Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is the difference between gay people and hetero men that REALLY like women?
Ummm logically that would mean that you think there are straight men who don't REALLY like women? Or are you trying to say that gay men REALLY like men much more than straight men REALLY like women. That's kind of confusing and doesn't make a lot of sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
If you're not married, don't have sex. It's that simple.
So logically you must be in favor of same-sex marriage then? Great!
It's what the Bible says. I am not going to debate it. Lesbians are a bit more of a mystery because the Bible has very little to say about lesbianism. There are 10 gay men for every lesbian so homosexuality is found predominantly in males. Maybe it has something to do with cultural norms for women as its not taboo for women to show physical affection for each other like it is men.
.
The Bible has nothing at ALL to say about lesbians. (No that's not what Romans 1 is about so please don't bother quoting it)
And no, there are not 10 gay men for every lesbian. Where do you get this from?
Quote:
As for sex, straight people have the same restriction by the Bible outside the marriage bed and there is generally no accusation of bigotry in proclaiming that.
Then you must be in favor of same-sex marriage if you think there are the same restrictions for straight people as there are for gay people.
Quote:
God is the ultimate judge but as a Christian I have to take the scriptures for what they say, even if popular culture says otherwise
So you would be okay with slavery? Even if popular culture says otherwise?
It's not what I said, its what the Bible says. I wish it were different because its so culturally unacceptable today to believe anal sex between men is sinful, but I cannot reconcile it with my Christian faith.
It's impossible to have a discussion about this without your side resorting to sarcasm and stereotypes. Are you a Christian? If not, why does it matter to you what the Bible says on this issue?
So wait.... anal sex between straight people is okay then... as long as they are married?
And sex between gay men is okay as long as they don't have anal sex.... and they are married?
Then try reading the verses in context of the surrounding verses, and try learning a little about the cultures in which the texts were written.
I have done that. I've tried to believe that its really talking about temple prostitution but cannot, because its not there. The only theologians who teach that are those with an agenda to justify homosexuality. No matter how much liberals try to re-interpret scripture to fit with modern cultural norms doesn't make you any more correct.
Jesus was against his culture and they crucified him for it. The same will it be for true Christians in America.
And I'm not answering any of your other straw man questions.
Romans has a passage referring to women having sexual relations with women, whether that's intercourse is up for debate, but it was at least seen as lewdness and sinful.
If you read it without making assumptioms first, you'll realise that it doesn't actually say the women were having sex with each other.
Women being on top during intercourse was viewed as 'unnatural'. Women being penetrated anally would have been 'unnatural'. Women penetrating men was viewed as 'unnatural' (yes they had 'accessories' back then made of things like leather). Women having sex with each would not have been viewed as a sex act because there was no penetration by a male.
If you also read ALL of Romans 1 you'll notice that these men and women were having 'degrading' sex with each other (male/female) - see Verse 24 - while they were worshipping idols made in the likeness of mankind, birds, reptiles etc. (This would only be happening in temples dedicated to fertility gods and goddesses otherwise the whole idolatry thing doesn't make sense)
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
THEN
25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator
So it was BECAUSE these men and women were having degrading lustful sex with each other while worshipping idols that:
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.
Anyone who thinks this letter is about gay and lesbian people hasn't given it any thought at all. These were heterosexual people engaged in degrading sex acts while worshipping their old pagan gods. Then the men 'exchanged' the natural use of women and penetrated each other, and the women exchanged 'natural sex' for 'unnatural' sex- which could have been a number of things, but would not have been thought of as 'sex' if it was with each other.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,213,552 times
Reputation: 11862
It clearly says the men abandoned women for men, and by implication, the women did the same. Why would God care if they were naturally hetero or homo (or bi or whatever) there was no concept of 'sexual orientation' back then. The worshipping of idols was just part and parcel of their sin.
Early church commentary on these verses does little to support the modern interpretation that Paul here intends to condemn all homosexuality, as such. For example, contemporary English translations imply that Rom 1:26b condemns lesbian sex, while 1:27 condemns sex between men. However, several early church writers clearly state that Rom 1:26 is a condemnation of men having unnatural sex with women. Brooten cites both Anastasios and Augustine as explicitly rejecting the 'lesbian hypothesis' (p. 337) [14].
