What the Bible says about Homosexuality...

[Dana Grant]

Bert & I have two very dear women friends who are in a committed homosexual relationship. We could not ask for better friends, and we treasure that friendship. They will be going through a marriage ceremony in New York this coming fall.

They have sent me this video. I am asking that we have a calm and loving discussion about this video. This is a subject about which I am needing more knowledge and understanding, and I would appreciate it very much if those of you who have the time (It is about an hour) would watch this video and share your thoughts and your expert Biblical knowledge with me.

I will be showing this thread to my friends. I know that this can sometimes be a volatile issue. I would appreciate your respectful comments. Thanks very much!!



Dana

[Hans Deventer]

Dana, if anything, I am impressed by this man's plea, and his way of showing Biblical support for it. I need to let this sink in first.

[Dale Cozby]

For those who do not want to spend over an hour watching this video, fast foward to 58:14 for his point.
I disagree with him and his conclusion.

This issue IMHO will most likely be the one that rips our denomination asunder.

[Dennis Bratcher]

If some would rather read than watch, here are basically the same arguments from Walter Wink, a well respected Methodist Bible scholar: Homosexuality and the Bible (not an endorsement of his position).

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B,.

[Dan Henderson]

For those who do not want to spend over an hour watching this video, fast foward to 58:14 for his point.
I disagree with him and his conclusion.

This issue IMHO will most likely be the one that rips our denomination asunder.

I also disagree with the premise, but do not think this will be an issue that will divide the denomination. This is not a subtle issue of the type that is dividing us.

If you want to have this conversation, try substituting "gossip" anywhere the advocate or opponent uses the word "homosexual." If you can convince me, using scripture, that gossip is not a sin, then we will talk about homosexuality.

[Bob Hunter]

Phyliss Tickle believes that same sex relations will one day be accepted in the Church much like we now ordain divorced men and women. I have a gay step-sister, she is coming to visit me next month. I do not think I can accept a gay in leadership that is acting upon his or her sexual impulses with the same sex. That is like having sex with yourself, definitely not what God intended. I can live with the tension of having a gay step-sister, no worries there, just not endorsing.

[Eric Frey]

Phyliss Tickle believes that same sex relations will one day be accepted in the Church much like we now ordain divorced men and women. I have a gay step-sister, she is coming to visit me next month. I do not think I can accept a gay in leadership that is acting upon his or her sexual impulses with the same sex. That is like having sex with yourself, definitely not what God intended. I can live with the tension of having a gay step-sister, no worries there, just not endorsing.

Interesting that she connects the two issues...

[Greg Farra]

Interesting that it was in a Methodist church. They just voted down changing their views on homosexuality. And I didn't watch the whole video, it was too long for me. From what I heard, there were no new arguements.

[Heidi Anderson]

Interesting that she connects the two issues...

I've often connected the two myself as I do think they are similar "sins" yet we seem to be justified in our acceptance of one and not the other. I wonder why that is. Good point Eric!

[Doug Ward]

An hour is too long, but I have read the article Dennis linked to. Perhaps you might share the 3 or 4 points that you find compelling, or confusing. Then we can talk through a few points. In the article from Dennis, I read the same arguments that I have heard numerous times before - some valid, and some quite inaccurate. But I do not know where to start.

However, I do agree that we need to take a step back, and remember that our command is to love. There are real people in the homosexual world, and unworthy of our seeming creation of a special category of sin.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Dana,

Unfortunately, I likely won't be able to participate much in this thread. I would ask, however, that you relay to your friends that some of us want to apologize for the way some of us in the Church have treated them. We have not always responded like Jesus would - and does. I, for one, am sorry for any ill treatment they may have received. I am confident that Jesus' greatest desire is for their happiness and abundant, fulfilling life. I will continue to pray for that fulness.

Dennis

[Doug Ward]

Let me perhaps get the ball rolling a bit here. SInce I cannot know what specifically impacts you, let me try to briefly sketch my current understanding of the topic.

1. Where the Bible talks about homosexuality, it is always negatively. Quite simply, it is never embraced, and it is viewed almost as the crowning achievement of wickedness. One can argue that in some of the familiar passages that homosexuality may or may not be primary, but it is not embraced anywhere.

