The Bible and gay marriage

[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".

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.

This assumes that Paul follows modern definitions of natural/unnatural. Its clear that "natural" in this context is good/normal and sex between men is contradicted to this ideal state.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Going off what afleitch is saying, it's worth pointing out that human sexuality was not yet a scientific concept during Paul's time.  People back then were expected to live life as though they were bisexual.  Sure, people had their inborn gender preferences, but our views on homosexuality have evolved as we've grown to understand how sexual orientation is biologically determined. So, even if Paul did believe that same-sex relations were unnatural in a scientific sense, in today's world that hypothesis would be thrown out.  Also, if you accept that homosexuality is not explicitly condemned by the Old Testament, then there's really no reason to suppose that Paul held it as inherently sinful either, because otherwise, he would have been adding to the law that he held as sacred and was an expert on, even though he'd have little grounds for doing so.

On a personal note, as a Christian (Christ follower), I do not hold anything in the Bible of higher or of equal authority to the words of Jesus, let alone what I think God actually wants and is.  I realize that this practice is a little unorthodox, but I no longer limit my idea of God and morality to a man-made book, but instead to my faith in an infinite, loving God that transcends dogma.  And if I'm wrong about that, I'm prepared to take responsibility for it when my time comes.

[politicus]

Going off what afleitch is saying, it's worth pointing out that human sexuality was not yet a scientific concept during Paul's time.  People back then were expected to live life as though they were bisexual.  Sure, people had their inborn gender preferences, but our views on homosexuality have evolved as we've grown to understand how sexual orientation is biologically determined. So, even if Paul did believe that same-sex relations were unnatural in a scientific sense, in today's world that hypothesis would be thrown out.  Also, if you accept that homosexuality is not explicitly condemned by the Old Testament, then there's really no reason to suppose that Paul held it as inherently sinful either, because otherwise, he would have been adding to the law that he held as sacred and was an expert on, even though he'd have little grounds for doing so.

1. I see no reason to assume that people where expected to be bisexual in antiquity, we know some men were paederasts, but that's about it. Heterosexuality has been the norm in all human societies for obvious reasons.    

2. This has been a discussion of what Paul meant, not whether it is valid in today's world. I think we all agree that its not.

On a personal note, as a Christian (Christ follower), I do not hold anything in the Bible of higher or of equal authority to the words of Jesus, let alone what I think God actually wants and is.  I realize that this practice is a little unorthodox, but I no longer limit my idea of God and morality to a man-made book, but instead to my faith in an infinite, loving God that transcends dogma.  And if I'm wrong about that, I'm prepared to take responsibility for it when my time comes.

That's pretty much my thoughts on this matter. The Jesus vs. Paul aspect has been discussed earlier in the thread.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Going off what afleitch is saying, it's worth pointing out that human sexuality was not yet a scientific concept during Paul's time.  People back then were expected to live life as though they were bisexual.  Sure, people had their inborn gender preferences, but our views on homosexuality have evolved as we've grown to understand how sexual orientation is biologically determined. So, even if Paul did believe that same-sex relations were unnatural in a scientific sense, in today's world that hypothesis would be thrown out.  Also, if you accept that homosexuality is not explicitly condemned by the Old Testament, then there's really no reason to suppose that Paul held it as inherently sinful either, because otherwise, he would have been adding to the law that he held as sacred and was an expert on, even though he'd have little grounds for doing so.

1. I see no reason to assume that people where expected to be bisexual in antiquity, we know some men were paederasts, but that's about it. Heterosexuality has been the norm in all human societies for obvious reasons.   

2. This has been a discussion of what Paul meant, not whether it is valid in today's world. I think we all agree that its not.

3. Paul was a Roman, why would he care about the OT?

1. I should have been more specific and said "the people of the Pagan cults."  Members of that cult were expected to engage in orgies purely because they thought they should, not necessarily because it was their innate desire to.

2. I know that, but the passage is frequently cited to condemn homosexual acts as a sin, and I think people should consider the context in which he is condemning it, as well as its relevance to present day.

3. Because he was an apostle?  He had to rely on the training he received concerning the law and the prophets, as well as his knowledge of Stoic philosophy, to persuade his Jewish countrymen.