Hanks asserts that "not until John Chrysostom (ca 400 C.E.) does anyone (mis)interpret Romans 1:26 as referring to relations between two women" (p. 90). [15] Townsley notes that other early writers, possibly including Chrysostom, reject the 'lesbian' hypothesis, specifically, Ambrosiaster, Didymus the Blind and Clement of Alexandria. [16]
Townsley goes on to specify the context of Rom 1:26-27 as the continuation of Paul's condemnation of the worship of pagan gods from earlier in the chapter, linking the 'homosexuality' implied in Rom 1:27 to the practice of temple prostitution with castrated priests of Cybele, practices condemned more explicitly in the Old Testament (1 Kings 15:12, 2 Kings 23:7), the same religious group that violently attacked Paul in Ephesus, driving him from the city (Acts 19).
The implication is that the goddess religions, the castrated priests and temple prostitution had a wide impact in ancient Mediterranean culture (similar to the devadasi system in India today) so would immediately evoke an image for the 1st century audience of non-Yahwistic religious idolatry, practices not familiar to the modern reader, which makes it easy to misinterpret these verses.
It clearly says the men abandoned women for men, and by implication, the women did the same. Why would God care if they were naturally hetero or homo (or bi or whatever) there was no concept of 'sexual orientation' back then. The worshipping of idols was just part and parcel of their sin.
Notice you had to use the term 'by implication'.
If you study the culture of that time you'd understand that gender roles and sex back then were not seen the same way we see them in the 21st century. Anything other than being submissive was unnatural for women. Anything other than being dominant was unnatural for men. Even the Greek word translated in english as 'unnatural' doesn't mean the same thing as we mean by 'unnatura'l in the 21st century.
Some people cherry-pick these 2 verses about idolatrous worhip of pagan gods out of their original context to condemn 21st century gay and lesbian people, when obviously the people were not even homosexual. The whole focus of the letter is not about sex (or sexual orientation) anyway. It's about people who turned away from God and reverted to their old pagan gods.
I have done that. I've tried to believe that its really talking about temple prostitution but cannot, because its not there. The only theologians who teach that are those with an agenda to justify homosexuality. No matter how much liberals try to re-interpret scripture to fit with modern cultural norms doesn't make you any more correct.
Jesus was against his culture and they crucified him for it. The same will it be for true Christians in America.
And I'm not answering any of your other straw man questions.
Seriously? Have you never looked up the Hebrew word qadesh which was translated in the KJV as 'sodomites'? It's been corrected in most english versions as 'shrine prostitute' or 'temple prostitute' or 'cult prostitute' - even most conservative translations.
Deut 23:17: "None 3808 of the daughters 1323 of Israel 3478 shall be a cult6945 prostitute,6945 nor 3808 shall any 4480 of the sons 1121 of Israel 3478 be a cult6945 prostitute.6945
As for Romans 1 - Have you never read verses 23 to 25? How can you miss the references to idolatrous worship?
1) 23 and [they] changed [ἤλλαξαν] the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of fowls, and of quadrupeds, and of reptiles. 24 Wherefore also God did give them up [παρέδωκεν], in the desires of their hearts, to uncleanness, to dishonour their bodies among themselves;
2) 25 who did change [μετήλλαξαν] the truth of God into a falsehood, and did honour and serve the creature rather than the Creator. . . . 26 Because of this did God give them up [παρέδωκεν] to dishonourable affections,
3) for even their females [θήλειαι αὐτῶν] did change [μετήλλαξαν] the natural use [φυσικὴν χρῆσιν] into that against nature [παρὰ φύσιν]; 27 and in like manner [ὁμοίως] also the males having left the natural use [φυσικὴν χρῆσιν] of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another. . . . 28 And, according as [καὶ καθὼς] they did not approve of having God in knowledge, God gave them up [παρέδωκεν] to a disapproved mind, to do [ποιεῖν] the things not seemly.
The structure of Rom 1:23-28 is framed around three parallels bracketed by μετ/ήλλαξαν ("they exchanged": vv. 23, 25, 26b) and παρέδωκεν (God "surrendered" them: vv. 24, 26a, 28). Parallelism is common in Hebrew literature and involves repeating a thought in different ways for emphasis and clarification. Paul uses it here to emphasize God's response to idolatry. He describes people engaged in philosophies and religions that worship creation and created things, not YHWH. Moreover, and incongruously to the contemporary reader, he infuses each of the parallels with eroticism. He concludes that abandoning Yahweh leads to the "sin list" at the end of the chapter (vv. 29-31).
Both the first and second parallels (vv. 23-24, vv. 25-26a) explicitly describe idol worship common in the first century. In each passage, the people actively exchange something holy and true to worship that which is not YHWH, and God surrenders them to eroticisms. In the first, God surrenders (παρέδωκεν) them to some form of ritual impurity...
Try reading ALL of Romans, not just 2 cherry-picked verses. And study the 1st century culture Paul lived in.
Last edited by Ceist; 12-17-2012 at 03:55 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
