Enlightening. Very much so. Throughout history, and certainly now- so many want to impose their current cultural and personal biases onto theological texts, holy readings, and religious following. Acknowledging this in humility would go a long way in helping understand both their holy following, but also themselves, more deeply and truthfully. It's difficult (for everyone, I think) but worthy, in my opinion.
Amen! You put this succinctly and wonderfully. Respectfully reading the text while being aware of my personal baggage (cultural, historical, gender-bias, political, religious, economic, philosophical, etc) and carefully excluding it, as much as I can, takes a LOT of work, but is GREATLY beneficial to my own development as a human being and member of the human community. To read ancient sacred texts NON-VIOLENTLY is difficult, like all such important work is. But no pain, no gain, as they say at the gym, and that applies spiritually also.
There is nothing wrong with sexual orientation or acting accordingly in relationships between consenting adults in our culture. From where does sexual orientation come? It can be demonstrated that it didn't arrive on the scene until the 19th-century dawn of awareness of persons as subjective, psychological centers of awareness (i.e., as introspective individualists). Attractions existed earlier, of course, as did same-sex attraction and same-sex conjugal activities. But sexual orientation, as we know it today (and take it for granted) is more complicated than that. There is more to homosexuality than male-to-male coitus and female-to-female coitus. The hermeneutical constraint I encourage on the contemporary use of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 involves historical, social and cultural differences separating Paul’s society and cultural horizons from those of the modern, post- Enlightenment, western, industrialized world of most contemporary Bible readers. What we term "homosexuality" describes a more or less permanent psychological state entailing the sexual orientation of individuals toward persons of the same biological gender. This was something new under the Sun, a 19th-century awareness: some persons were homosexual! Why is it new? It is because before that period all evidence indicates that persons were anti-introspective and not psychologically minded at all. Hence, if ancient persons were attracted to someone of the same gender, that same-gender sexual orientation would be attributed to some group-specific practice. In other words, ethnic custom, popular tradition, social convention, or some other collectivistic practice. This is the ancient world, folks. And this is the biblical world as well. This is very different than our psychologically-minded culture. Ancients didn't distinguish between personal sexual “orientation" and human behavior. Ancients categorized people according to externals: gender, genealogy, geography, looks, and behavior. Notice: no internal states! Why? Because to ancients like Samuel, the only thing verifiable was the VISIBLE EXTERNAL. Anti-introspective, these people believed they COULDN'T look inside, at the interior. Only God or the gods could peer into the human heart. So when you read an ancient "vice list", like the one in 1 Corinthians 6, none of the listed items refer to persons of a particular condition. Instead, they all are about EXTERNAL ACTS, culturally-specific "shameful behavior" (according to some ancients), something considered to be socially destructive. Ancient people like Paul who drew up vice lists believed the people committing these acts as agents capable of choosing between honorable and shameful modes of behavior. They believed preferences to be CHOICES of right and wrong behavior. This is not our view of "orientation." It would be unfair and stupid to look to Paul to tell me HOW I should be according to my "sexual orientation." How can Paul, or any ancient authority, give me a PRESCRIPTIVE about something he couldn't conceive? Neither Paul nor any other biblical author-nor any author at all from antiquity!-had any term for, or concept of, what is defined today as a “homosexual.” There is a COLOSSAL difference between ancient and modern “mentalities” concerning sexual relations and same-sex sexual relations. Ancient people HAD NO IDEA of the homosexual person. They couldn't conceive of someone who exclusively or predominantly attracted to others of the same sex. In fact, the ancients just assumed that human beings were attracted sexually to BOTH their own and the opposite sex! That means that ancient people, including Paul, didn't even have a behavior-based category for people who showed a fixed preference for partners of the same sex. So, should the modern concept of "homosexuality" as an orientation (like we conceive of) EVER be read into Paul’s text or ANY ancient document? NEVER. Can we assume that Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 6:9 condemn all homosexual relations in all times and places and ways? ABSOLUTELY NOT. And Christians have done HORRENDOUS INJUSTICE to LGBTQ foks because of this.
The word homosexuality did not exist in the ancient world but man on man sex was condemned in the Torah. The Catholic church has homosexuality running rampant in it so he wants to say it never existed in the ancient world and was never condemned. That is a lie.
It is a bad idea quoting academics regarding theology, they usually end up obscuring the issue. According to the pair you cited there was no concept of homo-sexual in the ancient world and so it is alleged that the men Paul was referring to were actually bi-sexual rather than homo-sexual. As a result you imply that since homo-sexual activity isn't mentioned in the Bible it is not a sin. The reality is that sexual perversity is precisely that - perversity and it is a sin as is made plain in both the Old and New Testaments. There is no way anyone can slither out of that.
"It is a bad idea quoting academics regarding theology, they usually end up obscuring the issue." Says you, the non-scholar? That rule applies unless the academics tickle your ear supporting your a priori beliefs? Then, in that case, you'd be more generous with the Academy, I'm sure. "According to the pair you cited there was no concept of homo-sexual in the ancient world and so it is alleged that the men Paul was referring to were actually bi-sexual rather than homo-sexual." Please cite where they say that those Paul referred to were bisexual or of ANY sexual orientation. Can you imagine traveling back to the first century Mediterranean world in a time machine and discussing homosexuality with Paul (or Jesus)? Let’s say you did that. Imagine yourself talking with Paul (or Jesus!) about 21st-century studies on the biological, psychological, and psychosomatic dimensions of sexuality and homosexuality. Say that, in your conversation, you informed Paul about “X” and “Y” chromosomes and mentioned that possibly these invisible things called “genes” determine gender and sexual orientation. And imagine that also in your conversation, you distinguished sexual orientation from sexual conduct. What would Paul (or Jesus) make of that? Along with anyone from his day, he would be clueless. This is because Paul (like Jesus) belonged to a very different cultural world than ours. Sexual acts and gender, the way we conceive of them, would be unimaginable to anyone from Paul’s time. They would be to them as would aluminum foil, laptop computers, and Disney World. “But at least we could discuss Natural Law with Paul!” some might mistakenly believe. Don’t be anachronistic. That concept was also foreign to Paul’s world. Natural Law theory begins way after biblical times. Whatever ethical consistency it has, that’s what informs the official Catholic position on homosexuals and so-called “disordered” natures. But the Bible? This ancient Mediterranean library doesn’t know any homosexuality or sexual orientations. Concerning same-sex coitus, biblical evidence is scant, ambiguous, and conditioned by culture alien to modern times. Consequently, Scripture cannot provide a foundation for any 21st-century ethic of homosexuality. In other words, to form a case either for or against the morality of homosexuality goes beyond fundamentalism and Bible quotes. This is because the evidence must originate outside the Bible. But that doesn’t stop fundamentalists (like yourself) relying on six scriptural passages often misused as used as proof-texts for the sinfulness of homosexual acts, or even homosexuality itself. "As a result you imply that since homo-sexual activity isn't mentioned in the Bible it is not a sin. The reality is that sexual perversity is precisely that - perversity and it is a sin as is made plain in both the Old and New Testaments." Plain? To your Western eyes? For Paul and others like him, two men having sex had to be done in a SHAMEFUL (to him and his culture) body position where one of the males becomes PASSIVE and RECEPTIVE. It was about HONOR and SHAME, not "OBJECTIVE MORALITY." Do we perceive and understand reality that way now? "There is no way anyone can slither out of that." So you demand me and those scholars I cite to be ethically consistent, do you? Well, expect us to demand the same of you then, chum! In 1 Corinthians 6:1-11, Paul responds to a legal problem producing massive social ramifications for the Jesus group at Corinth. Believers took each other to Gentile courts of law, thereby presenting their cases to unjust judges in Paul’s view (6:1-8). But Paul says that these unjust outsiders have no part in the kingdom of God (6:9a). So then he illustrates unjust persons and behaviors (9b-10). Therefore his focus in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 is preservation and enhancement of the unity of the Jesus group. How? By settling or eliminating brotherly disputes INSIDE, away from those Gentile outsiders. For the sake of ethical consistency, look over all the terms in that list- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that unjust persons will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor malakoi, nor arsenokoitai, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. Assuming that malakoi and arsenokoitai mean what YOU want them to mean, how about the other entries on this vice list? Why place all the moral weight onto a dubious translation of the two obscure Greek words, meanwhile ignoring the other items of this