2. To argue that Paul did not know what we know - we are more nuanced with homosexuality than he is, seems arrogant to me. We do not know what Paul knew or did not know about homosexuality, but I find it hard to believe that Paul would be unfamiliar with various practices of homosexuality in his Hellenistic, and growing Roman world. He had the opportunity to parse his views and make distinctions - he did not. I think that means something.

3. There is an undercurrent in at least the article - well, it is natural, therefore it must be OK. I wonder how wide we want to cast that net. I find it easy and quite natural to be critical - that is not OK. I know people who seem to gossip quite easily - that is not OK or expressive of God's will. I know people who have been born with CP - well you get the picture. All of us possess qualities quite naturally that do not reflect Christ. SOme of us have larger issues than others.

4. Much time was spent in the article on various portions of OT law, that we do not recognize today. Well, there are NT reasons for much of this. Many of the obscure OT laws, the Israelites never lived by. With homosexuality specifically, we have a number of references in the NT. Yes, the author highlights the well-worn Romans 1 passage, but it seems to me that there is an expectation of sexual expression to be kept between husband and wife. I am thinking of 1 Cor. 7, and the qualifications for leadership in 1 Timothy. Again, the author could have listed other expectations, but they did not. These are multiple passages, written by more than 1 author.

5. For the last time - the NT does not condone slavery, especially how we in North America understand that term. To say that abolitionists do not have a Biblical argument is just irresponsible. (This is not a part of this argument - but it needs to be said again. AIDS does not impact homosexuals and heterosexuals equally. This is a medical fact)

6. The Bible seems to have a larger lens than we want to use. We say, why shouldn't I be able to express myself? The Bible seems to have a longer term perspective. Denial of ourselves here is not only a good, it reaps righteousness for us that may not be vindicated until His kingdom fully arrives.

[Hans Deventer]

For those who do not want to spend over an hour watching this video,

don't write in this thread.

Or read the transcript the video at http://matthewvines.tumblr.com/

[Dana Grant]

Thanks, Hans, I didn't realize there was a transcript. I really wish people would take the time to watch the video, even if you have to do it in increments.

As for what my questions are -- It is mainly this: If you disagree with his explanation and interpretation of the Biblical passages that he references, can you explain why, and can you give me a different interpretation or opinion? That's all I'm really asking. What do you think?

Thanks...

Dana

[Benjamin Burch]

Let me perhaps get the ball rolling a bit here. SInce I cannot know what specifically impacts you, let me try to briefly sketch my current understanding of the topic.

1. Where the Bible talks about homosexuality, it is always negatively. Quite simply, it is never embraced, and it is viewed almost as the crowning achievement of wickedness. One can argue that in some of the familiar passages that homosexuality may or may not be primary, but it is not embraced anywhere.

2. To argue that Paul did not know what we know - we are more nuanced with homosexuality than he is, seems arrogant to me. We do not know what Paul knew or did not know about homosexuality, but I find it hard to believe that Paul would be unfamiliar with various practices of homosexuality in his Hellenistic, and growing Roman world. He had the opportunity to parse his views and make distinctions - he did not. I think that means something.

3. There is an undercurrent in at least the article - well, it is natural, therefore it must be OK. I wonder how wide we want to cast that net. I find it easy and quite natural to be critical - that is not OK. I know people who seem to gossip quite easily - that is not OK or expressive of God's will. I know people who have been born with CP - well you get the picture. All of us possess qualities quite naturally that do not reflect Christ. SOme of us have larger issues than others.

4. Much time was spent in the article on various portions of OT law, that we do not recognize today. Well, there are NT reasons for much of this. Many of the obscure OT laws, the Israelites never lived by. With homosexuality specifically, we have a number of references in the NT. Yes, the author highlights the well-worn Romans 1 passage, but it seems to me that there is an expectation of sexual expression to be kept between husband and wife. I am thinking of 1 Cor. 7, and the qualifications for leadership in 1 Timothy. Again, the author could have listed other expectations, but they did not. These are multiple passages, written by more than 1 author.

