quote:

Originally posted by embroiderer:
patrask, according to you, Jesus was a homophobic. God is a homophobic. The Holy Scriptures are homophobic.

Hmmm, if I remember correctly, Jesus never said one word about homosexuality. You'd think if it were such a big deal, he would have at least mentioned it in passing....

quote:

Originally posted by theoctobercountry:
Jesus never said one word about homosexuality.

You're right, relatively speaking.

The Bible is a collection of writings which span more than a thousand years recounting the history of God's relationship with the Hebrew and Christian people. It was written in several languages, embraces many literary forms, and reflects cultures very different from our own. These are important considerations for properly understanding the Bible in its context.

There are vast differences in doctrines between various Christian denominations, all of which use the same Bible. Such differences have led some Christians to claim that other Christians are not really Christians at all! Biblical interpretation and theology differ from church to church.

Biblical interpretation and theology also change from time to time. Approximately 150 years ago in the United States, some Christian teaching held that there was a two-fold moral order: black and white. Whites were thought to be superior to blacks, therefore blacks were to be subservient and slavery was an institution ordained by God. Clergy who supported such an abhorrent idea claimed the authority of the Bible. The conflict over slavery led to divisions which gave birth to some major Christian denominations. These same denominations, of course, do not support slavery today. Did the Bible change? No, their interpretation of the Bible changed.

What influences lead us to new ways of understanding Scripture? New scientific information, social changes, and personal experience are perhaps the greatest forces for change in the way we interpret the Bible and develop our beliefs. Scientific awareness of homosexual orientation did not exist until the nineteenth century.

Most Christian churches believe the Bible was inspired by God and provides a key source of authority for the Christian faith. Therefore, what the Bible teaches on any subject, including sexuality, is of great significance. The problem, however, is that sometimes the Bible says very little about some subjects; and popular attitudes about those matters are determined much more by other sources, which are then read into the biblical statements. This has been particularly true of homosexuality. But fortunately, recent scholarship refutes many previous assumptions and conclusions.

What was the sin of Sodom? Some "televangelists" carelessly proclaim that God destroyed the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of "homosexuality". Although some theologians have equated the sin of Sodom with homosexuality, a careful look at Scripture corrects such ignorance.

Announcing judgment on these cities in Genesis 18, God sends two angels to Sodom, where Abraham's nephew Lot, persuades them to stay in his home. Genesis 19 records that "all the people from every quarter" surround Lot's house demanding the release of his visitors so "we might know them". The Hebrew word for "know" in this case, yadha, usually means "have thorough knowledge of". It could also express intent to examine the visitors' credentials, or on rare occasions the term implies sexual intercourse. If the latter was the author's intended meaning, it would have been a clear case of attempted gang rape.

Horrified at this gross violation of ancient hospitality rules, Lot attempts to protect the visitors by offering his two daughters to the angry crowd, a morally outrageous act by today's standards. The people of Sodom refuse, so the angels render them blind. Lot and his family are then rescued by the angels as the cities are destroyed.

Several observations are important. First the judgment on these cities for their wickedness had been announced prior to the alleged homosexual incident. Second, all of Sodom's people participated in the assault on Lot's house; in no culture has more than a small minority of the population been homosexual. Third, Lot's offer to release his daughters suggests he knew his neighbors to have heterosexual interests. Fourth, if the issue was sexual, why did God spare Lot, who immediately commits incest with his daughters? Most importantly, why do all the other passages from Scripture referring to this account fail to raise the issue of homosexuality?

Ezekiel 16:48-50 states it clearly: people of Sodom, like many people today, had abundance of material goods. But they failed to meet the needs of the poor, and they worshipped idols.

The sins of injustice and idolatry plague every generation. We stand under the same judgment if we create false gods or treat others with injustice.

Christians today do not follow the rules and rituals described in Leviticus. But some ignore its definitions of their own "uncleanness" while quoting Leviticus to condemn "homosexuals". Such abuse of Scripture distorts the Old Testament meaning and denied a New Testament message.

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." These words occur solely in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel's priests. Their meaning can only be fully appreciated in the historical and cultural context of the ancient Hebrew people. Israel, in a unique place as the chosen people of one God, was to avoid the practices of other peoples and gods.