Pauline vice-list? The culprit must be hypocrisy and ignorance. Bud, we desperately need consistency and constraint in interpreting this passage. There are terrible theological and ethical outcomes spawned by our disrespectful readings. What does an honest exploration of how this passage has been translated, read, interpreted, and ethically applied for 2,000 years reveal? Tragically, subjectivity and selectivity have been the guiding principles. Basically, different readers experiencing various situations gave the vices in Paul’s list different gravities. Throughout Church history, things changed. Therefore, sometimes idolatry and greed were considered “mortal” sins, but not always. This continues into modern times. Not too long before the Age of Trump, many Christian groups understood adultery as grounds to bar someone from Communion or legal divorce (or annulment). By the way, does ex-communication really work in 2020? Consider that serial polygamist Donald Trump is hailed as God’s Chosen One by a frightful many U.S. Christians. Many “Bible-believing” churches permit divorced ministers to remain in ministry, despite Mark 10:2-12. I know of one in South Florida whose pastor is a bigamist and had his Columbian wife DEPORTED -- VIVA TRUMP! -- while he walks hands in with his Amer-I-can wife the very next week. Maybe there are good reasons not to Jesus’ understanding of marriage and divorce is entirely applicable to folks today? But then, wouldn’t that apply to other situations as well? We need ethical consistency, pal! Meanwhile, hiding under a pro-life banner, U.S. bishops give veiled endorsements of a disgraced POTUS. Donald Trump is on tape celebrating his celebrity privilege allowing him to sexually harass and molest women. But vote “pro-life!”-where “pro-life” means a voting for a thief and a bully who cheats at everything. Someone who lies like the Niagara Falls pours water, a despicable narcissist with a horde of brainwashed idolizers. How about that for ethical consistency? Wage theft, whether moral or legal, is considered virtuous by many bishops and pastors. I have personally suffered from this crime against Jesus (you know, the Body to which you and I belong?). For seven years, I worked at a South Florida parish where a priest before stole millions. I guess this justified his replacement overworking and withholding just pay from myself and my coworkers, huh? My next job was the first decent pay ever in my 21 years doing ministry work in South Florida. Right after my hire, the pastor, a real tyrant to his staff, got removed for stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from the community. Many of these priests “set up for failure” get transferred to some place remote, but that’s about all. Can you imagine if a lay employee did this? Where is the ethical consistency there? How many Catholic dioceses exclude thieves and greedy priests? And hey, the Evangelicals need to shut up because they are in NO MORAL position to talk. Not too many on either side of the Tiber, by my count! Like when a pastor, unhappy with his life, takes advantage of his parish’s funds, cooks the books, and purchases an expensive home in which to live with his legal husband? We are talking for over a decade. Do you even know this is going on? It is! Given all that, how curiously inconsistent we are when it comes to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and malakoi and arsenokoitai. We anachronistically misunderstand these terms as referring to “homosexuals” (male and female) engaging in same-sex sexual relations. But think about how few Christian denominations would permit such people engaging thus to remain ministers? Or to join a ministry? Why is all the moral obsession and weight placed by so many Christians on the “evils” of homosexuality? There isn’t any biblical basis. What if it is merely personal dislike and fear? What if it’s just homophobia and bigotry? Where is the ethical consistency in that? Add that to a theologically-justified delusion of super-morality powers fundamentalists believe they have. Like you do, right? With such a mix, whatever your pet peeve or phobia is, place all the weight there. Should homosexuality really deserve this hyper-focus? Why are gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender persons ranked so high to so many U.S. Christians hateful agendas? It’s a complicated mess, and one without any biblical support. And the mess gets worse given our lack of ethical consistency, the lightness we treat the more apparent items on Paul’s vice-list. If you attempt to discover any theological and ethical significance in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and the five other often-cited passages, you better weigh the vices equally! That’s what Paul did! Don’t you dare single out the obscure malakoi and arsenokoitai while ignoring the other unjust people Paul slams! Give all the vices listed equal importance. Oh, what’s that I hear? You don’t want to exclude idolaters, thieves, drunks, robbers, and greedy folks (Donald Trump, Joe Biden)? Make allowances? Be forgiving? How Christian of you! But forgive me for demanding that you do the same for malakoi and arsenokoitai, regardless to whom those words ACTUALLY refer (hint: NOT LGBTQ persons as we understand them today).
@@BibleAlivePresentations I’m sorry but there are several other places which talk about sexual immorality which includes many different things like adultery, fornication, sodomy, perversion, looking upon “the nakedness” of your family members, etc. Why do you think Sodom and Gomorrah were overthrown? It was a warning to all of us to not follow in the same paths. Same with the angels who fell because of their lust and fornicated with women. In account of sexual immorality, the flood came upon the world. These are important things to keep ourselves from. Not because God wants to punish us but to protect us. Sexual immorality is grievous because it completely leads us away from God. I have been there and done that and I understand how it completely entraps the mind. It becomes idolatry and one’s heart becomes shut and unresponsive to God. The behavior is harmful and bad. Not necessarily the person. God is focused on protecting us from having to firsthand experience the consequences of these things. That’s why wisdom is often encouraged, by reading about all the people in the Bible who struggled and fell into sexual immorality and not following in the same path. Take for instance, Reuben - the firstborn of Jacob. He lost his firstborn right because he slept with Bilhah the handmaid of Jacob.. and he later was very remorseful about this and he had such a hard time forgiving himself for the rest of his life (even though God was merciful to him, it was still extremely difficult to forgive himself). The same thing with David, who was a man after God’s own heart. He was passionate about God, but he was entrapped by his desire. Everything else faded away and it’s like another nature takes over us, completely blocking out God until we fulfill that desire. David likewise had a very hard time forgiving himself. (This is what of the hardest lessons from it - not so much of the physical punishments but our conscience becomes guilty; it is impossible to undo and go back, and we all struggle with past regrets and offenses we have made against God and man. God does not want that for us). It’s an incredible testament of our human nature. We all can easily find ourselves entrapped by it. We are told to “flee fornication” as Joseph did when his master’s wife was trying to seduce him. It’s not necessarily that one sin is worse than the other. All of it leads down the same path and reaps harmful consequences. That’s why diseases result and unclean spirits find their way in. Relationships are destroyed as a result of it. Even people can lose their lives. I could give you many biblical examples if you would like
@@BibleAlivePresentations I’m sorry but there are several other places which talk about sexual immorality which includes many different things like adultery, fornication, sodomy, perversion, looking upon “the nakedness” of your family members, etc. Why do you think Sodom and Gomorrah were overthrown? It was a warning to all of us to not follow in the same paths. Same with the angels who fell because of their lust and fornicated with women. In account of sexual immorality, the flood came upon the world. These are important things to keep ourselves from. Not because God wants to punish us but to protect us. Sexual immorality is grievous because it completely leads us away from God. I have been there and done that and I understand how it completely entraps the mind. It becomes idolatry and one’s heart becomes shut and unresponsive to God. The behavior is harmful and bad. Not necessarily the person. God is focused on protecting us from having to firsthand experience the consequences of these things. That’s why wisdom is often encouraged, by reading about all the people in the Bible who struggled and fell into sexual immorality and not following in the same path. Take for instance, Reuben - the firstborn of Jacob. He lost his firstborn right because he slept with Bilhah the handmaid of Jacob.. and he later was very remorseful about this and he had such a hard time forgiving himself for the rest of his life. The same thing with David, who was a man after God’s own heart. He was passionate about God, but he was entrapped by his desire. Everything else faded away and it’s like another nature takes over us, completely blocking out God until we fulfill that desire. David likewise had a very hard time forgiving himself. (This is what of the hardest lessons from it - not so much of the physical punishments but our conscience becomes guilty; it is impossible to undo and go back, and we all struggle with past regrets and offenses we have made against God and man. God does not want that for us). It’s an incredible testament of our human nature. We all can easily find ourselves entrapped by it. We are told to “flee fornication” as Joseph did when his master’s wife was trying to seduce him. It’s not necessarily that one sin is worse than the other. All of it leads down the same path and reaps harmful consequences. That’s why diseases result and unclean spirits find their way in. Relationships are destroyed as a result of it. Even people can lose their lives. I could give you many biblical examples if you would like.
