept of sexuality as a fixed orientation didn't exist yet. People didn't think in terms of "gay" and "straight," only in terms of specific acts and it is not at all clear which act Paul was talking about when he coined the word arsenokoitai.

noah

First, the authorship of 2 TImothy IMO is irrelvant. The point is that 2 Timothy says ALL scripture applies. Period.

Second, if scripture is god-breathed then of course you obey every jot and tittle. It's God's word. If scripture says you obey your God's laws then you obey your God's laws.

Yes Paul did (try to) annul the law. Rehearsing Paul's opinions and theology doesnt really tell me much Diogenes.
Paul's annulment of his God's laws was unbiblical and unscriptural and violated the laws of his God.

I'm not sure what your point is here Diogenes. You're just repeating standard xian theology.

Actually we know Paul was not speaking on his God's authority because he violated his God's laws. It is absurd to argue that God became the very thing he warned against. i.e. those who would change, add to, subtract from, or diminish God's laws.
What's another clue that Paul's writing with no scriptural authority and is not inspired by God? The simple fact that God never changes (Malachi 3:6). That means that God's perfect and eternal laws are always going to be perfect and eternal.
There's more reason to assume that Paul is not inspired. He says so himself on no less than three occasions:
1 Corinthians 7:12

1 Corinthians 7:25

1 Corinthians 7:12

2 Corinthians 11:17

If Paul admits he's uninspired here, three times, I see no reason to assume he's uninspired elsewhere. The only question is where.

Remember, Paul's God's laws according to Paul's God himself are perfect and eternal. Perfect and eternal means they never get overwritten or replaced or annulled or set aside. Period.

fall

Hmm...I'm confused as heck...sigh...I love you all for helping me. So there is no verse anywhere in the Bible that specifically states that "homosexual go to hell," right? . The verses on here does not state that. I know there is condemnation
I just don't understand the mindset of some of my friends. I love them, and I know that they have their own beliefs; but if it's that beliefs that make them think that "homosexualism" is a disease, then it just goes against what I think. When I heard my friend said that homosexualism is look down upon and not accepted, there is a feeling of sadness and shock for me.
You must understand that I really wanted to believe in God then, and even still now. Why? Because they all believe in God, and I want to know why they are so convicted...But it's issue like this that makes me stay away from religion. I feel desponded sometimes because they think everything I believe is wrong...and I feel I'm right. But, what's the point of being right when ur the only one to believe so and there's so many of them who believe otherwise?
I'm one who have no preferences. I love all people. I have no hatred toward anyone, nor do I judge anyone. However, I do feel like I'm an outkast, because in their mind I'll end up in hell one day because I dont believe in God.

noah

Fall,

As I said, most Christians can't agree on whether the bible condemns homosexuality outright.
As with everything else in Christianity it depends on which Christian(s) you talk to. There is no, repeat no, consensus among Christians as to whether homosexuality is evil and whether homosexuals go to Hell.
If you want a couple of verses that are proof that Christianity condemns homosexuality then take a look at Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. They are, in my opinion, the most obvious examples of verses that condemn homosexuality. As I said, and as you saw here in this thread, some Christians don't accept either 18:22 or Leviticus 20:13 as proof that God condemns homosexuality.

I know it's difficult having Christian friends. They can be judgmental, closed minded and intolerant and they act like they have the monopoly on truth and God.
Who cares whether your Christian friends think you're wrong Fall? They have no proof that they're right. Most people who believe in a formal religion think they're right. Christians are not alone in this. Muslims think they're right. Jews think they're right. Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Confucians think they're right.
Next time your Christian friends tell you you're wrong tell them to prove it.
Next time they say they're right, tell them to prove it and tell them to prove it without mentioning their bible

Religion is a very dangerous phenomenon. Religion divides people. Families have broken apart over religion. Wars have been fought over it, friendships lost, nations destroyed. Precious artifacts and libraries demolished and burned because of religious hatred(s). Millions of people have been murdered and killed in the name one religion or another and in every one of them the participants will tell you that they have or had (their) God on their side. I kid you not. People have killed and maimed each other because they did not believe the same thing as they did. Tell that to your Christian friends next time they try to single you out from them and criticize your beliefs.
Ask them if it's worth even mentioning the differences between your beliefs and theirs.

Most importantly Fall you should never give a rat's ass what other people think of you or your beliefs. You are the only person that matters. What you think of yourself is the only opinion that counts. Don't let others influence you into or out of believing anything. If you're strong they will respect you for it and you will respect yourself for it too.
You all should be mature enough to get along regardless of what each of you believes or doesn't believe.
BTW Fall many people consider their faith/religion a very personal, private thing. Tell your friends your beliefs are your private business. This is one thing that always bothers me about some Christians. Not only do they think they are right and everybody else is wrong (including other Christians) but they seem to think they can poke their nose into something as personal and private as my and your faith and push their beliefs on me telling me how wrong I am in the process. That's the height of rudeness and arrogance if anything was. Add to that the fact that they can't prove they're right and that I'm wrong and you've got exhibit A absurdity.

Fall, you shouldn't feel under any circumstances that you have to believe in God. Christians say they believe in God but they can't agree on who he is, what he believes or what he does or will do.
If your friends look down on you or someone you care about then you shouldn't be their friends because they sure aren't yours.

James Madison

NIV

NASB

NLT

New King James Version

I think Romans clearly condemns homosexuality in the preceding verses. First Paul characterizes the subsequent behavior as shameful lusts, degrading passions, shameful desires, vile passions. Paul is most certainly not characterizing the desires of the acts in a positive manner. If the thoughts about the conduct are sinful then it follows the conduct itself is sinful.

Paul explicitly suggests this conduct is sinful by asserting, "received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.....receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.... suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.
They are being penalized for engaging in this behavior. God does not penalize righteous conduct but sinful unrigtheous behavior. So we do know Paul is not considering the conduct he describes as righteous but rather worthy of a penalty. Now what is the conduct they are being penalized for having committed? Now the issue necessarily becomes one of what KIND of conduct is he talking about?

Paul then proceeds to tell us about their conduct.

the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men....... See the other verses above.

I looked up what the word "natural" meant in Greek in a Strong's dictionary. One meaning has it as "physical". Admittedly I do not have the text in front of me but a quick scan of the internet confirms "physical". Of course if this is true then I think the likely conclusion here is Paul is indeed condemning homosexuality and lesbianism.