The Bible and gay marriage

[Beet]

For those Christians who support gay marriage, how do you reconcile it with the passages in Romans 1:26-27 and First Corinthians 6:9? The OT stuff is easily dismissed as both superseded and not particular to that time and place, but the writings and mindset of Paul not so much.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

I'm not going to go into what I believe those passages actually mean and how they should be interpreted (been there, done that... I can send you a bunch of links about the subject if you'd like, though), but I will say that not all Christians, even if they think something is explicitly condemned by Scripture, think that it should be basis for the law.

[memphis]

I'm not a Christian but I suspect there are a few out there who do not wish to impose Biblical laws on the nation. That would require quite an adjustment of our legal system.

[Blue3]

I'm a Christian American who both

1. Believes strongly in religious freedom and separation of church&state

2. Believes that homosexuality and gay marriage are NOT sinful

Will elaborate when I have time, hopefully tomorrow.

[Fritz]

Did Jesus himself ever say anything about homosexuality?  In the bible, I mean.

[bedstuy]

I'm not a Christian and never have been but...

The idea that homosexuality is morally wrong is not a legitimate belief in the 21st century.  Anyone with a half a brain and a quarter of a conscience knows that now.  You're free as a Christian to disagree, but you're an idiot and a bigot if you believe that nonsense.

This sort of things happens from time to time with a religion.  Your non-essential, but long held belief becomes repugnant to the average person in your society so you change it.  Mormons used to believe in polygamy.  Then, they wanted to integrate into normal society.  So, they adapted this religion to fit with the times and the society around them.  Christians need to do the same thing when it comes to hating gay people.  Hating gay people is non-essential to being a Christian and it's repugnant to any decent American in 2013.  Cut it out.  All these documents are polysemic and lend themselves to a million interpretations so a few passages in the Bible shouldn't really matter to anyone anyway. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm not a Christian and never have been but...

The idea that homosexuality is morally wrong is not a legitimate belief in the 21st century.  Anyone with a half a brain and a quarter of a conscience knows that now.  You're free as a Christian to disagree, but you're an idiot and a bigot if you believe that nonsense.

This sort of things happens from time to time with a religion.  Your non-essential, but long held belief becomes repugnant to the average person in your society so you change it.  Mormons used to believe in polygamy.  Then, they wanted to integrate into normal society.  So, they adapted this religion to fit with the times and the society around them.  Christians need to do the same thing when it comes to hating gay people.  Hating gay people is non-essential to being a Christian and it's repugnant to any decent American in 2013.  Cut it out.  All these documents are polysemic and lend themselves to a million interpretations so a few passages in the Bible shouldn't really matter to anyone anyway. 

What does it being 2013 have to do with whether it's okay to hold something immoral?

[© tweed]

Did Jesus himself ever say anything about homosexuality?  In the bible, I mean.

the quick answer is, no, he didn't, but clearly indicated his interpretation of marriage to be between a cisgender man and cisgender woman -- nothing else ever crossed (H)is mind.

[Fritz]

Did Jesus himself ever say anything about homosexuality?  In the bible, I mean.

the quick answer is, no, he didn't, but clearly indicated his interpretation of marriage to be between a cisgender man and cisgender woman -- nothing else ever crossed (H)is mind.

Then my answer to the OP is, Christians should go by what Christ says, not necessarily by what other writers of the bible had to say.

[politicus]

Did Jesus himself ever say anything about homosexuality?  In the bible, I mean.

the quick answer is, no, he didn't, but clearly indicated his interpretation of marriage to be between a cisgender man and cisgender woman -- nothing else ever crossed (H)is mind.

Then my answer to the OP is, Christians should go by what Christ says, not necessarily by what other writers of the bible had to say.

NT becomes a lot more tolerant, if you simply ignore (certain passages of) Paul. Since he said all the nasty stuff about women and gays. This is the solution that most modern Danish Lutheran ministers prefer, but may be a bit theologically lazy. I once had this discussion with Nathan, who claimed that you couldn't ignore Paul, but that the overall message of love in NT made it possible to disregard the anti-gay elements. But I cant remember his exact arguments. I hope he drops by this thread.