@@BibleAlivePresentations - Over the course of my life I have been acquainted with several homosexuals, Not once did I tell any of them that were sinners but if they had asked me I would have told them. Non of them ever discussed their sex lives, that was their private business. But I do find gay parades offensive and teaching school children that hetero and homo sex are equivalent I consider subversive of society and the Natural order on which society is based.. You appear to think that natural law is a fairly modern concept, originating with Thomas Aquinas. Well where did Aquinas get the idea? He got it from the Arabs who in turn got it from the Greeks who in turn got it from the Ancient world. While it may not have been referred to as the Law of Nature we can find the principle in ancient law codes, including those in the Bible. It was a hedge against behaviour that caused harm to the individual or to society in general. The apostle Paul would be well aware of what he was talking about when he condemned homosexual acts as being against nature especially since he referred to the harmful consequences of such behaviour (Romans 1:27) Would Paul have understood the genetic influences that could cause people to be homosexual? There is no demonstrable genetic cause or tendency towards homosexual behaviour. Psychological or psychosomatic influences? That would be consciously or subconsciously learned or influenced behaviour and a perversion of the Natural. You claim that “Paul belonged to a very different cultural world than ours. Sexual acts and gender, the way we conceive of them, would be unimaginable to anyone from Paul’s time.” And - that Biblical references to “same sex coitus is scant, ambiguous and conditioned by culture alien to modern times.” Are you, who claims to be a Christian, saying that morals, sin, is culturally determined? So what about these Biblical references to “same sex coitus that are scant and ambiguous? The earliest is Sodom and Gomorrah and the intention of the Sodomites is quite unambiguous Genesis19:5-7 and in Leviticus 20:13 is says such behaviour is an “abomination.” And in Levitcus 18:22-24 Homosexuality is linked with bestiality and burning children as offerings to Molech. All this was apparently common practice among the Canaanites. Then in 2 Kings 23:7 we even find Sodomites (Temple prostitutes) in Solomon's temple. All condemned. So if you are going to claim that was all in a different time and culture what about bestiality, would that be ok? - and sacrificing children to Moloch, the god of wealth and prosperity - oops, we are already doing that, aren't we. The simple fact is that a “man lying with a man as with a woman” is said by God to be “an abomination,” it was then and it still is because God doesn't change Malachi 3:6. 1 Cor.6:9 Rev.21:27 You ask why the focus is on homosexuality while various other sins apparently more harmful are disregarded? The answer might lie in Paul's admonition to the Romans in ch.2:21-24 “Thou therefore - - - that preaches that a man should not steal, dost thou steal?” - and so on, talking about hypocrisy. These sins Paul mentions are what you might call “everyday sins,” sins which can overtake most people from time to time. But homo sexual sins are sins apart and so are easy to point the finger at without being accused of hypocrisy and so pointing the finger at homosexuals takes the focus away from our own sins. But there are no big sins and no small sins, sin is sin and the wages of sin is death. (Romans 6:23). Furthermore, being preoccupied with other people's sins and ignoring our own is contrary to Jesus' admonition in Luke 6:42. Come judgement day we will all be called to give account for our own sins and it will be no excuse to say that “his sins are worse than mine” (2 Corinthians 10:12) or to start arguing about what certain Greek words actually mean or how they apply to us in contemporary society. We are called to overcome our sins, not try and excuse them.
