The Bible and Homosexuality

been in woods long time,
don't care if ugly as hell,
just drop clothes and run!

5-7-5 right?
(whoops sorry - that's a haiku...my bad)

 

if it's to be discussed in an entirely text based medium.... it sort of does...

 

To be honest, it is absolutely certain what the Bible says on homosexuality. It seems that it requires a lot of rationalizing to make it say otherwise. It really is cut and dry. I am a purist when it comes to these sorts of things. If the Bible or any belief system states this, this, and this then that is how the religion defines itself. Going against the definition would be going against the system of belief.

I personally have no problems with homosexuality. And in my personal opinion, it's ok if others feels that it goes against morality just as long as they aren't abusive about it then it's ok.

Michel Foucault's theories on sexuality touch up on ontology. I am not going to pretend to know a lot more about this than I do but all varying opinions fight for dominance and Foucault (or was it someone else) that described it as Power Knowledge. Basically, one group will say something and another group says something else. It is arguable that all this talk on gay rights has actually done worse for homosexuality on a whole then it did previously. Although some suffered back then, the majority were not in the public light as much as now.

Personally, I think approaches such as ones made by Dan Savage is likened to the Black Panthers of the gay rights movement. Calling for Christians deaths and cussing them out doesn't seem like it would do anything but generate more hate. The reason why we celebrate Martin Luther King Jr is because he didn't see whites as the enemies; he saw them as friends. Malcom X generated more hate while MLK Jr softened it.

I say this to follow up on what I said that it's ok for others to find homosexuality wrong.

 

some of the law of moses survives as tradition , and this
is considered ancestoral wisdom . the traditions are only
amended with great carefullness . essence is respected .

prohibition :

incest
bestiallity
homosex
and oh ya -
fathers , do not sell your daughters into prostitution

moses would kill you for the first three . even an offending
donkey had to die . awhile back somebody amended those death
penalities for us .

 

Also slavery, genocide, subordination of women, etc, etc. Moses or his pseudograhers, would also kill rebellious children, adulterers, people who work on the Sabbath,etc.--so why don't we? Where in the Bible does it say which "traditions" survived? It all sounds so selective. Do those traditions make sense to you? Including the donkey? And really, if we're so concerned about protecting children, does that sound like something they should be exposed to? Does that sound like anything a just and rational Deity would be pushing?

 

When it comes to most Christians, they do pick and choose what to believe and follow as law from the Old Testament. Unfortunately, the Old Testament is meant to be the law for the Jews, because they do not believe Jesus Christ was their savior. Non Jews are supposed to follow the law in the New Testament as proclaimed by Jesus Christ. I believe someone already mentioned it in this thread that Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. In fact, the only person in the New Testament who ever mentions it is Paul and most people misinterpret the scripture in relation to homosexuality where it states all the types of people who shall not make it into the kingdom of heaven. One of the words in the scripture as its original form is effeminate, which many men interpret to mean homosexual. All effeminate men are not homosexual just as not all masculine men are heterosexual.

 

There is another passage in Paul that must be considered: Romans 1: 26-27 which says that because pagans worship idols or created things instead of God, when they should know better, God"has given those people over to "shameful passions". Women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. And the men "give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other." That's what it says. What does it mean? To understand what it meant to Paul and his audience we have to consider the social and historical context in which he was writing. The epistle is to the Romans and the main subject is idolatry. Paul is brilliant (or inspired) in making the connection between idolatry and lust.

The Roman Empire at the time Paul was writing saw a resurgence of fertility goddess worship: Cybelle/Attis, Artemis, Aphrodite, Demeter, Ops, Venus, and Isis. To Christians trying to make headway in the Roman world, they were competition. Particularly prominent at the time Paul wrote to the Romans was the bloody Phrygian cult of Cybelle and Attis, with which Christianity is sometimes compared. Cybele, known as the Great Mother,and her son Attis were quite the rage in Rome at the time of Paul. Attis castrated himself and was resurrected as a tree. In commemoration, the priests of Cybelle/Attis called Galli practiced frenzied orgies in which they dressed in soft women's clothing (malakoi) castrated themselves, and later had anal sex with men attending the service. The emphasis was on transcending biologically defined sex roles. In other words, the religion seemed messed up and anti-natural. I submit that this kind of religion was what Paul had in mind in 1 Romans. There is certainly plenty of sick, lustful sex around us today. But orgiastic temple prostitution is a far cry from loving homosexual practice in the world today. Was Paul talking about lustful pagan practices
or all homosexuality?

 

.

 

I doubt it. It seems more logical that he was condemning them for going against their nature. Heterosexual individuals who were engaging in homosexual behavior due to the pagan orgiastic rites.