[politicus]

Context is important, but this is the one section in the Bible where you cant reasonably interpret it as anything other than a condemnation of "unnatural" sex between men. Unless you start out with a - deliberate or subconscious - wish to find a way "around" this unfortunate fact.

[7,052,770]

Easy: Paul was a moron. Next.

[afleitch]

A great deal of care has to be taken when making an assumption, politicus, that the only form of same sex relationship in the ancient world was pederast in nature. I would refer you to John Boswell in that regard. In terms of same sex 'marriage' (as we don't define it how they did etc etc) such unions are recorded in the Roman Empire to such an extent that the Christian emperors felt the need to outlaw them specifically on pain of death in the Codex Theodosianus.

Context is important, but this is the one section in the Bible where you cant reasonably interpret it as anything other than a condemnation of "unnatural" sex between men. Unless you start out with a - deliberate or unconscious - wish to find a way "around" this unfortunate fact.

Except that has already been addressed.

[memphis]

And everybody continues to presume that the nationj's laws must fall in line with the Bible. Again, should working on the Sabbath be illegal as well? The Bible is crystal clear on that one. Anybody?

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

And everybody continues to presume that the nationj's laws must fall in line with the Bible.

I'm pretty sure no one here is trying to make that argument.

A great deal of care has to be taken when making an assumption, politicus, that the only form of same sex relationship in the ancient world was pederast in nature. I would refer you to John Boswell in that regard. In terms of same sex 'marriage' (as we don't define it how they did etc etc) such unions are recorded in the Roman Empire to such an extent that the Christian emperors felt the need to outlaw them specifically on pain of death in the Codex Theodosianus.

Context is important, but this is the one section in the Bible where you cant reasonably interpret it as anything other than a condemnation of "unnatural" sex between men. Unless you start out with a - deliberate or unconscious - wish to find a way "around" this unfortunate fact.

Except that has already been addressed.

Exactly.

[memphis]

If nobody is trying to make the argument then why have the thread? If you don't need the Bible's support to have a law, why bother analyzing the Bible to see if the two are in agreement?

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

If nobody is trying to make the argument then why have the thread? If you don't need the Bible's support to have a law, why bother analyzing the Bible to see if the two are in agreement?

Because not all Christians think the Bible should be the basis for law?  I think Beet probably should have phrased the question better and asked how pro-gay marriage Christians reconcile their personal views with what the Bible says, but not all Christians think the way you seem to think we do.  I, for one, would support the legal recognition of same-sex couples even if I thought homosexuality was a sin.

[memphis]

So how do you reconcile your personal views with the legality of working on the Sabbath?

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

So how do you reconcile your personal views with the legality of working on the Sabbath?

Simple.  I abstain from work on the Sabbath, but don't give a damn about what others do.  And heck, Jesus even said that there are instances in which working on the Sabbath is acceptable.  I also believe that the Sabbath was primarily created for man and not for God, so this is a weak example.

Is the concept of a Christian who supports laws not exclusively based on Biblical doctrine new to you?  If it is, you really need to get out more.  Though you have repeatedly demonstrated your close-minded attitude on the issue of religion, so this isn't much of a surprise.

[memphis]

There's no need to be so touchy. I applaud your willingness not to impose your belief system on others. I was hoping somebody would make a similar statement. I was disappointed that, thus far, nobody else had made that point. Everybody else was merely engaging in a lot of cognitive dissonance.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's not clear to me that Paul's concept of what is unnatural depends on what is found in animal behavior.  Unnatural can mean what is in accord with human nature. In classical philosophy nature or physis involved telos or intrinsic purpose as much intrinsic cause. Natural can therefore mean corresponding to one's nature, and not just caused by nature.

If nobody is trying to make the argument then why have the thread? If you don't need the Bible's support to have a law, why bother analyzing the Bible to see if the two are in agreement?

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. 

[afleitch]

It's not clear to me that Paul's concept of what is unnatural depends on what is found in animal behavior.  Unnatural can mean what is in accord with human nature. In classical philosophy nature or physis involved telos or intrinsic purpose as much intrinsic cause. Natural can therefore mean corresponding to one's nature, and not just caused by nature.