5. For the last time - the NT does not condone slavery, especially how we in North America understand that term. To say that abolitionists do not have a Biblical argument is just irresponsible. (This is not a part of this argument - but it needs to be said again. AIDS does not impact homosexuals and heterosexuals equally. This is a medical fact)

6. The Bible seems to have a larger lens than we want to use. We say, why shouldn't I be able to express myself? The Bible seems to have a longer term perspective. Denial of ourselves here is not only a good, it reaps righteousness for us that may not be vindicated until His kingdom fully arrives.

Eh, I'm uncomfortable with some of this here, but overall it isn't bad by any means. I think it's a helpful primer. I think you'd be great to have this conversation with over espresso at Intelligentsia. I, however, just cannot have this conversation in type/internet forum form.

[Hans Deventer]

As for what my questions are -- It is mainly this: If you disagree with his explanation and interpretation of the Biblical passages that he references, can you explain why, and can you give me a different interpretation or opinion? That's all I'm really asking. What do you think?

I've watched the entire video (it actually can be done) and these are my questions too.

[Gina Stevenson]

Watching it in increments, as often done with long things. However, this time it helped me take a break by slow loading, stopping to load more for quite awhile, etc. Will say before done that I had never heard a thing re Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed for anything else (that I can recall, anyway) ... but then there it was, that obscure verse (Ezekiel, if I recall correctly?) re arrogance. But yet, whatever sin often can have that behind it ... enough arrogance/pride to think one is above God's law and can decide for themselves, no?

OK, back to trying to watch the rest of it.

[Hans Deventer]

Will say before done that I had never heard a thing re Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed for anything else (that I can recall, anyway) ... but then there it was, that obscure verse (Ezekiel, if I recall correctly?) re arrogance.

Ezekiel 16:49 - “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

[Gina Stevenson]

As you have mentioned, Hans, re having to chew on it awhile (not your words, but what intent I read there), had not thought re some of the ways in which he said some things. As I listened, here are a few things that came to mind, Dana, and I can see how you might be wondering, as we have heard such things before, too, tho' not in so well organized a presentation:

1) First thing that came to mind was how, even tho' there are some Levitical prohibitions that we do not necessarily keep, such as some dietary restrictions found there, heeding them ~~ while not related to our salvation ~~ can be a healthful thing to do.

2) While not "under law, but under grace" (an ancient song comes to mind here ), we do also read of Jesus' coming being related to not destroying the Law, but to fulfilling it. And ... humans will be forever arguing about "which parts" it is that we are yet to heed specifically, while perhaps agreeing about the two most important ones re loving God and each other ~~ while how we can best fulfill that "love thang" still may get bandied about a good deal, in the end.

(good thing I wrote a note or two as I listened, as I just had to look at them as a reminder of the last couple of points, while also feeling in a wee bit over my head here)

3) When he mentioned each of us being God's design (including those w/his bent, after having early on mentioned God's "ideal" being Adam/Eve~man/woman), something in me did, here, go: "Uh, just a minute on this one." He had already acknowledged previously how some things did change in "the fall." Well, while our less-than-perfect human condition has sadly led to various defects with which people have been born, making life difficult for them, we can only suppose that perhaps another sad thing could have conceivably taken place sometimes re hormonal development/etc ~~ not by God's design, but simply because all sorts of undesirable things have occurred in the womb in this very imperfect world. Again, not by God's design ... his rather organized argument fell short here at tbis point.

4) Lastly, he did well define the loneliness of folks without a family (not only homosexuals), so compassion would be the order of the day, in spite of disagreeing with some folks' lifestyle, as ~~ if there would not appear to be evidence of yet another humanity-based "birth defect," as has been speculated before ~~ it seems that with some an environmental situation (over which kids have no control) could contribute, as well, based on background stories/info on some who have gone this route.

5) Yet, in the end, perhaps this acting on how one "feels" needs as much reining in on the part of those "differently oriented" as is expected of those not yet married/widowed/divorced.

Yes, life can be sad sometimes. Maybe we now need to post something here that we just posted over on FB for someone:

Life is Hard, but God is Good

Phooey! Link seems to not work. Such a long one, tho, wondering if it all fit in that form here, so will just paste tbe long one here, as it seems to work:

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%...8gBC_NY8_npNYA

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Did a post/edit several times just to save before all got wiped out. Have had too many posts completely wiped out after taking apparently too long to finish/timed out. Either frustrates badly trying to repost, or leaves one too discouraged to even bother retrying to post sometimes. So, if you were wondering, that is what several post/edit things were about, so as to not lose it all if it were to get wiped out again (onscreen keyboard slows me waaay down).