"Over the course of my life I have been acquainted with several homosexuals, Not once did I tell any of them that were sinners but if they had asked me I would have told them." How about lovable? Are they that as well? And what do you mean by "sinners" and "sin"? Define those terms, please. And your definitions of "sinners" and "sin"--is it distinct from the Biblical (ancient Israelite and Mediterranean) understanding of terms being translated into "sinner" and "sin"? Explain. " Non of them ever discussed their sex lives, that was their private business. But I do find gay parades offensive and teaching school children that hetero and homo sex are equivalent I consider subversive of society and the Natural order on which society is based.." Natural? Or cultural? Let's say natural. Do you think that a society that produces enough thermonuclear weapons to wipe out most if not all life on Earth is based on the "Natural order" and is not "subversive of society"? What about carbon footprints that indicate real and disastrous climate change sped up and is altering the world's biosphere against the "Natural order" and that definitely imperils society? "You appear to think that natural law is a fairly modern concept, originating with Thomas Aquinas." His lasting version of it traces to him and saying his thought has left an impact on Catholic doctrine and moral theology is an understatement. Other versions existed before and after, such as in the early 20th-century France, where the neo-Thomist movement stressed an intrinsicist, intellectualistic, and realistic understanding of natural law as the basis for moral theology as distinguished from the extrinsicist, voluntaristic, and nominalistic method of the older theology manuals. For these neo-Thomists the “good” is the primary ethical category. So something is commanded because it is good. This is a BIG change to the earlier view that something is good because it is commanded. So please, don't distort these DIFFERENT VERSIONS of "Natural Law Theory" as identical and static, handed down wholesale from the ancients. And no, Paul didn't have Thomas Aquinas or later neo-Thomists' ideas of Natural Law in mind. "Well where did Aquinas get the idea? He got it from the Arabs who in turn got it from the Greeks who in turn got it from the Ancient world. While it may not have been referred to as the Law of Nature we can find the principle in ancient law codes, including those in the Bible. It was a hedge against behaviour that caused harm to the individual or to society in general." Like eating bacon cheeseburgers? And usuary? Weaving together two different materials into one fabric? Excluding people from the community because they have Eczema? For all Mediterraneans of antiquity, like Artemidoros and Paul, the gendered self was essentially either male or female, each with nature-given, distinctive, gender-based social expectations (see Bruce Malina, The New Testament and Homosexuality, I & II): MALE = active = dominant by “nature” (i.e., custom) = controlling = penetrating = seed bearing = concern for family honor = honor symbolized by phallus = represents family to the outside world = like father like son FEMALE = passive = subordinate by “nature” (i.e., custom) = controlled = penetrated = seed receiving = concern for family shame = symbolized by hymen = represents family to the inside = like mother like daughter Inspiration does not happen outside of culture, and culture shapes what we CAN perceive, CAN think about, CAN interpret, CAN understand, and CAN communicate. That's why God -- Holy and Absolute Mystery -- looks so much like a Middle Eastern warlord so often in the Bible. Israelites were Mediterraneans, and the Israelite view is represented by Josephus: “for Scripture says: ‘A woman is inferior to her husband in all things’ [Genesis 3:16]. Let her, therefore, be obedient to him; not so, that he should abuse her, but that she may acknowledge her duty to her husband; for God has given the authority to the husband” (Against Apion 2.201). There is no term "nature" in Hebrew. We need to understand... 1) HOW ancient Mediterraneans understood "nature" and also how one subculture there, 2) HOW biblical Israel, understood "nature" to get what going CONTRARY to nature means. Let's explore that... "The apostle Paul would be well aware of what he was talking about when he condemned homosexual acts as being against nature especially since he referred to the harmful consequences of such behaviour (Romans 1:27)" We should keep in mind that for biblical Israel, same-gender sexual relations were ascribed to alien ethnic custom, alien popular custom, alien traditional convention, or some other group-specific social practice. Ancient Israel didn’t know it. It did not exist in their society and was therefore off-limits, out-of-bounds, forbidden as non-Israelite behavior. It was perceived as forever bound up with non-Israelite idolatry. Same-gender sexual relations to ancient Israelites, therefore, were perceived as a manifestation of idolatry, and for an Israelite to commit them, an act of apostasy (an abomination, see Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). SO, when it comes to reading the entire Bible looking for prescriptions regarding "homosexuality"… INCLUDING: -Two stories about sexual violence and violating male honor-don’t be inhospitable to strangers, as Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 and raping the Levite’s concubine in Judges 19). -Sanctioning that “[ISRAELITE] man must not lie with man” (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), which, in context, is about Israelite identity and maintenance of social boundaries and faithfulness to Yahweh. -Avoiding pederasty or the sexual exploitation of young men by older men, something those unjust SOB Gentiles do (1 Timothy 1:10). -Paul’s problem with the “contrary to Israelite CUSTOM” (physis) practice of pederasts forcing younger or lesser status males to assume shameful (i.e., passive and receptive, i.e., "feminine") body positions (Romans 1) …the evidence concerning male-male sexual relationships is too sparse, too ambiguous, and too conditioned by cultural perceptions and behavioral patterns too alien to our 21st-century times. Therefore, the Bible CANNOT give us an adequate basis for a contemporary ethic of homosexuality. The Bible is an ancient, Mediterranean library. That it is inspired does NOT change that. When we examine the gender constructs, sexual norms, and rationales involved in the six famous biblical passages IMAGINED by fundamentalists to be relevant to the issue of homosexuality, we need to see that they are inconsistent with current scientific data and thinking concerning gender, sexuality, sexual identity, sexual choice, and ethical practice of people today. Do you want to make a case FOR or AGAINST the morality of homosexuality? OKAY! Go for it. But the evidence for your argument must be found IN PLACES OTHER THAN THE BIBLE, including Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and those four other passages famously cited. But Genesis 19:5-7 clearly condemns homosexual deeds done by men!! And Romans 1:26 clearly refers to lesbians!!” Nothing clear about it. The Bible does not know ANYTHING about homosexuality, neither actions nor orientation.
As I was telling someone ignorant below, 1 Corinthians 6:1-11, Paul responds to a legal problem producing massive social ramifications for the Jesus group at Corinth. Believers took each other to Gentile courts of law, thereby presenting their cases to unjust judges in Paul’s view (6:1-8). But Paul says that these unjust outsiders have no part in the kingdom of God (6:9a). So then he illustrates unjust persons and behaviors (9b-10). Therefore his focus in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 is preservation and enhancement of the unity of the Jesus group. How? By settling or eliminating brotherly disputes INSIDE, away from those Gentile outsiders. For the sake of ethical consistency, look over all the terms in that list- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that unjust persons will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor malakoi, nor arsenokoitai, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. Assuming that malakoi and arsenokoitai mean what YOU want them to mean, how about the other entries on this vice list? Why place all the moral weight onto a dubious translation of the two obscure Greek words, meanwhile ignoring the other items of this Pauline vice-list? The culprit must be hypocrisy and ignorance. Bud, we desperately need consistency and constraint in interpreting this passage. There are terrible theological and ethical outcomes spawned by our disrespectful readings. And what exactly do the two obscure Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai, mean anyway? The terms malakoi and arsenokoitai occur nowhere else in 1 Corinthians and are unique to 1 Corinthians among the seven authentic Pauline letters. The latter term, arsenokoitai, appears in the Deutero-Pauline letter of 1 Timothy (1:9-10), never again in the New Testament, and only rarely thereafter. The former term, malakoi, appears only twice more in the New Testament (Matthew 11:8 / Luke 7:25) and thereafter, combined again with arsenokoitai, in a quotation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 contained in Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians (5:3). Given the rarity of this lexical combination in the Greek world generally, the lack of Pauline and biblical contexts for determining what Paul might have meant by the terms in 1 Corinthians is especially problematic. Thus it is hardly surprising that there is at present NO scholarly consensus concerning their meaning and significance in 1 Corinthians or concerning their relevance to the issue of homosexuality. A Comparison of Bible Translations of malakoi and arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9: Vulgate: neque molles neque masculorum concubitores Martin Luther: noch die Weichlinge noch die Knabenschänder Zürcher Bible: noch Lustknaben noch Knabenschänder KJV: nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind Goodspeed 1923: or sensual or given to unnatural vice Moffatt 1926: catamites, sodomites Bible de Jerusalem 1961: ni dépravés, ni gens de moeurs infames Jerusalem Bible 1966: catamites, sodomites New JB 1985: self-indulgent, sodomites Knox New Testament: the effeminate, the sinners against nature La Biblia 1990: ni los afeminados, ni los homosexuales La Sacra Biblia 1984: nè gli effeminati, nè i sodomiti NAB 1990: nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals NEB 1970: guilty of …homosexual perversion Nueva Biblia Espanola: invertidos, sodomitas RSV 1946: nor homosexuals RSV 1971: nor sexual perverts New RSV 1989: male prostitutes, sodomites Revised English Bible: sexual pervert TEV 1976: or homosexual perverts Weymouth New Testament: nor men guilty of unnatural crime Look at those disagreements in translations (i.e., interpretations)! “Every translation is an interpretation.” This is precisely because all language derives its meaning from social systems. No two cultures are identical in every respect. Hence even the very best translations are, in some way, betrayals. By accommodating a reader in one culture (e.g., 21st-century English-speakers), translators introduce concepts foreign to the cultural world of the texts they translate. Ultimately, translators misrepresent something the ancient author wrote. Hence the Italian proverb, “Traduttore, traditore.” Or “every translator is a traitor.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 offers us a “Judas Iscariot,” “Brutus,” or “Benedict Arnold” sized example of treacherous Biblical translation/interpretation. (Maybe it’s too soon to say “Donald Trump sized betrayal”?) Look at the disagrements in translations above. Should the two different Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai, be combined into the English “homosexuals”? That’s what the Revised Standard Version did. The translators rendered two Greek words into one English expression. But is that rendering accurate? By the way, that term “homosexual” (just like “heterosexual”) is of recent vintage, coined way after the Enlightenment and watershed event of the Industrial Revolution. We are talking late-1800s! The Good News Translation (formerly Today’s English Version) renders these two words into one expression, “homosexual perverts.” Why would that be the rendering? Are the translators distinguishing “homosexuals” from “perverse homosexuals”? How can the Bible, an ancient library, say anything about “homosexual” and “homosexuality” if both these terns are recent 19th-century conceptual constructs? Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, or any other ancient language, simply lacks counterparts to these concepts. In other words, far from being clear and evident about homosexuals and homosexuality, the Bible doesn’t know either. Ultimately, the Bible mentions nothing about them. Austrian-Hungarian Károly Mária Kertbeny coined the term “homosexual” in 1869. Decades later, it was introduced to the English-speaking world in the 1890s by Charles Gilbert Chaddock in his translation of the second edition of R. Krafft-Ebbing’s “Psychopathia Sexualis.” Following that, in 1892, “homosexual” was included in the Oxford English Dictionary.