I don’t disagree, but the two are mutual. If one is inclined to be attracted to a member of the same sex exclusively and our understanding of this is that it is caused by nature, then acting upon that is corresponding to one’s nature. I do not hold any attractions to women; there is no emotional attraction or physical attraction or any stimuli. For me to then have sex with a women I have to ignore that fact that there is no attraction. In order to maintain an erection in order to have sex I would have to resort to other means to maintain it. For me that is an unnatural use of both the physical and emotional sides of my being and is contrary to my purpose.

I can say all this now of course because I have no need to marry a woman to keep up appearances or to have children in order to either secure my legacy, my lineage and my estate. In the past (even the recent past) outwardly I would have had to do these things and any ‘dalliances’ with members of my own sex would have been considered both adulterous in nature and perhaps contrary to my ‘natural’ outward state because what was considered to be natural was determined by the political (the need to marry) so it’s worth keeping that in mind.

But I digress a little. Plato observed that; ‘Homosexuality is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love; all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce.' The Greeks and later on, the Romans didn’t consider sexuality to be of any particular interest, certainly not in any need of categorisation.

But let's approach it from that angle. We are told that Paul co-opted stoic philosophies and themes. Looking to that; for Epictetus, it was considered preferable to maintain a will or volition; a prohairesis that is in accordance with nature. Nothing is actually considered to be good or bad or actively indifferent barring those things which are within our power to control and all that we can actually control is our own volition. Sexuality or more succinctly; sexual preference does not fall within the grounds of a something within our power to control as nature does not grant us the power to control it but arbitrarily assigns sexuality to each individual, therefore it cannot be considered good or bad. This is what we now know and therefore we must place it within the limits prescribed to it by stoic understanding. All we therefore have control over is our own volition; our sexual expression. Paul considers it to be improper for the pagans, as part of their worship to essentially indulge in sexual activities which are a misuse of their own volition because one’s volition is the only ‘thing’ that can be considered good or bad. Looking at it from another angle, Zeno of Citium considered that even things that are considered morally indifferent; i.e, things which are outside of one’s control can still have a value. Abstract ‘things’ therefore have a relative value in proportion to how they aid the natural instinct for what could loosely be considered self-preservation or more concisely, kathekon; befitting actions. It is therefore a befitting action for a person to express his sexual orientation. Why? Because nature is ‘reason’ and because virtue can only exist within the realm of reason so too can vice only exist with the rejection of reason. A rejection of my homosexuality is therefore a rejection of reason and therefore doing so would be a vice. Likewise, should a heterosexual reject his heterosexuality for the purposes of pagan worship then therefore he is exchanging reason and nature for vice. That to me seems to be Paul’s understanding of ‘exchange.’

If one were to deliberately maintain as some conservative Christians do, that all homosexual attraction and all acts that stem from it are a deliberate and conscious acts undertaken by someone away from heterosexuality which is by default ‘natural’ and therefore in reason, then one could concur that it too falls under this definition, but given what we know about sexuality (and we cannot pretend not to know it even if it seems disagreeable ) then we have to approach Paul’s condemnation cautiously and within context.

[Ebowed]

If nobody is trying to make the argument then why have the thread? If you don't need the Bible's support to have a law, why bother analyzing the Bible to see if the two are in agreement?

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.  

The second item could be something that Christians or people interested in the Bible might discuss, certainly, but the idea that churches are required or forced to perform marriages that they do not approve of due to legal requirements is a bit of a boogey man, wouldn't you acknowledge?  The reason churches get in trouble for refusing to perform interracial marriages is because of the controversy that ensues when it is reported in the media, and not police barging in and requesting them to violate their religious beliefs.  This seems like something that shouldn't even need to be said, but you, perplexingly, felt as though the argument was poignant to repeat, let alone state once...

It's pretty simple, really - if a same-sex couple wishes to get married at a church that condones it, or at a nonreligious government office, why should a church that opposes same-sex marriage have any say in the matter?  That's what the same-sex marriage debate has always been about, and not whether churches that oppose it should have to perform them.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Harry actually unintentionally makes a good point, he probably doesn't like Paul because Catholic theology contradicts (or at least doesn't square well with) a lot of what Paul wrote. Obviously homosexuality is one issue that the Catholic Church and Paul agree on, but there are plenty of Christians fine with gay marriage that are much closer to Paul in views other than homosexuality, and they get accused of hypocrisy and inconsistency far more.

