tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post8451829682041798774..comments2024-03-28T20:47:47.445-04:00Comments on Serene Musings: Homosexuality and the New TestamentScotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-14504349264651234772016-02-16T16:04:06.089-05:002016-02-16T16:04:06.089-05:00Again...thanks for leaving a comment, Lew, but I d...Again...thanks for leaving a comment, Lew, but I don't debate fundamentalists and right wingers. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-72940298436169555412016-02-12T14:59:18.890-05:002016-02-12T14:59:18.890-05:00No, it wasn't ritual pagan sex. It was ANY sex...No, it wasn't ritual pagan sex. It was ANY sex as Jesus stated on at least 3 occasions. Either you believe Jesus or you don't. Otherwise you are teaching another 'gospel', and it is as dung as Paul stated.<br /><br />Rubbish and those that teach these things are worse off than all the others.lewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650034256771176903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-47509758163263940252014-04-15T11:35:30.460-04:002014-04-15T11:35:30.460-04:00Thanks for providing an opposing viewpoint, Anonym...Thanks for providing an opposing viewpoint, Anonymous. You've given what I can only call a "sophisticated fundamentalist" take on the issue. Indeed, Greg Koukl is the epitome of a sophisticated fundamentalist. <br /><br />To address your post specifically...I can't find any mainstream English translation of the Bible that uses the phrase "natural desire" in this passage. So, as usual for fundamentalists, Koukl appears to be arguing against a strawman. It's a common strategy for fundamentalist Christian apologists, as it allows them to make a nuanced argument that sounds sophisticated, and therefore convincing, even though it doesn't actually address any real issue. <br /><br />The word at issue here simply means "use." Men gave up their normal "use" of women and turned instead to men. If someone wants to use the word "function" instead, in order to make a theological argument to justify their own pet dislikes and prejudices, that's fine too. <br /><br />None of this changes the fact that Paul was referring to ritual pagan temple sex. <br /><br />The rest of Koukl's argument is just standard fundamentalist and evangelical fare that need not be debated here. <br /><br />I'll close with something I said in a previous comment:<br /><br /><i>It was never my intention - and certainly is not my intention now - to make a Biblical argument for why homosexuality is normal and acceptable. <br /><br />I think homosexuality is normal and acceptable because I am a reasonable person living in the 21st century, and I hold 21st century values. My opinion on this topic is not influenced by the Bible at all.<br /><br />My point was to show that using the Bible to make an argument for why homosexuality is abnormal and sinful is a slippery slope and doesn't hold nearly as much water as many conservative Christians think it does. </i><br /><br />Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-34403971980526718732014-03-26T17:17:26.523-04:002014-03-26T17:17:26.523-04:00Greg Koukl rightly noted:
Paul was not unclear ab...Greg Koukl rightly noted:<br /><br />Paul was not unclear about what he meant by “natural.” Homosexuals do not abandon natural desires; they abandon natural functions: “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another…” (1:26-27)<br /><br />The Greek word kreesis, translated “function” in this text, is used only these two times in the New Testament, but is found frequently in other literature of the time. According to the standard Greek language reference A Greek/English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,[4] the word means “use, relations, function, especially of sexual intercourse.”<br /><br />Paul is not talking about natural desires here, but natural functions. He is not talking about what one wants sexually, but how one is built to operate sexually. The body is built to function in a specific way. Men were not built to function sexually with men, but with women.<br /><br />This conclusion becomes unmistakable when one notes what men abandon in verse 27, according to Paul. The modern argument depends on the text teaching that men abandoned their own natural desire for woman and burned toward one another. Men whose natural desire was for other men would then be exempted from Paul’s condemnation. Paul says nothing of the kind, though.<br /><br />Paul says men forsake not their own natural desire (their constitutional make-up), but rather the “natural function of the woman..” They abandoned the female, who was built by God to be man’s sexual compliment.