Hebrew religion, characterized by the revelation of one God, stood in continuous tension with the religion of the surrounding Canaanites who worshipped the multiple gods of fertility cults. Canaanite idol worship, which featured female and male cult prostitution as noted in Deuteronomy 23:17, repeatedly compromised Israel's loyalty to God. The Hebrew word for a male cult prostitute, qadesh, is mistranslated "sodomite" in some versions of the Bible.

An abomination is that which God found detestable because it was unclean, disloyal, or unjust. Several Hebrew words were so translated, and the one found in Leviticus, toevah, is usually associated with idolatry, as in Ezekiel, where it occurs numerous times. Given the strong association of toevah regarding male same-sex acts in Leviticus calls into question any conclusion that such condemnation also applies to loving, responsible homosexual relationships.

Rituals and rules found in the Old Testament were given to preserve the distinctive characteristics of the religion and culture of Israel. But as stated in Galations 3:22-25, Christians are no longer bound by these Jewish laws. By faith we live in Jesus Christ, not in Leviticus. To be sure, ethical concerns apply to all cultures and peoples in every age. Such concerns were ultimately reflected by Jesus Christ, who said nothing about homosexuality, but a great deal about love, justice, mercy and faith.

Most New Testament books, including the four Gospels, are silent on same-sex acts, and Paul is the only author who makes any reference to the subject. The most negative statements by Paul regarding same-sex acts occurs in Romans 1:24-27 where, in the context of a larger argument on the need of all people for the gospel of Jesus Christ, certain homosexual behavior is given as an example of the "uncleanness" of idolatrous Gentiles.

Does this passage refer to all homosexual acts, or to certain homosexual behavior known to Paul's readers? Romans was written to Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome, who would have been familiar with the infamous sexual excesses of their contemporaries, especially Roman emperors. They would also have been aware of tensions in the early Church regarding Gentiles and observance of the Jewish laws, as noted in Acts 15 and Paul's letter to the Galatians. Jewish laws in Leviticus mentioned male-sex acts in the context of idolatry.

Significant to Paul's discussion is the fact that these "unclean" Gentiles exchanged that which was "natural" for them-physin, in the Greek text-for something "unnatural", para physin, to accept the Gentiles. "Unnatural" in these passages does not refer to violation of so-called laws of nature, but rather implies action contradicting one's own nature. In view of this, we should observe that it is "unnatural", paraphysin, for a person today with a lesbian or gay sexual orientation to attempt living a heterosexual lifestyle.

Romans 1:26 is the only statement in the Bible with a possible reference to lesbian behavior, although the specific intent of this verse is unclear. Some authors have seen in this passage a reference to women adopting a dominant role in heterosexual relationships. Given the repressive cultural expectations placed on women in Paul's time, such a meaning may be possible.

The homosexual practices cited in Romans 1:24-27 were believed to result from idolatry and are associated with some very serious offences as noted in Romans 1. Taken in this larger context, it should be obvious that such acts are significantly different from loving, responsible lesbian and gay relationships seen today.

Any consideration of New Testament statements on same-sex acts must carefully view the social context of the Greco-Roman culture in which Paul ministered. Prostitution and pederasty (sexual relationships of adult men with boys) were the most commonly known male same-sex acts.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul condemns those who are "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with man-kind", as translated in the King James version. Unfortunately, some newer translations are worse, rendering these words "homosexuals". Recent scholarship unmasks the homophobia behind such mistranslations. The first word-malakos, in the Greek text-which has been translated "effeminate" or "soft", most likely refers to someone who lacks discipline or moral control. The word is used elsewhere in the New Testament but never with reference to sexuality.

The second word, arsenokoitai, occurs once each in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, but nowhere else in other literature of the period. It is derived from two Greek words, one meaning "males" and the other "beds", a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Other Greek words were commonly used to describe homosexual behavior but do not appear here. The larger context of 1 Corinthians 6 shows Paul extremely concerned with prostitution, so it is very possible he was referring to male prostitutes. But many experts now attempting to translate these words have reached a simple conclusion: their precise meaning is uncertain.

The rarity with which Paul discusses any form of same-sex behavior and the ambiguity in references attributed to him make it extremely unsound to conclude any sure position in the New Testament on homosexuality, especially in the context of loving, responsible relationships. Since any arguments must be made from silence, it is much more reliable to turn to great principles of the Gospel taught by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Do not judge others, lest you be judged. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is love...against such there is no law.