[Hans Deventer]

Good post, Gina. I was thinking about how he discussed Gen 2:18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone.”

How good are we in providing friendship and companionship for singles (for whatever reason they are single)? Isn't this where the Church should excel? We, who are the body of Christ? (Loads of verses to quote here, I guess we all know them).

But instead we major on trying to get people married and expect to find all their fulfilment in their marriage. Chances are, even for those who do get married, this goal is unattainable, especially considering the high divorce rate.

I really wonder if the discussion on homosexuality would be less of a burning issue if the church was indeed a family of brothers, sisters and friends, serving one another. For at that point the guy is totally right, "It is not good for the man to be alone".

[Gina Stevenson]

Yes, Hans ... not good to be alone. In fact, I have forever noted how that "man" in that context is generic "mankind," meant to include us gals, too.

ETA: Definitely could be some improvement in some areas. Still often feel the difference between how folks treat someone who is married and someone who is not ... wow! Tho' I had experienced the "how we treat singles" thing for years, marrying later, guess I, a bit naively for one who had been treated "singly" for years, had somehow expected to be treated as someone who did indeed realize what marriage was all about, so who could still be included in couple get-togethers (as Danny & I had done so) after Danny died, only to be reeling for a good while as I was reminded how suddenly isolated/left out one could become via widowhood when one is most needy, unless one took upon themselves yet another task ... that of trying to initiate connections at a time when one is a bit overwhelmed to add such a task to their agenda. Can only thank God I had already tended towards being an initiator, or I would have been even more isolated. But it still hurt ... badly.

People can be really unthinking of others when they are "uncomfortable"/don't want to deal with what happened to you. Thank God a rare one or two were not like that, but for the most part ....

[Peggy Gray]

I thought he articulated his theological points quite well in the beginning, but toward the end the tone seemed to change from that of a lecture/sermon to that of a personal complaint. I can't explain it very well, but it went from "This is why the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is a sin" to "You shouldn't call homosexuality a sin because it makes me feel lonely and bad, and it isn't fair."

I think the "suitable partner" reasoning was quite a stretch. And I'm still trying to sort out his "bad fruit/good fruit" thing--is he saying that if a Christian makes someone feel bad, that Christian has produced "bad fruit"? I would agree that unkindness and lack of love on the part of a Christian is "bad fruit" in and of itself, but if the feeling bad is the result of conviction by the Holy Spirit or simply not liking the truth told in love, I don't see how that qualifies as bad fruit.

Since I am not a Bible scholar, I would like to hear any agreement or disagreement about his discussion of customs of the time and definition/use of terms. When he says "the Greek means this" or "that word was used this way", he sounds knowledgeable--but is he right?

[Doug Ward]

don't write in this thread.

Or read the transcript the video at http://matthewvines.tumblr.com/

Thanks, Hans. Much better reading it.

[Dale Cozby]

I've often connected the two myself as I do think they are similar "sins" yet we seem to be justified in our acceptance of one and not the other. I wonder why that is. Good point Eric!

Perhaps rather than divorce or gossip, we should connect it to the sin of incest. If you "married" your sister/brother/aunt/uncle/mother/father/etc in a "loving" relationship should the church accept you "as is"? I know all those forms of marriage are against the civil law of this country right now, but so has been same-sex marraige until just the last few years and only in certain states. This might actually be a closer "sin" analogy than divorce.

Or if you divorced your wife and married the church secratary should the church accept you... "as-is", or when you have "repented" and want back in while stayin married to the secratary because it is now a "loving" relationship with your second wife whom you just happened to comit adultery with and then married. If the litmus test in thiis is going to be: Is it a long-lasting loving relationship? Then we should remain consistant.

I disagree with all of these and will stick with my current set of beliefs.

[Bob Hunter]

Let me perhaps get the ball rolling a bit here. SInce I cannot know what specifically impacts you, let me try to briefly sketch my current understanding of the topic.