<br /><br />The error has nothing to do with anything in the male’s own constitution that he’s denying. It is in the rejection of the proper sexual companion God has made for him–a woman: “The men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts….” (v. 27)<br /><br />Natural desires go with natural functions. The passion that exchanges the natural function of sex between a man and a woman for the unnatural function of sex between a man and a man is what Paul calls a degrading passion.<br /><br />Jesus clarified the natural, normal relationship: ”Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh [sexual intercourse].’?” (Matthew 19:4-5)<br /><br />Homosexual desire is unnatural because it causes a man to abandon the natural sexual compliment God has ordained for him: a woman. That was Paul’s view. If it was Paul’s view recorded in the inspired text, then it is God’s view. And if it is God’s view, it should be ours if we call ourselves Christian.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-58181853472039364372012-10-28T22:45:20.747-04:002012-10-28T22:45:20.747-04:00Another point I want to make involves the spirit o...Another point I want to make involves the spirit of this post itself.<br /><br />It was never my intention - and certainly is not my intention now - to make a Biblical argument for why homosexuality is normal and acceptable. <br /><br />I think homosexuality is normal and acceptable because I am a reasonable person living in the 21st century, and I hold 21st century values. My opinion on this topic is not influenced by the Bible at all.<br /><br />My point was to show that using the Bible to make an argument for why homosexuality is abnormal and sinful is a slippery slope and doesn't hold nearly as much water as many conservative Christians think it does. <br /><br />So don't read this post thinking I am trying to make a Biblical argument to support homosexuality. I am making a Biblical argument to show why Biblical arguments AGAINST homosexuality are fraught with difficulties and uncertainties. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-25657608420807873152012-10-28T22:39:50.716-04:002012-10-28T22:39:50.716-04:00Thanks for leaving a comment, Anonymous. I certai...Thanks for leaving a comment, Anonymous. I certainly don't believe that Jesus's silence on the issue of homosexuality can be taken as an affirmation of homosexuality. As you point out, that would be completely ignoring the historical context in which Jesus lived.<br /><br />The simple fact is, sex and sexual sin doesn't appear to have been of much concern to Jesus. He teaches briefly on divorce and lust, but in the big picture of his life and teachings, sex and relationships don't seem to have been all that important to him.<br /><br />I think it's fair to say that Jesus, if he ever considered homosexuality at all, would have viewed it as sexual sin, the same as adultery, fornication, etc. <br /><br />But I also think he would have welcomed the gay person to his table just as he welcomed other outcasts and other shunned people.<br /><br /><br /><br />Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-44157383506649005962012-10-26T18:43:53.104-04:002012-10-26T18:43:53.104-04:00Jesus lived in a society where homosexual acts wer...Jesus lived in a society where homosexual acts were condemned. If Jesus' silence meant approval, it was approval of the Jewish teaching against the homosexual act. If Jesus considered homosexuals to be an oppressed minority, you think that He would have had something to say.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-49818291994448091702012-05-05T22:33:20.634-04:002012-05-05T22:33:20.634-04:00Thanks for reading and commenting, Sunny. Glad yo...Thanks for reading and commenting, Sunny. Glad you got something out of what I wrote.<br /><br />I think the point Martin was making, and certainly the point I was making, is that the Bible certainly seems to suggest that effeminacy in men is a sin punishable by hell, yet no self-respecting Christian would entertain such a belief for even one moment - which is why modern translations don't translate the word as "effeminate." They try to soften the distasteful perspectives of the Biblical writers by translating words differently.<br /><br />The point is that much of what the Bible says is inconvenient and even, sometimes, downright contemptible, so Christians - and even Biblical translators - simply tone it down to make it more palatable. This is one of the reasons why anyone who claims to be a Biblical literalist is not only lying, but has no idea what they are even saying.