@@BibleAlivePresentations - Do you really believe that because your superior failed to sanction two of your superiors who are "greedy thieves" but who apparently does sanction you because you are "Gay" that the Eternal will do the same on Judgement day? Paul says that none of these people will inherit the kingdom of God. Perhaps this is the root of your problem, you really believe that an Archbishop or the Pope can actually forgive the two thieves you mentioned but he won't forgive or indulge you. Well neither priest nor Pope can forgive sins, all unrepentant sinners will be held to account - and especially those who twist the scriptures in an attempt to justify others in their sins.
What clues about what we moderns call "sexual orientation" can be inferred from the pivotal values of high context societies?
Enlightening. Very much so.
Throughout history, and certainly now- so many want to impose their current cultural and personal biases onto theological texts, holy readings, and religious following. Acknowledging this in humility would go a long way in helping understand both their holy following, but also themselves, more deeply and truthfully. It's difficult (for everyone, I think) but worthy, in my opinion.
Amen! You put this succinctly and wonderfully. Respectfully reading the text while being aware of my personal baggage (cultural, historical, gender-bias, political, religious, economic, philosophical, etc) and carefully excluding it, as much as I can, takes a LOT of work, but is GREATLY beneficial to my own development as a human being and member of the human community. To read ancient sacred texts NON-VIOLENTLY is difficult, like all such important work is. But no pain, no gain, as they say at the gym, and that applies spiritually also.
Nothing wrong with sexual orientations
There is nothing wrong with sexual orientation or acting accordingly in relationships between consenting adults in our culture.
From where does sexual orientation come? It can be demonstrated that it didn't arrive on the scene until the 19th-century dawn of awareness of persons as subjective, psychological centers of awareness (i.e., as introspective individualists).
Attractions existed earlier, of course, as did same-sex attraction and same-sex conjugal activities. But sexual orientation, as we know it today (and take it for granted) is more complicated than that.
There is more to homosexuality than male-to-male coitus and female-to-female coitus. The hermeneutical constraint I encourage on the contemporary use of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 involves historical, social and cultural differences separating Paul’s society and cultural horizons from those of the modern, post- Enlightenment, western, industrialized world of most contemporary Bible readers.
What we term "homosexuality" describes a more or less permanent psychological state entailing the sexual orientation of individuals toward persons of the same biological gender. This was something new under the Sun, a 19th-century awareness: some persons were homosexual! Why is it new? It is because before that period all evidence indicates that persons were anti-introspective and not psychologically minded at all. Hence, if ancient persons were attracted to someone of the same gender, that same-gender sexual orientation would be attributed to some group-specific practice. In other words, ethnic custom, popular tradition, social convention, or some other collectivistic practice. This is the ancient world, folks. And this is the biblical world as well.
This is very different than our psychologically-minded culture. Ancients didn't distinguish between personal sexual “orientation" and human behavior. Ancients categorized people according to externals: gender, genealogy, geography, looks, and behavior. Notice: no internal states! Why? Because to ancients like Samuel, the only thing verifiable was the VISIBLE EXTERNAL. Anti-introspective, these people believed they COULDN'T look inside, at the interior. Only God or the gods could peer into the human heart.
So when you read an ancient "vice list", like the one in 1 Corinthians 6, none of the listed items refer to persons of a particular condition. Instead, they all are about EXTERNAL ACTS, culturally-specific "shameful behavior" (according to some ancients), something considered to be socially destructive. Ancient people like Paul who drew up vice lists believed the people committing these acts as agents capable of choosing between honorable and shameful modes of behavior. They believed preferences to be CHOICES of right and wrong behavior. This is not our view of "orientation." It would be unfair and stupid to look to Paul to tell me HOW I should be according to my "sexual orientation." How can Paul, or any ancient authority, give me a PRESCRIPTIVE about something he couldn't conceive?
Neither Paul nor any other biblical author-nor any author at all from antiquity!-had any term for, or concept of, what is defined today as a “homosexual.”
There is a COLOSSAL difference between ancient and modern “mentalities” concerning sexual relations and same-sex sexual relations. Ancient people HAD NO IDEA of the homosexual person. They couldn't conceive of someone who exclusively or predominantly attracted to others of the same sex. In fact, the ancients just assumed that human beings were attracted sexually to BOTH their own and the opposite sex! That means that ancient people, including Paul, didn't even have a behavior-based category for people who showed a fixed preference for partners of the same sex.
So, should the modern concept of "homosexuality" as an orientation (like we conceive of) EVER be read into Paul’s text or ANY ancient document? NEVER. Can we assume that Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 6:9 condemn all homosexual relations in all times and places and ways? ABSOLUTELY NOT. And Christians have done HORRENDOUS INJUSTICE to LGBTQ foks because of this.
The word homosexuality did not exist in the ancient world but man on man sex was condemned in the Torah. The Catholic church has homosexuality running rampant in it so he wants to say it never existed in the ancient world and was never condemned. That is a lie.
Short hair yes unless you took up the Nazarite vow. Then you didnt cut your hair, shave your face, not drink fermented drink or even eat meat.
Hahahahaha these guys have a new bible 😂😂😂😂😂
No; just the one you've been misreading read accurately.
It is a bad idea quoting academics regarding theology, they usually end up obscuring the issue. According to the pair you cited there was no concept of homo-sexual in the ancient world and so it is alleged that the men Paul was referring to were actually bi-sexual rather than homo-sexual. As a result you imply that since homo-sexual activity isn't mentioned in the Bible it is not a sin. The reality is that sexual perversity is precisely that - perversity and it is a sin as is made plain in both the Old and New Testaments. There is no way anyone can slither out of that.
"It is a bad idea quoting academics regarding theology, they usually end up obscuring the issue."