1. Where the Bible talks about homosexuality, it is always negatively. Quite simply, it is never embraced, and it is viewed almost as the crowning achievement of wickedness. One can argue that in some of the familiar passages that homosexuality may or may not be primary, but it is not embraced anywhere.

2. To argue that Paul did not know what we know - we are more nuanced with homosexuality than he is, seems arrogant to me. We do not know what Paul knew or did not know about homosexuality, but I find it hard to believe that Paul would be unfamiliar with various practices of homosexuality in his Hellenistic, and growing Roman world. He had the opportunity to parse his views and make distinctions - he did not. I think that means something.

3. There is an undercurrent in at least the article - well, it is natural, therefore it must be OK. I wonder how wide we want to cast that net. I find it easy and quite natural to be critical - that is not OK. I know people who seem to gossip quite easily - that is not OK or expressive of God's will. I know people who have been born with CP - well you get the picture. All of us possess qualities quite naturally that do not reflect Christ. SOme of us have larger issues than others.

4. Much time was spent in the article on various portions of OT law, that we do not recognize today. Well, there are NT reasons for much of this. Many of the obscure OT laws, the Israelites never lived by. With homosexuality specifically, we have a number of references in the NT. Yes, the author highlights the well-worn Romans 1 passage, but it seems to me that there is an expectation of sexual expression to be kept between husband and wife. I am thinking of 1 Cor. 7, and the qualifications for leadership in 1 Timothy. Again, the author could have listed other expectations, but they did not. These are multiple passages, written by more than 1 author.

5. For the last time - the NT does not condone slavery, especially how we in North America understand that term. To say that abolitionists do not have a Biblical argument is just irresponsible. (This is not a part of this argument - but it needs to be said again. AIDS does not impact homosexuals and heterosexuals equally. This is a medical fact)

6. The Bible seems to have a larger lens than we want to use. We say, why shouldn't I be able to express myself? The Bible seems to have a longer term perspective. Denial of ourselves here is not only a good, it reaps righteousness for us that may not be vindicated until His kingdom fully arrives.

WARNING: Slightly graphic sexual descriptions.

I like a lot of this, I think it expresses what many Christians believe.

In recent years I have tried to be somewhat abreast of the medical risk factors involved in male homosexual behavior. A few years ago, I started an online support group for men who suffer from Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome (A.K.A. "Headache in the Pelvis"). I have several medical experts in the group who share advice and offer help. We also have several homosexual men. They have very acute symptoms that are sometimes directly related to sexual activity. The male prostate is a very delicate gland that is not designed to be repeatedly traumatized by anal penetration from a male sex organ. There are increased health risks when men practice homosexual sexual activity such as higher rates of rectal cancer, anal fissures, prostate problems, pelvic pain, impotence, hepatitis, etc. Put simply, the male body was not designed and is not sexually compatible with another male body. Of course, proponents of homosexuality will argue, "it's not about sex...blah, blah, etc." But it never precludes sex either. We use all kinds of justifications and excuses to nurse our sexual indulgences. Heterosexual men do the same thing when they are addicted to porn and masturbation; they say stuff like, God forgives me, I can't help myself, I was born this way, I have a high sex drive, I'm single, no one understands, etc. Denial of the problem runs deep into the soul.

I believe homosexual behavior is contrary to God's natural design. The foreskin on a penis is analogous to the clitoris on a vagina. The compatibility of male and female bodies is truly amazing. Homosexual relations can never achieve what heterosexuals can in terms of procreation and compatibility. But once again, proponents of homosexuality will say our position is arrogant and does not take into account a condition that people are born with. I'm fine with letting them have that argument. But I have yet to see anyone argue successfully against God's natural design. And truthfully, we have used that argument arrogantly in ways that have not been helpful (Adam & Eve and not Adam & Steve). We have done the same with the Bible, at times we express the Bible's opposition to homosexual behavior so vehemently that is comes across judgmental.

So we have a long way to go if we are going to make progress on this issue. I don't agree with Phyliss Tickle, I don't see the Church coming around on this issue. In some denominations we may see "open and affirming" doctrine embraced, but overall I see the Church holding the line.

[David Pettigrew]

Let me perhaps get the ball rolling a bit here. SInce I cannot know what specifically impacts you, let me try to briefly sketch my current understanding of the topic.