One thing is abundantly clear, as Paul stated in Galatians 5:14: "the whole Law is fulfilled in one statement, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'".

"The homosexuality the New Testament opposes is the pederasty of the Greco-Roman culture; the attitudes toward pederasty and, in part, the language used to oppose it are informed by the Jewish background."
- Robin Scroggs, Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York City

"One cannot be absolutely certain that the two key words in 1 Corinthians 6:9 are meant as references to male homosexual behavior."
- Victor Paul Furnish, Professor of New Testament, Perkins School of Theology, Dallas

"The strongest New Testament argument against homosexual activity as intrinsically immoral has been derived traditionally from Romans 1:26, where this activity is indicated as para physin. The normal English translation for this has been 'against nature'. Two interpretations can be justified concerning what Paul meant by the phrase. It could refer to the individual pagan, who goes behond his own sexual appetites in order to indulge in new sexual pleasures. The second possibility is that physis refers to the 'nature' of the chosen people who were forbidden by Levitical law to have homosexual relations."
- John J. McNeill, Adjunct Professor of Psychology, Union Theological Seminary, New York City

"A close reading of Paul's discussion of homosexual acts in Romans 1 does not support the common modern interpretation of the passage. Paul did not deny the existence of a distinction between clean and unclean and even assumed that Jewish Christians would continue to observe the purity code. He refrained, however, from identifying physical impurity with sin or demanding that Gentiles adhere to that code."
- L. William Countryman, Professor of New Testament, Church Divinity School of the Pacific, Berkeley

"The Hebrew word 'toevah', here translated 'abomination', does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft (discussed elsewhere in Leviticus), but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters."
- John Boswell, Professor of History, Yale University, New Haven

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Doug Spaulding,

Doug,
Thank you for your scholarship and even mindedness. I only hope your view of the truth will prevail over time to liberate more folks from the shackles of Biblical restraint. Our creator gave us the power to learn and to observe. We should use it wisely to further understand our universe, and thus grow closer to our creator.

quote:

Originally posted by Doug Spaulding:

quote:

Originally posted by Nard Kordell:
But will use the name of JESUS!

Doug Spaulding ~
Plan to make it to Ice Cream Suit on Saturday. See yah there!

He should do right by him and use his real name, Yeshua.

See you there!

While I prefer to use the same,

"a rose by any other name..."!

Doug Spaulding !

The problem, of course, is some stuff is true and some stuff is awkward liberal theology. We've gone over much of this before in previous postings. Sin is sin and you want to call it love and acceptance. This place thus is not a sound theological classroom. Confused people only become more secure in their confusion or more confused about their security and meaning of truth.

quote:

Originally posted by patrask:
Thank you for your scholarship and even mindedness.

Thanks. The even-mindedness I'll claim. The scholar part was taken from many minds greater than mine.

Well, this is all general nonsense, of course, because Doug Spaulding adheres to a very liberal theology that denies many of the basic tenets of Christianity that are vital to the biblical Jesus.

Liberal theology creates a new Jesus. The Holy Spirit is the true divining of who Christ is. Put in immoral sexual relationships, unconfessed sin and misunderstanding of sin, a rationale of scripture thru human reasoning and figuring-out, and you get Doug Spaulding's thoughts based on other even more liberal theologians.(He calls them 'greater minds'.)

A man must be Godly. A man must be married to one wife. Not multiples. A man must know his sin and emptiness before God and willing for God to change him, not he himself. These are basic things Paul the apostle writes about. Then, and only then, can you begin to discern scripture, which is spiritually discerned by the Holy Spirit. Get away from these basic things, and you get---a Bishop Spong, Doug's friend and mentor.

quote:

Originally posted by embroiderer:
These are basic things Paul the apostle writes about.

But I'm not a Paulist, I'm a Yeshuist.

I wonder if Yeshuist is a word.

Ask the Bishop:

Q: The news has been received that a California Episcopal Diocese (San Joaquin) has reached the second stage in voting to leave the national Episcopal Communion over the issue of homosexuality. The media is describing the anti-gay position as biblical, the pro-gay as being against Bible teaching. After reading Living in Sin and The Sins of Scripture, I can not believe that it is that simple. Reporters are not doing their job of careful investigation.