Says you, the non-scholar? That rule applies unless the academics tickle your ear supporting your a priori beliefs? Then, in that case, you'd be more generous with the Academy, I'm sure.
"According to the pair you cited there was no concept of homo-sexual in the ancient world and so it is alleged that the men Paul was referring to were actually bi-sexual rather than homo-sexual."
Please cite where they say that those Paul referred to were bisexual or of ANY sexual orientation.
Can you imagine traveling back to the first century Mediterranean world in a time machine and discussing homosexuality with Paul (or Jesus)? Let’s say you did that. Imagine yourself talking with Paul (or Jesus!) about 21st-century studies on the biological, psychological, and psychosomatic dimensions of sexuality and homosexuality.
Say that, in your conversation, you informed Paul about “X” and “Y” chromosomes and mentioned that possibly these invisible things called “genes” determine gender and sexual orientation. And imagine that also in your conversation, you distinguished sexual orientation from sexual conduct.
What would Paul (or Jesus) make of that? Along with anyone from his day, he would be clueless. This is because Paul (like Jesus) belonged to a very different cultural world than ours. Sexual acts and gender, the way we conceive of them, would be unimaginable to anyone from Paul’s time. They would be to them as would aluminum foil, laptop computers, and Disney World.
“But at least we could discuss Natural Law with Paul!” some might mistakenly believe. Don’t be anachronistic. That concept was also foreign to Paul’s world.
Natural Law theory begins way after biblical times. Whatever ethical consistency it has, that’s what informs the official Catholic position on homosexuals and so-called “disordered” natures. But the Bible? This ancient Mediterranean library doesn’t know any homosexuality or sexual orientations. Concerning same-sex coitus, biblical evidence is scant, ambiguous, and conditioned by culture alien to modern times. Consequently, Scripture cannot provide a foundation for any 21st-century ethic of homosexuality.
In other words, to form a case either for or against the morality of homosexuality goes beyond fundamentalism and Bible quotes. This is because the evidence must originate outside the Bible.
But that doesn’t stop fundamentalists (like yourself) relying on six scriptural passages often misused as used as proof-texts for the sinfulness of homosexual acts, or even homosexuality itself.
"As a result you imply that since homo-sexual activity isn't mentioned in the Bible it is not a sin. The reality is that sexual perversity is precisely that - perversity and it is a sin as is made plain in both the Old and New Testaments."
Plain? To your Western eyes? For Paul and others like him, two men having sex had to be done in a SHAMEFUL (to him and his culture) body position where one of the males becomes PASSIVE and RECEPTIVE. It was about HONOR and SHAME, not "OBJECTIVE MORALITY." Do we perceive and understand reality that way now?
"There is no way anyone can slither out of that."
So you demand me and those scholars I cite to be ethically consistent, do you? Well, expect us to demand the same of you then, chum!
In 1 Corinthians 6:1-11, Paul responds to a legal problem producing massive social ramifications for the Jesus group at Corinth. Believers took each other to Gentile courts of law, thereby presenting their cases to unjust judges in Paul’s view (6:1-8). But Paul says that these unjust outsiders have no part in the kingdom of God (6:9a). So then he illustrates unjust persons and behaviors (9b-10). Therefore his focus in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 is preservation and enhancement of the unity of the Jesus group. How? By settling or eliminating brotherly disputes INSIDE, away from those Gentile outsiders.
For the sake of ethical consistency, look over all the terms in that list-
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that unjust persons will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor malakoi, nor arsenokoitai, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Assuming that malakoi and arsenokoitai mean what YOU want them to mean, how about the other entries on this vice list? Why place all the moral weight onto a dubious translation of the two obscure Greek words, meanwhile ignoring the other items of this Pauline vice-list? The culprit must be hypocrisy and ignorance. Bud, we desperately need consistency and constraint in interpreting this passage. There are terrible theological and ethical outcomes spawned by our disrespectful readings.
What does an honest exploration of how this passage has been translated, read, interpreted, and ethically applied for 2,000 years reveal? Tragically, subjectivity and selectivity have been the guiding principles.
Basically, different readers experiencing various situations gave the vices in Paul’s list different gravities. Throughout Church history, things changed. Therefore, sometimes idolatry and greed were considered “mortal” sins, but not always. This continues into modern times. Not too long before the Age of Trump, many Christian groups understood adultery as grounds to bar someone from Communion or legal divorce (or annulment).
By the way, does ex-communication really work in 2020?
Consider that serial polygamist Donald Trump is hailed as God’s Chosen One by a frightful many U.S. Christians. Many “Bible-believing” churches permit divorced ministers to remain in ministry, despite Mark 10:2-12. I know of one in South Florida whose pastor is a bigamist and had his Columbian wife DEPORTED -- VIVA TRUMP! -- while he walks hands in with his Amer-I-can wife the very next week. Maybe there are good reasons not to Jesus’ understanding of marriage and divorce is entirely applicable to folks today? But then, wouldn’t that apply to other situations as well? We need ethical consistency, pal!
Meanwhile, hiding under a pro-life banner, U.S. bishops give veiled endorsements of a disgraced POTUS. Donald Trump is on tape celebrating his celebrity privilege allowing him to sexually harass and molest women. But vote “pro-life!”-where “pro-life” means a voting for a thief and a bully who cheats at everything. Someone who lies like the Niagara Falls pours water, a despicable narcissist with a horde of brainwashed idolizers.
How about that for ethical consistency?
Wage theft, whether moral or legal, is considered virtuous by many bishops and pastors. I have personally suffered from this crime against Jesus (you know, the Body to which you and I belong?). For seven years, I worked at a South Florida parish where a priest before stole millions. I guess this justified his replacement overworking and withholding just pay from myself and my coworkers, huh?
My next job was the first decent pay ever in my 21 years doing ministry work in South Florida. Right after my hire, the pastor, a real tyrant to his staff, got removed for stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from the community. Many of these priests “set up for failure” get transferred to some place remote, but that’s about all. Can you imagine if a lay employee did this? Where is the ethical consistency there?
How many Catholic dioceses exclude thieves and greedy priests? And hey, the Evangelicals need to shut up because they are in NO MORAL position to talk. Not too many on either side of the Tiber, by my count! Like when a pastor, unhappy with his life, takes advantage of his parish’s funds, cooks the books, and purchases an expensive home in which to live with his legal husband? We are talking for over a decade. Do you even know this is going on? It is!
Given all that, how curiously inconsistent we are when it comes to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and malakoi and arsenokoitai. We anachronistically misunderstand these terms as referring to “homosexuals” (male and female) engaging in same-sex sexual relations. But think about how few Christian denominations would permit such people engaging thus to remain ministers? Or to join a ministry?
Why is all the moral obsession and weight placed by so many Christians on the “evils” of homosexuality? There isn’t any biblical basis. What if it is merely personal dislike and fear? What if it’s just homophobia and bigotry? Where is the ethical consistency in that?
Add that to a theologically-justified delusion of super-morality powers fundamentalists believe they have. Like you do, right? With such a mix, whatever your pet peeve or phobia is, place all the weight there.
Should homosexuality really deserve this hyper-focus? Why are gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender persons ranked so high to so many U.S. Christians hateful agendas? It’s a complicated mess, and one without any biblical support. And the mess gets worse given our lack of ethical consistency, the lightness we treat the more apparent items on Paul’s vice-list.