<br /><br />My own opinion is that effeminacy in men, as well as masculinity in women, is part of the normal distribution of human traits, and is neither "sinful" nor abnormal. Anyone who says such a thing, in my opinion, is a religious bigot. <br /><br />The statement of mine you quoted, about the Bible saying effeminate men will go to hell, was simply a statement of linguistic fact - this is what the Bible says. I wasn't implying I agreed with it theologically! It's simply one of many places in the Bible where the perspective of the writer is not only wrong, but thoroughly contemptible.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-89852196665898394572012-05-05T09:11:59.613-04:002012-05-05T09:11:59.613-04:00Absolutely loved the dissection of your verses alt...Absolutely loved the dissection of your verses although it leads to a whole new array of questions.<br /><br />While it amazes me that there are so many various versions of the Bible that can make you wonder how horribly misinterpreted the Bible can be, I can't help but feel slightly uncomfortable with your statement: "In fact, the only thing we can take reliably from those passages is that effeminate men – whether straight or gay – are doomed to hell!"<br /><br />On one hand, we have what Dale B Martin has to offer: “Today, effeminacy may be perceived as a quaint or distasteful personal mannerism, but the prissy church musician or stereotyped interior designer is not, merely on the basis of a limp wrist, to be considered fuel for hell. For most English-speaking Christians in the twentieth century, effeminacy may be unattractive, but it is not a sin." Yet what you have to offer is that one may be doomed to hell for being effeminate. It's rather inconsistent, so what would you have to say about this?<br /><br />Also, if effeminacy in men is indeed worthy for someone to be doomed to hell - how about tomboys as for the case of girls? In any case, what exactly is so wrong (?) about effeminacy?<br /><br />CheersSunnynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-31608862785001660902008-08-10T09:51:00.000-04:002008-08-10T09:51:00.000-04:00Thanks for reading and posting, superzzonic. No h...Thanks for reading and posting, superzzonic. No harm done with your first post. I agree that there is definitely such a thing as sexual sin or sexual immorality. Among these, I would include adultery and exploitation of people for sex. <BR/><BR/>Where we disagree in regards to Jesus is primarily on his divine status and the definition of "savior" and "lord." I would call Jesus "savior" and "lord," but not in the same context that you would probably use those terms.<BR/><BR/>However, as I continue to read and learn, I am open to understanding Jesus in a more traditional way, if in fact I can find reason to do so.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-53668268550049885062008-08-10T01:59:00.000-04:002008-08-10T01:59:00.000-04:00Sorry, Scott, I wrote an incorrect word in the mes...Sorry, Scott, I wrote an incorrect word in the message that can change the tone of my comment. <BR/><BR/>I should have written, "(as you showed in your post)," rather than, "(as you showed in the Bible)" regarding sexual immorality/adultery, which you commented on briefly but not for the purpose of this post.<BR/><BR/>Also, my difference with you regarding Jesus' significance to each of us isn't me calling you an apostate, but it sounded like that to me after I quickly posted the previous comment. Sorry about what might have sounded harsh.<BR/><BR/> We have interacted on Available Light regularly and graciously, and I hope to do so more often.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-35040147877310626322008-08-10T01:26:00.000-04:002008-08-10T01:26:00.000-04:00Good essay Scott.Sexual identity is deeply embedde...Good essay Scott.<BR/><BR/>Sexual identity is deeply embedded in each of us and is complex.<BR/><BR/>However, there IS sexual sin (as you showed in the Bible), among the many sins that we as people commit, due to our imperfect nature.<BR/><BR/>I disagree with you if you say there is no need for Jesus Christ as Savior, and only as a teacher.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-77229795529507278762008-08-09T15:29:00.000-04:002008-08-09T15:29:00.000-04:00Another excellent essay revealing the truth layer ...Another excellent essay revealing the truth layer by layer. And there is nothing a fundamentalists hates more than the truth about their illegitimate beliefs and biases. Don't take my word for it. Ask Jesus what he learned about people when confronted with the truth! BRAVO!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com