Have these biblical stories and texts that are quoted to support the anti-gay position ever been read, analyzed, thoroughly debated and defended in bishop's conferences? These are supposedly intelligent people who respect scholarship. How can they support exclusion on such flimsy evidence?

Am I wrong to think this struggle among Episcopalians might be a healthy thing, which resistance from the highest levels might be a way of teaching and illuminating facts and reality, exposing the prejudice for the evil it is?

Where is all this going? What could or should be done to bring about a rational and acceptable result?

Your thoughts, your comments, would be very much appreciated.

A: It is not fair to expect secular journalists to be biblical scholars, nor should it be anticipated that they would spend the necessary time to research the issue. It is for that reason that they tend to accept uncritically the oft-repeated Evangelical Protestant and Conservative Roman Catholic definitions that the Bible is anti-gay. If these people were honest, they would have to admit that the Bible is also pro-slavery and anti-women.

There is also a widely accepted mentality that if the Bible is opposed, the idea must be wrong. That is little more than nonsensical fundamentalism. The rise of democracy was contrary to the "clear teaching of the Bible," as the debate over the forced signing of the Magna Carta by King John of England in 1215 revealed. The Bible was quoted to prove that Galileo was wrong; that Darwin was wrong; that Freud was wrong; that allowing women to be educated, to vote, to enter the professions and to be ordained was wrong. So the fact that the Bible is quoted to prove that homosexuality is evil and to be condemned is hardly a strong argument, given the history of how many times the Bible has been wrong. I believe that most bishops know this but the Episcopal Church has some fundamentalist bishops and a few who are "fellow travelers" with fundamentalists.

The Bible was written between the years 1000 B.C.E. and 135 C.E. Our knowledge of almost everything has increased exponentially since that time. It is the height of ignorance to continue using the Bible as an encyclopedia of knowledge to keep dying prejudices intact. The media seems to cooperate in perpetuating that long ago abandoned biblical attitude.

That is not surprising since the religious people keep quoting it to justify their continued state of unenlightenment. That attitude is hardly worthy of the time it takes to engage it. I do not debate with members of the flat earth society either. Prejudices all die. The first sign that death is imminent comes when the prejudice is debated publicly. The tragedy is that church leaders back the wrong side of the conflict, which is happening today from the Pope to the Archbishop of Canterbury to the current crop of Evangelical leaders. That too will pass and the debate on homosexuality will be just one more embarrassment in Christian history.

– John Shelby Spong

Sign me up, Spong is correct, all prejudices will fall. When will the organization that proport to represent the teachings of Jesus get ahead of the curve and become inclusive, not exclusive, behaving as though they were private clubs to join and restrict membership to those found acceptable?

quote:

Originally posted by patrask:
Sign me up...

Here you go!

Dough Spaulding and patrask!
Oh! Pllleeezzze!

Again! This Spong guy is a phony. 100% Phony.

He doesn't believe in the ressurection of Jesus Christ, the very basis of Christianity.

It's not the problem that he is a homosexual, but he is a homosexual who lives with a male lover. These are condemned in the Bible. Adultery is condemned in the Bible. A single person is no different who seeks sexual companionship. Scripture says you are destroying yourself because you are thwarting the original purpose of your being.

Spong has skewed the Bible and the most dangerous skewing takes place in matters of Pride. The "I know better". Shame shame shame shame!

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Knox:
Dough Spaulding and patrask!
Oh! Pllleeezzze!

Again! This Spong guy is a phony. 100% Phony.

He doesn't believe in the ressurection of Jesus Christ, the very basis of Christianity.

It's not the problem that he is a homosexual, but he is a homosexual who lives with a male lover. These are condemned in the Bible. Adultery is condemned in the Bible. A single person is no different who seeks sexual companionship. Scripture says you are destroying yourself because you are thwarting the original purpose of your being.

Spong has skewed the Bible and the most dangerous skewing takes place in matters of Pride. The "I know better". Shame shame shame shame!

Dough?

I don't know to what you are referring. The bishop and his wife have been married for many years.

They have five children and six grandchildren.

Perhaps you're labouring under a misconception with regards to the good bishop.

Laboring under a misconception? And you think Bishop Spong isn't?

http://www.christian-apologetics.org/html/Whats_wrong_Spong.htm

Thanks for that link, Phil!