5. For the last time - the NT does not condone slavery, especially how we in North America understand that term...

I guess I struggle with why it is that when Paul talked homosexuality, he meant the exact same phenomena we have in 21st Century culture. However, when Paul said for slaves to obey their masters, he was talking about something different than what we did to black people in America.

I see Christians absolutely treat every societal abnormality differently than what the Bible prescribes - except homosexuality. We excuse divorce, we treat mental illness, we allow in members with disease and deformity, and we abhor slavery. Heck, we even let women talk in church and attend while they are on their period! But when it comes to the gays, suddenly we become inerrant literalists.

I do not know what the answer is, but I know the issue is not nearly as black and white as it would seem. I also know we drive thinking people from the church when we try to excuse the parts of the Bible that make us uncomfortable - to the left or the right.

[David Pettigrew]

One thing to always keep in mind when the bible makes social rules - the population of the world in Jesus and Paul's day was about 300 million. Out of every 100 people born, 33 died before age six, another 33 before age 18, and another 30 in their 30s or 40s. Only 3 or 4 would see age 60.

When we try to apply cultural prohibitions in the 21st Century, we are dealing with a different planet. Our population is 25 times larger, and life spans are much, much longer.

Also, the first century Mediterranean culture operated with an honor/shame patronage system that we simply have no frame of reference to understand. Many of the dietary, dress, and behavior standards only made sense in that framework.

This is why Jesus said that all the law and prophets were summed up in two commands - love God with everything, and love your neighbor as yourself. Any cultural standard or prohibition (ie. women keep silent, men must never cover their heads) must be filtered through these two timeless laws.

[Eric Frey]

I guess I struggle with why it is that when Paul talked homosexuality, he meant the exact same phenomena we have in 21st Century culture. However, when Paul said for slaves to obey their masters, he was talking about something different than what we did to black people in America.

I see Christians absolutely treat every societal abnormality differently than what the Bible prescribes - except homosexuality. We excuse divorce, we treat mental illness, we allow in members with disease and deformity, and we abhor slavery. Heck, we even let women talk in church and attend while they are on their period! But when it comes to the gays, suddenly we become inerrant literalists.

I do not know what the answer is, but I know the issue is not nearly as black and white as it would seem. I also know we drive thinking people from the church when we try to excuse the parts of the Bible that make us uncomfortable - to the left or the right.

THIS!!! THANKS!!! We definitely need a consistent hermeneutic for dealing with these issues.

[Hans Deventer]

I believe homosexual behavior is contrary to God's natural design.

Since we're at it, I understand that few women reach a climax through penetration. Stimulation of the clitoris seems to work much better. So should we come to the conclusion that homosexual sex is wrong, heterosexual sex is limited when it comes to the fun part, but for women, lesbian sex is how God wanted it? I'm not so sure these kind of arguments take us in the right direction.

[Valisha Trammell Hall]

Since we're at it, I understand that few women reach a climax through penetration. Stimulation of the clitoris seems to work much better. So should we come to the conclusion that homosexual sex is wrong, heterosexual sex is limited when it comes to the fun part, but for women, lesbian sex is how God wanted it? I'm not so sure these kind of arguments take us in the right direction.

And lesbians practically never contract HIV from a sexual partner.

[Doug Ward]

I guess I struggle with why it is that when Paul talked homosexuality, he meant the exact same phenomena we have in 21st Century culture. However, when Paul said for slaves to obey their masters, he was talking about something different than what we did to black people in America.

I see Christians absolutely treat every societal abnormality differently than what the Bible prescribes - except homosexuality. We excuse divorce, we treat mental illness, we allow in members with disease and deformity, and we abhor slavery. Heck, we even let women talk in church and attend while they are on their period! But when it comes to the gays, suddenly we become inerrant literalists.

I do not know what the answer is, but I know the issue is not nearly as black and white as it would seem. I also know we drive thinking people from the church when we try to excuse the parts of the Bible that make us uncomfortable - to the left or the right.

David, let me press you on this a little. Is there a different definition of homosexuality? In the Biblical record, they meant something different than men exchanging relations with other men? Or maybe that is NOT what homosexuality means today? I guess I do not understand. I am not a Biblical literalist, but perhaps you could explain a metaphorical homosexual to me. I am just not familiar with the concept, but I do not get out much anymore.