If you attempt to discover any theological and ethical significance in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and the five other often-cited passages, you better weigh the vices equally! That’s what Paul did! Don’t you dare single out the obscure malakoi and arsenokoitai while ignoring the other unjust people Paul slams! Give all the vices listed equal importance.
Oh, what’s that I hear? You don’t want to exclude idolaters, thieves, drunks, robbers, and greedy folks (Donald Trump, Joe Biden)? Make allowances? Be forgiving? How Christian of you! But forgive me for demanding that you do the same for malakoi and arsenokoitai, regardless to whom those words ACTUALLY refer (hint: NOT LGBTQ persons as we understand them today).
@@BibleAlivePresentations I’m sorry but there are several other places which talk about sexual immorality which includes many different things like adultery, fornication, sodomy, perversion, looking upon “the nakedness” of your family members, etc. Why do you think Sodom and Gomorrah were overthrown? It was a warning to all of us to not follow in the same paths. Same with the angels who fell because of their lust and fornicated with women. In account of sexual immorality, the flood came upon the world. These are important things to keep ourselves from. Not because God wants to punish us but to protect us. Sexual immorality is grievous because it completely leads us away from God. I have been there and done that and I understand how it completely entraps the mind. It becomes idolatry and one’s heart becomes shut and unresponsive to God. The behavior is harmful and bad. Not necessarily the person. God is focused on protecting us from having to firsthand experience the consequences of these things. That’s why wisdom is often encouraged, by reading about all the people in the Bible who struggled and fell into sexual immorality and not following in the same path. Take for instance, Reuben - the firstborn of Jacob. He lost his firstborn right because he slept with Bilhah the handmaid of Jacob.. and he later was very remorseful about this and he had such a hard time forgiving himself for the rest of his life (even though God was merciful to him, it was still extremely difficult to forgive himself). The same thing with David, who was a man after God’s own heart. He was passionate about God, but he was entrapped by his desire. Everything else faded away and it’s like another nature takes over us, completely blocking out God until we fulfill that desire. David likewise had a very hard time forgiving himself. (This is what of the hardest lessons from it - not so much of the physical punishments but our conscience becomes guilty; it is impossible to undo and go back, and we all struggle with past regrets and offenses we have made against God and man. God does not want that for us).
It’s an incredible testament of our human nature. We all can easily find ourselves entrapped by it. We are told to “flee fornication” as Joseph did when his master’s wife was trying to seduce him. It’s not necessarily that one sin is worse than the other. All of it leads down the same path and reaps harmful consequences. That’s why diseases result and unclean spirits find their way in. Relationships are destroyed as a result of it. Even people can lose their lives. I could give you many biblical examples if you would like
@@BibleAlivePresentations I’m sorry but there are several other places which talk about sexual immorality which includes many different things like adultery, fornication, sodomy, perversion, looking upon “the nakedness” of your family members, etc. Why do you think Sodom and Gomorrah were overthrown? It was a warning to all of us to not follow in the same paths. Same with the angels who fell because of their lust and fornicated with women. In account of sexual immorality, the flood came upon the world. These are important things to keep ourselves from. Not because God wants to punish us but to protect us. Sexual immorality is grievous because it completely leads us away from God. I have been there and done that and I understand how it completely entraps the mind. It becomes idolatry and one’s heart becomes shut and unresponsive to God. The behavior is harmful and bad. Not necessarily the person. God is focused on protecting us from having to firsthand experience the consequences of these things. That’s why wisdom is often encouraged, by reading about all the people in the Bible who struggled and fell into sexual immorality and not following in the same path. Take for instance, Reuben - the firstborn of Jacob. He lost his firstborn right because he slept with Bilhah the handmaid of Jacob.. and he later was very remorseful about this and he had such a hard time forgiving himself for the rest of his life. The same thing with David, who was a man after God’s own heart. He was passionate about God, but he was entrapped by his desire. Everything else faded away and it’s like another nature takes over us, completely blocking out God until we fulfill that desire. David likewise had a very hard time forgiving himself. (This is what of the hardest lessons from it - not so much of the physical punishments but our conscience becomes guilty; it is impossible to undo and go back, and we all struggle with past regrets and offenses we have made against God and man. God does not want that for us).
It’s an incredible testament of our human nature. We all can easily find ourselves entrapped by it. We are told to “flee fornication” as Joseph did when his master’s wife was trying to seduce him. It’s not necessarily that one sin is worse than the other. All of it leads down the same path and reaps harmful consequences. That’s why diseases result and unclean spirits find their way in. Relationships are destroyed as a result of it. Even people can lose their lives. I could give you many biblical examples if you would like.
@@BibleAlivePresentations - Over the course of my life I have been acquainted with several homosexuals, Not once did I tell any of them that were sinners but if they had asked me I would have told them. Non of them ever discussed their sex lives, that was their private business. But I do find gay parades offensive and teaching school children that hetero and homo sex are equivalent I consider subversive of society and the Natural order on which society is based..
You appear to think that natural law is a fairly modern concept, originating with Thomas Aquinas. Well where did Aquinas get the idea? He got it from the Arabs who in turn got it from the Greeks who in turn got it from the Ancient world. While it may not have been referred to as the Law of Nature we can find the principle in ancient law codes, including those in the Bible. It was a hedge against behaviour that caused harm to the individual or to society in general. The apostle Paul would be well aware of what he was talking about when he condemned homosexual acts as being against nature especially since he referred to the harmful consequences of such behaviour (Romans 1:27)
Would Paul have understood the genetic influences that could cause people to be homosexual? There is no demonstrable genetic cause or tendency towards homosexual behaviour. Psychological or psychosomatic influences? That would be consciously or subconsciously learned or influenced behaviour and a perversion of the Natural.
You claim that “Paul belonged to a very different cultural world than ours. Sexual acts and gender, the way we conceive of them, would be unimaginable to anyone from Paul’s time.” And - that Biblical references to “same sex coitus is scant, ambiguous and conditioned by culture alien to modern times.” Are you, who claims to be a Christian, saying that morals, sin, is culturally determined?
So what about these Biblical references to “same sex coitus that are scant and ambiguous? The earliest is Sodom and Gomorrah and the intention of the Sodomites is quite unambiguous Genesis19:5-7 and in Leviticus 20:13 is says such behaviour is an “abomination.” And in Levitcus 18:22-24 Homosexuality is linked with bestiality and burning children as offerings to Molech. All this was apparently common practice among the Canaanites. Then in 2 Kings 23:7 we even find Sodomites (Temple prostitutes) in Solomon's temple. All condemned.
So if you are going to claim that was all in a different time and culture what about bestiality, would that be ok? - and sacrificing children to Moloch, the god of wealth and prosperity - oops, we are already doing that, aren't we. The simple fact is that a “man lying with a man as with a woman” is said by God to be “an abomination,” it was then and it still is because God doesn't change Malachi 3:6. 1 Cor.6:9 Rev.21:27
You ask why the focus is on homosexuality while various other sins apparently more harmful are disregarded? The answer might lie in Paul's admonition to the Romans in ch.2:21-24 “Thou therefore - - - that preaches that a man should not steal, dost thou steal?” - and so on, talking about hypocrisy. These sins Paul mentions are what you might call “everyday sins,” sins which can overtake most people from time to time. But homo sexual sins are sins apart and so are easy to point the finger at without being accused of hypocrisy and so pointing the finger at homosexuals takes the focus away from our own sins.