I am basically a "what Jesus said" believer. But the spirit of NT as a message of love and compassion count as well on this issue, as on others. 

[ZuWo]

As politicus said, the way most contemporary European mainline Protestant churches deal with the issue of homosexuality and the role of women, to name two prominent examples, is to ignore Paul's words or to call them irrelevant for modern Christianity. For instance, when the issue of same-sex marriage was debated in Switzerland a few years ago the Swiss Reformed Church, one of the officially recgonized churches in the country, took this view. As far as I know (and I followed many public debates on same-sex marriage), religious proponents of same-sex marriage never denied that Paul did in fact condemn homosexual acts.

[politicus]

This was the post I was thinking about:

My assumption is that 'the Gospel I preach' is referring to the general set, there, rather than anything specific to Paul, but you're right that that's certainly not as clear as I'd thought. I hadn't considered that interpretation before. Thank you.

Anyway, Mikado's right that even though there can certainly be different types or levels of reading or interpretation deployed for different things we can't just write off Paul for the crime of not actually being Jesus. Saying 'it's Paul, it doesn't count' is intellectually lazy. There are any number of much more nuanced and interesting attitudes to take to the Epistles.

Well, given the stuff Paul says about women and gays, I have a hard time reconciling those passages with the overall message of Christ. "Paul doesn't count" is the position of many Scandinavian Lutherans today, but maybe we are lazy... I prefer to stick to what Christ actually said in the flesh. That is the core of the Christian message, which also makes for a significantly more tolerant religion.

Well, yes, and that's a coherent reason for rejecting parts of the Pauline Epistles. I don't think that's lazy at all; my church does the same. I just get irritated by people who write off Paul for being Paul rather than Jesus, when it's perfectly fine and easy to write him off because there are parts of his writings the actualization of which is actively detrimental to the extension of the Love of God. I'm also not sure what I think of the idea that denying actualization to parts of Paul necessarily means that one is ignoring him or writing him off as such...

Of course the actual text of the Gospels takes absolute precedence, though; denying that is just perverse. And, I might add, vaguely idolatrous.

[afleitch]

I see your journey is taking you downs some dark alleys Beet. I hope you don’t start hating on us because you feel you have to

As for the answer, see my numerous exchanges with jmfcst over the years. I’m sure a search will bring them up

Here’s the short response;

Paul’s statement in Romans 1:26-27 is a statement of condemnation. But condemnation of what? God’s ‘giving people over to shameful lusts’ but why. Paul visits Rome and is pissed off at people not worshipping god;

‘Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So he’s not condemning ‘gays’; he’s condemning idolatry, cult worship and paganism which in the heart of Rome meant devotional, often sexual acts to these other gods that the rather prudish Paul didn’t like.

He then really goes for it; ‘They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;  they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.’

So if you believe he’s talking about all gays, then surely you must concur with him that we are evil, depraved, murderous and have no ‘understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy’ and deserve death.

As for Corinthians, the word used for ‘homosexual’ is the Greek word ‘arsenokoitai’. You have to go through a great deal of literary gymnastics to make that word mean ‘homosexual’ as we would understand it.

The Latin Vulgate translated it as ‘masculorum concubitores’ (abusers). Wycliff had it as ‘synne of Sodom’ (which isn’t a sexual sin at all), KJV ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’. The Jerusalem Bible had those who are ‘immoral with boys’ (doubt anyone would disagree with that being wrong) In fact it only started becoming about ‘homosexuals’ in the late 1950’s (when Christianity began to pre-occupy itself with the issue). Still, the German Jerusalem Bible in 1968 chose ‘child molesters’, the 1971 RSV had ‘sexual perverts.’ Most modern versions have decided it’s about all homosexuals and all expressions of homosexual love because it fits into the narrative they wish  rather than accurately representing what Paul was talking about which more than likely, given his audience, was some form of pederasty or sexual exploitation of the vulnerable. The Sibylline Oracle, Acts of John, and Theophilus of Antioch's ‘Ad Autolycum’ use the word to mean sexual exploitation for economic benefit. It doesn’t really appear as a word elsewhere in Koine Greek to mean homosexuality. Homophilia was a far more fitting word if that is what Paul meant.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Paul isn't Jesus. Think of it as comparable to how modern day Lutherans would view Martin Luther's anti-Semitic rants.