It is a matter of historical record that Roman slavery was a far cry from the racial slavery of our experience in North America. Perhaps that is why Paul had to tell believers in 1 Cor. 7 not to become slaves. He did so because slavery was not an undesirable way of life. In fact many slaves had a higher social standing than a mere artisan, like a tentmaker. In order to read scripture we must enter their world as much as possible. I did not know that doing so made one a literalist, but then again, I leran new things every day. So if you run across information that homosexuality meant something different then, well, I am all ears.

[David Pettigrew]

David, let me press you on this a little. Is there a different definition of homosexuality? In the Biblical record, they meant something different than men exchanging relations with other men? Or maybe that is NOT what homosexuality means today? I guess I do not understand. I am not a Biblical literalist, but perhaps you could explain a metaphorical homosexual to me. I am just not familiar with the concept, but I do not get out much anymore.

It is a matter of historical record that Roman slavery was a far cry from the racial slavery of our experience in North America. Perhaps that is why Paul had to tell believers in 1 Cor. 7 not to become slaves. He did so because slavery was not an undesirable way of life. In fact many slaves had a higher social standing than a mere artisan, like a tentmaker. In order to read scripture we must enter their world as much as possible. I did not know that doing so made one a literalist, but then again, I leran new things every day. So if you run across information that homosexuality meant something different then, well, I am all ears.

I Corinthians 7 deals with maintaining whatever status you are currently in because Jesus will be returning soon to set up a theocracy, and all attention must be given to preparing for that return. That's why we find Paul's admonition in the midst of advice about marriage, remarriage, and levirate marriage. In other words, if you're a slave, remain a slave. If you're free, stay free. The only thing that matters is preparing for the Kingdom.

Nevertheless, I agree with you. Slavery was an acceptable, essential social status in the empire system, much like the lower castes in India were necessary to dispose of human waste and the dead. It doesn't mean it was a just system or that being a slave was fun; but, we can't judge 1st Century natural order by our norms and mores.

To address your question, however, the biblical world had NO concept of homosexual orientation, whereby I mean the phenomena of someone who has never known anything but sexual/physical attraction to the same sex. Again, we are dealing with a miniscule population of people concerned with not starving and scratching to make it out of childhood in tact. Sexual orientation just wasn't a luxury they could debate. Homosexual behavior in the Bronze and Iron Ages was about two things - power and idolatry. The Bible simply does not address someone who at age 5 knew they were "different", and has never known anything but same sex attraction. However, I've known a lot of preacher's kids that fit that description - some of them very dear to my heart - and I refuse to believe they are all lying.

So I guess my point is, why do we give slavery a cultural pass, completely ignore the divorce passages, excuse away the verses that instruct us to sell all we have and give it away - but shut the church door on the gays?

[Doug Ward]

So I guess my point is, why do we give slavery a cultural pass, completely ignore the divorce passages, excuse away the verses that instruct us to sell all we have and give it away - but shut the church door on the gays?

I guess I still do not understand. . . who is doing this? Who is ignoring the divorce passages or ignoring the passages with the rich ruler? Certainly, no one in this thread wants to shut the door on those who see themselves as gay. But that is not the question it seems to me. What will our engagement with that community look like? Will it be "you are depraved evildoers, sit down and change," "we are glad you are here, be a part of the life of the church, even as we ask that you refrain from sexual behavior," or will it be "join our church, and start a dating service?"

I have purposefully used extremes here, but just to show the question is what will our engagement look like?

[Gary Creely]

Since we're at it, I understand that few women reach a climax through penetration. Stimulation of the clitoris seems to work much better. So should we come to the conclusion that homosexual sex is wrong, heterosexual sex is limited when it comes to the fun part, but for women, lesbian sex is how God wanted it? I'm not so sure these kind of arguments take us in the right direction.

you Europeans!

[David Pettigrew]

I guess I still do not understand. . . who is doing this?

I am. You probably are, too. Do you have any board members who have been divorced and remarried? I do. Jesus called that adultery. We don't. Nor should we.

I've ignored Paul's Corinthian advice completely. Thanks to FHA, I just made myself a slave to the lender for the next 30 years.

