Apostle pauls real views on homosexuality?

[Emberstone]

Discovery: Apostle Paul accepted #Christian #homosexuals #paulonhomosexuality | PR NewsChannel

Interesting read

[British Lad]

yes, very interesting.

[dreamcatcher]

This was a great read and it honestly made me feel a little bit better too! Although this probably won't happen, I hope to hear something about this in church on Sunday.

[Emberstone]

it is always a issue with translating translations of translations, that you get it wrong, because meaning is lost by virture of languages never truly fitting perfectly with each other.

It really did not surprise me at all. This might also explain why paul has a buttload of contradictions in his various writing...he was not contradicting anything, the translators bias may have created the contradictions when they were injecting their own views.

[Zontar]

I'm no religious guy myself, but "queer christianity" itself is fairly absurd given that, in general, a major theme of the entire bible is the persecution of gays.

[Ridiculous]

I do have to question why anyone gives a shit what random people supposedly say about anything, nonetheless about homosexuality, from an indeterminate amount of time ago.

But I've never been superstitious.

[kellymporta]

Indeed it was an interesting read. However I'm not a big fan of the Bible. Although I was raised catholic, I have never actually read the entire Book. Also, another problem I have with the Bible is that I don't understand most of the things. However, I'm not the only one with this problem, because you can see everyone making their own interpretations.

[starfish]

Originally Posted by Zontar

I'm no religious guy myself, but "queer christianity" itself is fairly absurd given that, in general, a major theme of the entire bible is the persecution of gays.

Really. I'm not a bible scolar, but I don't recall that from my church going days. It was only mentioned in a couple of places. There are some people who blow it way out of proportion., but that is nothing new.

[Mogget]

Originally Posted by starfish

Really. I'm not a bible scolar, but I don't recall that from my church going days. It was only mentioned in a couple of places. There are some people who blow it way out of proportion., but that is nothing new.

I'm agreeing with Starfish on this. Sexual morality is a pretty minor theme in the Bible. Most references to sexual immorality are actually about idolatry, which both Paul and the Prophets were far more concerned about.

That said, I'm skeptical of this attempt to say Paul would have approved of "idolatrous, homosexual orgies." I really hope that isn't the term that's actually used in this book, because Paul was certainly not a fan of anything idolatrous. The best you can hope for is Paul saying it's okay to participate in things that are the result of idolatry (e.g. meat sacrificed to idols*) so long as you recognize that the idols involved aren't real (and that no one around you thinks they are).

Paul also wasn't a fan of sex, his position being that it was better to marry than be sexually immoral, but celibacy was the better option if you were strong enough for it. Sex, to Paul, was moral only in the context of marriage, and neither Jewish nor, to the best of my knowledge, Roman law permitted same-sex marriage. Orgies, to Paul, would have been completely beyond the pale.

It would be pleasant if the passages in the Bible that are anti-sex or anti-women or anti-race mixing or anti-human rights or anti... were simply the result of mistranslation, but by and large they aren't. Some certainly are, but the fact is that the Bible was the product of times and cultures that did not share our values.

*Which was essentially all meat. Many temples functioned as butcher shops.

[No One]

It's a nice thought, but it wont change anything at all. The vast majority of Christians feel that there is no interpretation of the bible only "the truth". My father, who is a pastor, always says that no one is interpreting, which is denial on his part when you consider how there are many different religious groups all claiming to know the "true meaning" of the bible. Even if it were the truth (which I couldnt say either way, but I personally think trying to glean the true intentions of the writers of a 2000 year old book is pointless), it would be seen as a "false interpretation" by most groups that seek to control through condemnation.

[DhammaGamer]

Arguing about what God said about gays is like arguing about which kids Santa Clause is going to give coal. It is moot and rediculous. Even if God was real, how can any man, today, 2000 years after the death of Christ, have any idea what God would think or want. Follow your own heart is what I say. If there is a God (which there isn't) he made you the way you are, and the choices you make are all "part of his divine plan."

What hooplah. People who hate are destined for states of woe. People who love are destined for states of bliss. Cut - And - Dry

[mnguy]

In the second to last paragraph, I find these statements contradictory, "Although Romans 1 contains the only unequivocal reference to homosexuality...He shows, time and again, that the words traditionally translated ‘homosexual,’ ‘effeminate,’ ‘impure,’ and so forth, are really targeting selfish, unloving, unjust activity and have nothing to do with sexual orientation."

I don't think the Bible ever says "homosexuality" as what we consider it today. As the second part above says, the Bible is talking about other things that have been mistranslated and subsequently used against us. Some will say that we are trying to justify the verses for our own comfort, but I think the truth is that the lie has been told for so long that many people believe it as truth.