To take an even more liberal view on the scripture, one could reject Paul's seemingly personal stance against homosexuality when he advocated oppression of women and acceptance of slavery as normal. If scripture supporting the suppression of women and slavery are considered unethical in today's society, then so should Paul's view on homosexuality.

 

Supporting that view, Paul spoke of long hair on a man as unnatural and shameful (1 Cor.14)--obviously equating natural with the customs of his culture. My Dad had that same view, and it used to drive him nuts when I'd say long hair was more natural than short hair, because if you just let nature take its course, guys' hair would grow. If nature is equated with what is typical in the natural order, most of what Paul preached-- monogamy, marital fidelity, turning the other cheek, loving they neighbor as thyself--are biological anomalies in the rest of the natural world, and his own practice of celibacy also seems unnatural. If gays are to be condemned for not being fruitful and multiplying, what about celibate men? There was a more sophisticated use of the concept of "natural" in the ancient world, by Aristotle, who related it to distinctive functioning according to one's nature. Humans did share some functions with animals, e.g., sex, but their distinctive function was rationality in the pursuit of happiness. I agree with Paul, however, that the excesses which he saw the pagan cults flaunting were pretty gross, and that lust, characterised by "burning", uncontrolled passion that seeks gratification above everything else. There's plenty in our culture to tempt us in that direction.

 

in the little farmtown church of our father gays are not so much
outright condemned and shunned as they are excused
from teaching the kids' sunday school class , and that
pinkly woman who flirts with the preacher's wife is mostly
considered very annoying . farmers have a farmer's sense
of life in balance even in the stumbling upon an occasional
daisy of uncertainty .

hey , sluburbanites ... go eat you rats and bedbugs and let dem
dandylions grow unto the the glory . aaaaa

the holy hippy bible say teach yor children well . all
have heard the word ... hell is just a goodbye
and

aaaaa! is the sound at the end of an indian joke .

 

<<To be honest, it is absolutely certain what the Bible says on homosexuality.>>

That's got to be the biggest lie on this thread yet! Thank you!
If it had come out of someone even capale of hebrew or greek (it wouldn't, at least not after the way of a moron) it would still be highly suspect of being just more Paulian desperation to "do that which Paul seemed best at" - and I don't mean boy punishing, woman gnarfeling or being the center of attention above-and-over the men and women who were ever actually with Jesus at all...but Paul, thinking this was about "neighborhood associations" and making sow's ears curtsy around like silk purses against their own nature and in fear of death was just too juicy I think. Paul! The "apostle" who sorted 'em out to save dear god the trouble? Such a peach...
To be perfectly honest, biblical arguments have their limits ~ certainly among jews. Personal emoting and the attempt to "slam dunk" an argument with such words are the "ad hominem" of the theological conference and would be theologian.

(ad hominem is considered in legal circles to be the weakest "Since I really have nothing but MUST win...she's a witch! I heard!" Ahahahahaha)
But if we go too far pushing strong meat on any poor lil pooter, we run the risk of falling outside the way ourselves. That was just such a hoot I couldn't resist...

and after the way of apology to heaven and earth I gotta add that the voices in here groping in the dark, who were on the lines of "do you suppose they meant the worst parts of people? the exploitation, cruelty, loss of true identity to tricks and obsession or addictions for relief?" seem to be the most justified and honest before God and man. You can"t snatch one fag or dyke outta God's hand - but if you try hard enough pooter, I bet you could get your own self tossed out...bible does say that. ALL of that.

 

yes , i do recall you didn't want Leviticus mentioned . sorry
if mentioning the law of Moses is unrespectable .

our father relates to me the essence of the traditional wisdom .
it is life in the now that must confirm it . like , when the family
farm dog starts having intercourse with the pigs and there's farm
children around ... well , that dog must go ... far away .

 

What if it is the pig's fault for being too irresistibly sexy?

 

all her pigly children will be sold into slavery .

 

this is why i don't participate in politics and religion. Too much hate.


not all of the pigs were sold into slavery… some became bacon…. and were sold at farm fresh.

 

darn it now , who paid their ransom ? kevin bacon ? still ,
blood was shed - or rather collected - and altogether this
blood of both free and slave gets poured in a tanker truck and
shipped out , first to a dehydration facility , then perhaps to the
dog food kibble factory for further processing . huh .

that dog died , and lately i've been raising a pup .
she's the rainbow peace doggy . and is a HOLY COW DOG !
Krishna gave her to me .

 

Man, I'm sure glad the guy doesn't talk to me ....

 

People just think they hear him.

 

idiots , our father is a man as was his before him .
tradition is human . so is the psychedelic mind .
be careful of each ; full of care .