[Paul DeBaufer]

So, just finished watching the video. I was moved to tears by the young man's pain at a future devoid of intimate companionship. What he faces within the confines of the traditional interpretations is heart rending. My heart aches for anyone who faces such loneliness and unfulfillment of a basic human need, and a biblical need at that, one God Himself recognized.

In my opinion the greater sin is in the denying people the fulfillment of this need for intimate companionship that was given us by God, than in the behaviour that those people would engage in inside such a relationship. It is just plain unloving. I just cannot for the life of me see where what two, loving, committed people do within the confines of their relationship violates the fulfillment of the law and prophets: LOVE.

[Dwayne Petry]

Heterosexual men do the same thing when they are addicted to porn ; they say stuff like, God forgives me, I can't help myself, I was born this way, I have a high sex drive, I'm single, no one understands, etc. Denial of the problem runs deep into the soul.

Exact things I would say when I left my wife and 2 sons for other women. The "GOOD NEWS" is that the bondage of all sinful lifestyles can be broken by the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ and the empowering of the Holy Spirit!

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Dana, I admit I haven't watched the video yet. I may soon, but can't at the moment. I had come to Naznet to post what I thought was a great statement written by Rev. Adam Hamilton and submitted to the General Conference of the United Methodist Church just yesterday...and failed. I was going to start a new thread, and if someone thinks it's inappropriate in this thread, feel free to move it.

A Way Forward: Homosexuality and the United Methodist Church

Homosexuality continues to divide our society and the church. All in the United Methodist Church affirm
that homosexual persons are people of sacred worth and are welcome in our churches, but we disagree as
a people regarding whether homosexual practice is contrary to the will of God.

The Bible is our primary text for discerning God's will. We read and interpret it by the light of the Spirit's
witness, with the help of the thoughtful reflections of Christians through the centuries, and assisted by our
understanding of history, culture and science.

The majority view through the history of the church is that the scriptures teach that same-sex sexual
intimacy is contrary to the will of God. This view is rooted in several passages from both the Old and
New Testament.

A significant minority of our church views the scriptures that speak to same-sex intimacy as reflecting the
understanding, values, historical circumstances and sexual ethics of the period in which the scriptures
were written, and therefore believe these passages do not reflect the timeless will of God. They read the
scriptures related to same-sex intimacy in the same way that they read the Bible's passages on polygamy,
concubinage, slavery and the role of women in the church.

United Methodists will continue to struggle with this issue in the years ahead as a growing number of
young adults identify with what is today the minority view. The majority view of the General
Conference, and thus the official position of the church, continues to hold that same-sex intimacy is not
God's will. We recognize, however, that many faithful United Methodists disagree with this view.

It is likely that this issue will continue to be a source of conflict within the church. We have a choice: We
can divide, or we can commit to disagree with compassion, grace, and love, while continuing to seek to
understand the concerns of the other. Given these options, schism or respectful co-existence, we choose
the latter.

We commit to disagree with respect and love, we commit to love all persons and, above all, we pledge to
seek God’s will. With regard to homosexuality, as with so many other issues, United Methodists adopt
the attitude of John Wesley who once said, "Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May
we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt, we may."
Submitted by Adam Hamilton and Mike Slaughter

This was defeated by a ratio of 55-45.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Thanks, Hans, I didn't realize there was a transcript. I really wish people would take the time to watch the video, even if you have to do it in increments.

As for what my questions are -- It is mainly this: If you disagree with his explanation and interpretation of the Biblical passages that he references, can you explain why, and can you give me a different interpretation or opinion? That's all I'm really asking. What do you think?

Thanks...

Dana

I concur. I haven't read the transcript, but I doubt the pain this young man has/does experience(d) comes through as well. It is too easy to miss the human side of the issue when we only read the words disconnected from the person saying them. I have been moved to actual tears watching him and hearing his pain.

[Hans Deventer]

Dana, I admit I haven't watched the video yet. I may soon, but can't at the moment. I had come to Naznet to post what I thought was a great statement written by Rev. Adam Hamilton and submitted to the General Conference of the United Methodist Church just yesterday...and failed. I don't get it.

I do. It effectively declares the issue to be a non-essential. The Conference didn't agree.