Regarding the Bible in general, it's a compilation of texts. Some are written down oral traditions from ancient times and we all read translations in our native language whenever we read the Bible. How many times were the texts copied and copied again before they were in the final written version that became a book of the Bible? Who decided what texts really are God's word and thus worthy of inclusion in the final book we know today? I know it was all men who made those decisions even though Jesus' group included women and He didn't seem to have a superiority complex toward women as the later church certainly did and some still do today. If I remember correctly, women were very instrumental in the early groups that followed Jesus' teachings after his death. The groups were considered fringe, outcasts and outside the norm at that time. It wasn't until there was enough following and was seen as politically helpful that it was adopted by powerful rulers.

I find it sadly ironic that Jesus was such a champion for the outcasts and opposed the wealthy religious leaders of His day. Today, some who claim to be His followers shun GLBT people (outcasts) and put people like Joel Osteen and Rick Warren (wealthy religious leaders) up on a pedestal.

[Mogget]

The early church does appear to have been inclusive of women. The Pauline epistles actually written by Paul, as opposed to those written in Paul's name, and the Gospels are very friendly towards the idea of women in leadership positions. As the church became more mainstream it became more patriarchal, which is something that occurs in a lot of religious movements.

The texts chosen for inclusion in the New Testament accumulated over time. The major deciding factor for inclusion was whether the texts were used by a large number of churches. Paul was widely seen as a prophet, so most of the stuff he wrote or written in his name went in, the four canonical Gospels were believed to have been written by disciples of Jesus, so they were in too. Contrary to Dan Brown, they weren't all chosen at the Council of Nicea.

Most Christians believe that the books of the New Testament were either divinely dictated or divinely inspired. Divine inspiration is the mainstream view, and has been for most of the church's history. The idea of divine dictation was imported from Islam during the Crusades. Likewise, most Christians believe that the decision to include and exclude certain books was an act of divine inspiration. So saying it was done "by men" ignores the theological understanding of the Bible's nature. It's accurate, but it won't be convincing to most Christians.

[mnguy]

Originally Posted by Liam

...So saying it was done "by men" ignores the theological understanding of the Bible's nature. It's accurate, but it won't be convincing to most Christians.

I think you're right and those people won't agree with my other beliefs about the Bible either. They think the texts are inspired and those who decided which were authentic were inspired as well. The thing is, they've been taught to believe this and they accept it w/o question. Maybe they think questioning the texts of the Bible or a religious leader is the same as questioning God himself. I just don't buy it and I don't think anyone has to in order to be a Christian. The Bible and churches are not God yet that's what many seem to believe. Man has corrupted religion for his own gain and to control people so much that I don't think Jesus would recognize what some churches teach.

Very interesting about the idea of divine dictation being imported from Islam. I would not doubt that as there are stories, themes, etc that are common with other religions. The more we know the history of religions the more we realize how much human invention there has been and they lose their supernatural mystique. I guess that's why some don't want to know any more than they hear in their chosen house of worship.

[Ben]

I've taken a look at some of the things this guy has written and I can't say that I think I'd be such a big fan. I think Liam summed up this piece pretty nicely.

I'm not a great fan of a lot of queer theology, though. The message is usually very nice, but the methods in the past few years seem to have gone a bit haywire.

[Zontar]

Originally Posted by Ben

I'm not a great fan of a lot of queer theology, though. The message is usually very nice, but the methods in the past few years seem to have gone a bit haywire.

Frankly, it's no more haywire than any other offshoot of Christianity.

Entire sects spring up from theologians who bend and twist what are seemingly clear Biblical laws until they get what they want to hear. Since Catholicism first branched off into the East and West church, people read between the lines until they got what they wanted to hear about the way to prepare the bread and wine, or whether or not divorce is permitted, or whether or not homosexuality is wrong. Quite honestly, it's no different than what lawyers do when staking their case of a legal interpretation, only that theology has no judges or Supreme Court. Who's right? Someone's gotta be wrong somewhere, because then there'd be no reason to be Episcopalian instead of Methodist, or Catholic instead of Russian Orthodox.

This confusing and senseless disunity, in particular, is why I've long since quit religion. =p

[Falling]

Originally Posted by Zontar

I'm no religious guy myself, but "queer christianity" itself is fairly absurd given that, in general, a major theme of the entire bible is the persecution of gays.

I agree.

[Doctor Faustus]

Every gay-hating Bible belt Christian needs to read this article. And be astonished. And buy the book.

I can't see why my local chaplaincy hasn't bought it yet. Maybe I'll get it for them for Christmas.

[Mogget]

Bad exegesis isn't a good way to convince anyone. The fact is that, David and Jonathan* not withstanding, the Bible is, at best, ambivalent on the subject of modern-day homosexual relationships. This book isn't going to convince anyone that doesn't want to be convinced, and it shouldn't.

*And Ruth and Naomi

[silkfrog1292]

Ever heard of Saint Sergius and Saint Bacchus? Gospel of Eve? Early Christianity is much more accepting of differences before it's congregation into an organised religion.