[© tweed]

Paul isn't Jesus. Think of it as comparable to how modern day Lutherans would view Martin Luther's anti-Semitic rants.

Martin Luther's anti-Semitic rants are non-Canonical

[bedstuy]

I'm not a Christian and never have been but...

The idea that homosexuality is morally wrong is not a legitimate belief in the 21st century.  Anyone with a half a brain and a quarter of a conscience knows that now.  You're free as a Christian to disagree, but you're an idiot and a bigot if you believe that nonsense.

This sort of things happens from time to time with a religion.  Your non-essential, but long held belief becomes repugnant to the average person in your society so you change it.  Mormons used to believe in polygamy.  Then, they wanted to integrate into normal society.  So, they adapted this religion to fit with the times and the society around them.  Christians need to do the same thing when it comes to hating gay people.  Hating gay people is non-essential to being a Christian and it's repugnant to any decent American in 2013.  Cut it out.  All these documents are polysemic and lend themselves to a million interpretations so a few passages in the Bible shouldn't really matter to anyone anyway. 

What does it being 2013 have to do with whether it's okay to hold something immoral?

Most people didn't understand homosexuality 50 or 100 years ago.  Obviously, homosexuality was never wrong.  But, people were ignorant about sexual orientation and held superstitious, ridiculous beliefs about homosexuality.  It's like how Christians thought that infectious disease was a sign of sin 500 years ago.  Many people thought that people afflicted by bubonic plague had done something immoral.  They didn't know better and they were wrong.  Today, when it comes to homosexuality, we know better.  I can understand someone being ignorant about gay people in 1950.  I can't understand it today.

[memphis]

Why does everybody assume that our nation's laws must be in accordance with the Bible?  Do all of you bending over backward to align religion and the gays also think that working on Sunday should be illegal as well?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Marriage is not just a legal issue.  Saying "our nation's laws shouldn't be based on the Bible" doesn't answer whether churches should officiate or recognize same-sex marriage, or whether a Christian can faithfully enter into one. 

As for Paul, I think he may never have considered the possibility of a committed, monogamous and non-exploitative relationship between two men. 

[politicus]

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error".

I think its clear that Paul in this passage condemns sex between men as such. The natural sexual relations are with women and when "inflamed with lust for each other" they commit "shameful acts". Even assuming that these shameful acts are the more extreme stuff Romans did at orgies, heterosexual sex is still contradicted as the natural sex.

So while I agree that Paul's overall concern was with a raw, brutish, degenerate society without  love and mercy, I think this particular passage does condemn homosexuality.

[Blue3]

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error".

I think its clear that Paul in this passage condemns sex between men as such. The natural sexual relations are with women and when "inflamed with lust for each other" they commit "shameful acts". Even assuming that these shameful acts are the more extreme stuff Romans did at orgies, heterosexual sex is still contradicted as the natural sex.

So while I agree that Paul's overall concern was with a raw, brutish, degenerate society without  love and mercy, I think this particular passage does condemn homosexuality.

Lust is wrong, but not all homosexual relations are lustful... just like not all heterosexeual relations are lustful. It seems to be condemning lust.... and adultery, since the passage seems to imply they broke their relations with the opposite sex.

[politicus]

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error".

I think its clear that Paul in this passage condemns sex between men as such. The natural sexual relations are with women and when "inflamed with lust for each other" they commit "shameful acts". Even assuming that these shameful acts are the more extreme stuff Romans did at orgies, heterosexual sex is still contradicted as the natural sex.

So while I agree that Paul's overall concern was with a raw, brutish, degenerate society without  love and mercy, I think this particular passage does condemn homosexuality.

Lust is wrong, but not all homosexual relations are lustful... just like not all heterosexeual relations are lustful. It seems to be condemning lust.... and adultery, since the passage seems to imply they broke their relations with the opposite sex.

Natural relations = heterosexual relations contradicted with men having sex with men, which must therefore be "unnatural".