[DC Al Fine]

Harry actually unintentionally makes a good point, he probably doesn't like Paul because Catholic theology contradicts (or at least doesn't square well with) a lot of what Paul wrote. Obviously homosexuality is one issue that the Catholic Church and Paul agree on, but there are plenty of Christians fine with gay marriage that are much closer to Paul in views other than homosexuality, and they get accused of hypocrisy and inconsistency far more.

Could you give an example or 2?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

A good example would be Galatians 4:9-12. I'll also say 1 Corinthians 11, because while some might disagree with me, I find it kind of difficult to mix with transubstantiation, because while Paul does clearly agree with the Catholic view of not taking communion if you are "unworthy" (or per Catholic theology in a state of mortal sin), he doesn't make any reference to it being the actual body and blood of Christ (actually he even literally writes "bread"), which if he believed you think would be considered pretty important and not glossed over. He also completely ignores all the Marian dogma and it's worth noting doesn't ever make a reference to even the Virgin Birth or imply the birth of Jesus was different from anyone else's (now I believe in the Virgin Birth, but the rest of the Catholic Marian dogma I'm quite uncomfortable with, and I've cited as one of the things that would make it impossible for me to ever be Catholic even if they changed their positions on ordaining women and sexuality.) Paul also doesn't make any reference to forgiveness of sins being conditional on confessing them to a priest or any human.

[DC Al Fine]

Thank you. I understand you now.

[afleitch]

Gah. I don't know why I bother

[Logical Shunt]

Point 1:  If only Jesus' words are to serve for the exhaustive definition of sin, then I guess witchcraft and bestiality are not sinful, since it is not recorded that Christ ever mentioned those acts.

Point 2:  In Romans chapter 1, Paul is referring to people who disregard the scriptures: "Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death...(v32)"...and more specifically, Paul is referring to CHRISTIANS who once had a relationship with God (v21"For although they knew God"), yet through their actions suppress the truth they were entrusted with (v18"people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness"). 

Paul explains that these type of Christians fall away because they worship the creature rather than the Creator (v25).  Therefore, God releases these people from their conscience, so that their minds become depraved and part of that depravity is the acceptance of homosexuality (v26-28, 32).

Pagans don't know God or God's righteous decrees (the scriptures), so Paul can't be referring to pagans.  Nor would going off on a rant about pagans have anything to do with the church.  Instead, Paul if talking about certain Christians, who knew God and the scriptures, yet still fell away, prompting God to blind their conscience...which has everything to do with the church.  If you're a Christian, and you all the world's view to trump scripture, then you fall into this category, and you are worshipping created beings rather than the Creator, and you will reach a point where you fall headlong into your own deception.

And that is exactly what is going on today and this thrend are seeing could very well could be the great apostacy, the great falling away, Christ said would happen right before the Antichirst comes onto the world stage.

[afleitch]

Is that you again jmfcst?

[Logical Shunt]

Is that you again jmfcst?

Yes, Admiral Motti, it is I.  Do not be too proud of your Moderator terror.  The ability to ban a poster is insignificant next to the power of Truth.  You can infract, but the weakness of your illogical Rebellion against God's word remains exposed for all to see.  And it nags at you day and night.  Why else would you bother distorting the word if the word doesn't bother you? 

And, BRTD is no different.  Even though it has been demonstrated Jesus' statements can't possible be meant to serve as an exhaustive definition for sin (since Jesus mentioned neither bestiality or witchcraft), BRTD still dishonestly brings out that same failed argument. 

But, hey, the absence of logic within both of your arguments will not cause anyone to be deceived, rather your willingness to continue to cling to arguments already shown to be illogical is a result of deception.  Likewise, the acceptance of gay marriage will not cause the downfall of marriage, rather the acceptance of it is a result of a society that already has lost respect for marriage.  For instance, nearly half of babies in the US are now born to unwed mothers.