I just got sent a. Letter from a friend saying that being gay is a sin. Its in Romans has anybody read it.
Yes, I've read it, and it was probably the most troubling passage for me when trying to reconcile my faith and my homosexuality. Here's a quote from this link:What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality Here's the highlight concerning that passage. Basically, he's condemning the sexual depravity associated with worshiping other gods, including ritualistic homosexual relations. It's not a blanket condemnation of homosexuality like people want to assume it is.
It's a book. And not only is it just a book, it is a book that is very old, and written in a different language that no longer exists for a population that couldn't read. Needless to say I don't think anyone should put any importance on what it says. Ignore your friend.
That is a fabulous interpretation of all those passages used as homophobic slurs. I'm not religious at all but I'm glad there's people out there that are really into their religion and put thought into it as to not misinterpret the word of their god. It gives people like me, who disregard the Christian faith, reasonable explanations as to why the bible says what it says sometimes.
The ironic part about that is how back in Cesar's time in the city of Rome gay sex was as common as straight sex.
The "letters" section of the Bible is a rather fascinating section. It consists of (yes) letters from early Church leaders and ministers to each other, discussing various aspects of Church business and beliefs. In addition to the expected "right/wrong" discussions, there's plenty of "say hi to Fred" in the letters, as well. The fascinating part, at least to me, is the fact that huge aspects of Christianity were not yet set in stone at this point. So there's plenty of discussion of what things might mean, or how to go about things. To pick one example - there were camps who felt one had to become a Jew first in order to be a Christian (that seems to be what the Gospel of Matthew is saying), but others felt that it wasn't necessary, and others who felt that Christians were in fact a completely separate group than the Jews (which is more in line with the Gospel of John). In addition, there were those who felt Jesus was fully human and not divine, those who felt Jesus was divine but not fully human, and those who felt he was both. There are places where it seems women are an integral part of the Christian teachings and hierarchy, and other places where they're told (in essence) to "get back in the kitchen". Here's the point, though. They don't "know". They're discussing, arguing, trying to suss it all out. That's the entire point of the letters section. It was included in the Bible in an attempt to sort through some of those questions. And it's not like the letters they included are the only ones that were written. They were chosen specifically because they felt they put forth the best information for would-be priests and Christians. But even so, they STILL have plenty of indecision and unclear arguments. The section in Romans, as others had said, deals with some rather specific situations. But the world was pretty different two thousand years ago. It was a world where (for instance) Paul suggested that slaves stay indentured to their owners, because Jesus was going to show up again any day now to set them free. I don't think he knew that wasn't in the cards. He was just a firm believer trying to make sense of being (in many ways) in charge of a man's teachings in a specific point in time. The whole concept of homosexuality wasn't even really a "thing" back then - it'd be surprising if he had addressed it specifically, any more than he'd discuss whether violent video games were OK. Lex
Well, it is mostly made up of Paul's replies to letters written to him by the various new churches. We're only left with the one side of the conversation, and only a handful of the letters. Several are referenced though. But yeah, for those of you that try to make sense of this beyond their interesting historic insight, it is best to view them as Lex suggests. The early church trying to work out the details of their new religion. Paul isn't consistent in his views. This is especially apparent in his views on women in the church. But then Paul, like any other human being, learned as he went along. Christianity arose in a Jewish/Hellenistic world, and a lot of those cultural differences come to play in the topics they discussed in those letters. Paul was of mixed origin himself and was more aware of this than most of the other early leaders and was in conflict with some of them. An interesting letter to study in the context of reconciling Judaism and early Christianity, Hebrews is a good one. When I studied this in college, there was a whole course based on just that letter. Out of the entire Christian Bible, the letters in the New Testament are the only parts I find interesting. The Old Testament is myth and fictional history for the most part. Gospels are an outright inconsistent mess. In the letters real people actually discuss real topics in an interesting and diverse cultural context.