[Wiggle Your Yummy Moist Preggers Cake Ben Shapiro]

Did Jesus himself ever say anything about homosexuality?  In the bible, I mean.

No.

[afleitch]

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error".

I think its clear that Paul in this passage condemns sex between men as such. The natural sexual relations are with women and when "inflamed with lust for each other" they commit "shameful acts". Even assuming that these shameful acts are the more extreme stuff Romans did at orgies, heterosexual sex is still contradicted as the natural sex.

So while I agree that Paul's overall concern was with a raw, brutish, degenerate society without  love and mercy, I think this particular passage does condemn homosexuality.

Lust is wrong, but not all homosexual relations are lustful... just like not all heterosexeual relations are lustful. It seems to be condemning lust.... and adultery, since the passage seems to imply they broke their relations with the opposite sex.

Natural relations = heterosexual relations contradicted with men having sex with men, which must therefore be "unnatural".

But it cannot be 'unnatural' as it exists in nature. Homosexual behaviour is not by definition 'unnatural'; though it may be to those who are heterosexual but engage in homosexual behaviour as part of an act of worship, as Paul seems to be criticising.

[DC Al Fine]

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error".

I think its clear that Paul in this passage condemns sex between men as such. The natural sexual relations are with women and when "inflamed with lust for each other" they commit "shameful acts". Even assuming that these shameful acts are the more extreme stuff Romans did at orgies, heterosexual sex is still contradicted as the natural sex.

So while I agree that Paul's overall concern was with a raw, brutish, degenerate society without  love and mercy, I think this particular passage does condemn homosexuality.

Lust is wrong, but not all homosexual relations are lustful... just like not all heterosexeual relations are lustful. It seems to be condemning lust.... and adultery, since the passage seems to imply they broke their relations with the opposite sex.

Natural relations = heterosexual relations contradicted with men having sex with men, which must therefore be "unnatural".

But it cannot be 'unnatural' as it exists in nature. Homosexual behaviour is not by definition 'unnatural'; though it may be to those who are heterosexual but engage in homosexual behaviour as part of an act of worship, as Paul seems to be criticising.

Afleitch, unnatural doesn't mean "doesn't exist in nature" in this context.

[afleitch]

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error".

I think its clear that Paul in this passage condemns sex between men as such. The natural sexual relations are with women and when "inflamed with lust for each other" they commit "shameful acts". Even assuming that these shameful acts are the more extreme stuff Romans did at orgies, heterosexual sex is still contradicted as the natural sex.

So while I agree that Paul's overall concern was with a raw, brutish, degenerate society without  love and mercy, I think this particular passage does condemn homosexuality.

Lust is wrong, but not all homosexual relations are lustful... just like not all heterosexeual relations are lustful. It seems to be condemning lust.... and adultery, since the passage seems to imply they broke their relations with the opposite sex.

Natural relations = heterosexual relations contradicted with men having sex with men, which must therefore be "unnatural".

But it cannot be 'unnatural' as it exists in nature. Homosexual behaviour is not by definition 'unnatural'; though it may be to those who are heterosexual but engage in homosexual behaviour as part of an act of worship, as Paul seems to be criticising.

Afleitch, unnatural doesn't mean "doesn't exist in nature" in this context.

Surely that is what it means given what Paul was describing in the rest of Romans 1?

The word used in Greek for 'natural' was phooskos meaning - inborn, produced by nature, agreeable to nature.

Using myself as an example, I am agreeable to nature because people with homosexual inclinations exist within my species and within countless other species. I am therefore produced by nature. If I joined a cult (as Paul was describing) and told I had to seep with women I would be exchanging what was naturally my own and doing something contrary and abnormal to my own nature.

The word translated as 'unnatural' is para physin which accurately translated is; 'deviating from the ordinary order either in a good or a bad sense, as something that goes beyond the ordinary realm of experience'; or in short - unconventional. Indeed that's exactly how it's interpreted in 1 Corinthians 11:14 and Romans 11:24 where it also pops up. Me sleeping with a woman certainly would be unconventional!

It's only used to condemn all homosexuals post 1950's as I previously explained, as it is convenient for anti-gay and intellectually dishonest Christians to do so.