Lets look at the facts. 1. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality 2. The message he did send was one of tolerance and acceptance rather than judgement. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." 3. The bible is written by men, not God. 4. The parts of the bible that have anything to do with homosexuality are horribly translated and interpreted after words even worse. Basically, the bible really says nothing about homosexuality. You better watch out of if you eat shrimp or sit on a couch in which a woman with a period has ever sat on, though. You're going straight to hell in that case. Oh, and don't forget, there's also rules on how to treat your slaves in there too. I think that's the most practical part of the whole bible.
Yeah, but that's Old Testament cleanliness laws. Does not apply to Christians, and the punishment was not hell. Judaism doesn't have the Hellenistic concept of hell that Christianity adopted.
But gay sex (they had no concept of being truly exclusively homosexual or real relationships between two people of the same sex) was the same thing. It was just a cultural taboo in the Jewish culture to separate themselves from the Greeks in which all men courted other men. It was never written to be interpreted as a real moral wrong. edit: Plus it stemmed from an understand of life where they believed that the entire human being resided within the seed of the man. Thus wasting the seed upon a barren ground where it could not be fertilized was more akin to a modern day understanding of abortion.
I was referring to your comment about Jewish law, not NT views on homosexuality The three monotheistic religions have been obsessing over sexuality to the point where it is utterly ridiculous. They always have, and still do. In my opinion people should stop obsessing over what a bunch of sexually frustrated bronze age men thought, or a sexually deprived patriarchal clergy think about sex, and go live their lives in the 21st century.
Or slavery. In any case, Jesus is widely considered by modern biblical scholars to have been a Torah-observant Jew. As such, he would have adhered to what were interpreted at his time to be the Torah's prohibitions on extramarital sex. In any case, the Gospels were written by second- or third-generation followers of Jesus; we have no records of anything Jesus said, the Gospels are no more authoritative about what Jesus said than Paul's epistles. The story of the adulteress is not in the oldest manuscripts of John. It was probably added by someone at a later date. Christians would say that the Bible was inspired by God. I'm not totally clear on what that means, but according to my Bible prof it basically means that anything that's necessary for salvation (which I imagine would include what is and isn't sinful) is trustworthy and authoritative. I'm mostly in agreement on this. That said, I think it very likely that both Jesus and Paul would have opposed any sort of homosexual behavior. People who bring up the laws of the Torah to make a point when arguing with Christians only make themselves sound ignorant. Christians, for the most part, haven't considered themselves bound by the Torah since Paul's time in the sixth decade CE, and they have ample biblical support for this (and really only one line in the synoptic Gospels against it). When arguing that Christians don't follow the Bible, we should stick to the New Testament passages they don't follow (and there are several).
The authors of the gospels even show, at several points, a lack of knowledge of Palestinian geography, Jewish culture and local history. The story of the adulteress is highly unlikely true due to several other factors than the point that it does not occur in early copies.
In my original post "after words" should have been afterwards. I don't know why I made that mistake, but looking at what I wrote in a quote even I wasn't sure what I had meant to say for a moment... I know, I went to Catholic school. I know that the bible is supposedly inspired by God. I was told that God basically guided the pen of those that wrote the bible. How could anyone possibly know that though? Its stuff like this that I don't like about organized religion. Like I believe in God, but those in charge can just make up whatever they want. "Sure it was written by people... but ummm, God helped." If God sent down an angel to sing the words into the ears of every person who wrote a passage in the bible, isn't that something they'd write down? The bible contradicts itself to ALL be the literal word of God. I realize that Christians no longer adhere to the Jewish laws, but homosexuality is frowned upon in the same book, Leviticus. I know we are discussing Romans in this thread, but my point is, if they don't want to follow the entire Jewish law, they shouldn't be able to use it to their advantage either. ---------- Post added 6th Dec 2011 at 05:48 PM ---------- Not to mention stories like "The sermon on the mount" differs greatly in between the different Gospel writers.