But there are no big sins and no small sins, sin is sin and the wages of sin is death. (Romans 6:23). Furthermore, being preoccupied with other people's sins and ignoring our own is contrary to Jesus' admonition in Luke 6:42. Come judgement day we will all be called to give account for our own sins and it will be no excuse to say that “his sins are worse than mine” (2 Corinthians 10:12) or to start arguing about what certain Greek words actually mean or how they apply to us in contemporary society.
We are called to overcome our sins, not try and excuse them.
"Over the course of my life I have been acquainted with several homosexuals, Not once did I tell any of them that were sinners but if they had asked me I would have told them."
How about lovable? Are they that as well? And what do you mean by "sinners" and "sin"? Define those terms, please. And your definitions of "sinners" and "sin"--is it distinct from the Biblical (ancient Israelite and Mediterranean) understanding of terms being translated into "sinner" and "sin"? Explain.
" Non of them ever discussed their sex lives, that was their private business. But I do find gay parades offensive and teaching school children that hetero and homo sex are equivalent I consider subversive of society and the Natural order on which society is based.."
Natural? Or cultural? Let's say natural. Do you think that a society that produces enough thermonuclear weapons to wipe out most if not all life on Earth is based on the "Natural order" and is not "subversive of society"? What about carbon footprints that indicate real and disastrous climate change sped up and is altering the world's biosphere against the "Natural order" and that definitely imperils society?
"You appear to think that natural law is a fairly modern concept, originating with Thomas Aquinas."
His lasting version of it traces to him and saying his thought has left an impact on Catholic doctrine and moral theology is an understatement. Other versions existed before and after, such as in the early 20th-century France, where the neo-Thomist movement stressed an intrinsicist, intellectualistic, and realistic understanding of natural law as the basis for moral theology as distinguished from the extrinsicist, voluntaristic, and nominalistic method of the older theology manuals. For these neo-Thomists the “good” is the primary ethical category. So something is commanded because it is good. This is a BIG change to the earlier view that something is good because it is commanded. So please, don't distort these DIFFERENT VERSIONS of "Natural Law Theory" as identical and static, handed down wholesale from the ancients. And no, Paul didn't have Thomas Aquinas or later neo-Thomists' ideas of Natural Law in mind.
"Well where did Aquinas get the idea? He got it from the Arabs who in turn got it from the Greeks who in turn got it from the Ancient world. While it may not have been referred to as the Law of Nature we can find the principle in ancient law codes, including those in the Bible. It was a hedge against behaviour that caused harm to the individual or to society in general."
Like eating bacon cheeseburgers? And usuary? Weaving together two different materials into one fabric? Excluding people from the community because they have Eczema?
For all Mediterraneans of antiquity, like Artemidoros and Paul, the gendered self was essentially either male or female, each with nature-given, distinctive, gender-based social expectations (see Bruce Malina, The New Testament and Homosexuality, I & II):
MALE = active = dominant by “nature” (i.e., custom) = controlling = penetrating = seed bearing = concern for family honor = honor symbolized by phallus = represents family to the outside world = like father like son
FEMALE = passive = subordinate by “nature” (i.e., custom) = controlled = penetrated = seed receiving = concern for family shame = symbolized by hymen = represents family to the inside = like mother like daughter
Inspiration does not happen outside of culture, and culture shapes what we CAN perceive, CAN think about, CAN interpret, CAN understand, and CAN communicate. That's why God -- Holy and Absolute Mystery -- looks so much like a Middle Eastern warlord so often in the Bible.
Israelites were Mediterraneans, and the Israelite view is represented by Josephus: “for Scripture says: ‘A woman is inferior to her husband in all things’ [Genesis 3:16]. Let her, therefore, be obedient to him; not so, that he should abuse her, but that she may acknowledge her duty to her husband; for God has given the authority to the husband” (Against Apion 2.201).
There is no term "nature" in Hebrew. We need to understand...
1) HOW ancient Mediterraneans understood "nature" and also how one subculture there,
2) HOW biblical Israel, understood "nature" to get what going CONTRARY to nature means. Let's explore that...
"The apostle Paul would be well aware of what he was talking about when he condemned homosexual acts as being against nature especially since he referred to the harmful consequences of such behaviour (Romans 1:27)"
We should keep in mind that for biblical Israel, same-gender sexual relations were ascribed to alien ethnic custom, alien popular custom, alien traditional convention, or some other group-specific social practice. Ancient Israel didn’t know it. It did not exist in their society and was therefore off-limits, out-of-bounds, forbidden as non-Israelite behavior. It was perceived as forever bound up with non-Israelite idolatry. Same-gender sexual relations to ancient Israelites, therefore, were perceived as a manifestation of idolatry, and for an Israelite to commit them, an act of apostasy (an abomination, see Leviticus 18:22; 20:13).
SO, when it comes to reading the entire Bible looking for prescriptions regarding "homosexuality"…
INCLUDING:
-Two stories about sexual violence and violating male honor-don’t be inhospitable to strangers, as Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 and raping the Levite’s concubine in Judges 19).
-Sanctioning that “[ISRAELITE] man must not lie with man” (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), which, in context, is about Israelite identity and maintenance of social boundaries and faithfulness to Yahweh.
-Avoiding pederasty or the sexual exploitation of young men by older men, something those unjust SOB Gentiles do (1 Timothy 1:10).
-Paul’s problem with the “contrary to Israelite CUSTOM” (physis) practice of pederasts forcing younger or lesser status males to assume shameful (i.e., passive and receptive, i.e., "feminine") body positions (Romans 1)
…the evidence concerning male-male sexual relationships is too sparse, too ambiguous, and too conditioned by cultural perceptions and behavioral patterns too alien to our 21st-century times. Therefore, the Bible CANNOT give us an adequate basis for a contemporary ethic of homosexuality.
The Bible is an ancient, Mediterranean library. That it is inspired does NOT change that. When we examine the gender constructs, sexual norms, and rationales involved in the six famous biblical passages IMAGINED by fundamentalists to be relevant to the issue of homosexuality, we need to see that they are inconsistent with current scientific data and thinking concerning gender, sexuality, sexual identity, sexual choice, and ethical practice of people today.
Do you want to make a case FOR or AGAINST the morality of homosexuality? OKAY! Go for it. But the evidence for your argument must be found IN PLACES OTHER THAN THE BIBLE, including Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and those four other passages famously cited.
But Genesis 19:5-7 clearly condemns homosexual deeds done by men!! And Romans 1:26 clearly refers to lesbians!!” Nothing clear about it. The Bible does not know ANYTHING about homosexuality, neither actions nor orientation.
1 Corinthians 6:9
What about 1 Corinthians 6:9? A prooftext without CONTEXT is a pretext.
As I was telling someone ignorant below, 1 Corinthians 6:1-11, Paul responds to a legal problem producing massive social ramifications for the Jesus group at Corinth. Believers took each other to Gentile courts of law, thereby presenting their cases to unjust judges in Paul’s view (6:1-8). But Paul says that these unjust outsiders have no part in the kingdom of God (6:9a). So then he illustrates unjust persons and behaviors (9b-10). Therefore his focus in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 is preservation and enhancement of the unity of the Jesus group. How? By settling or eliminating brotherly disputes INSIDE, away from those Gentile outsiders.
For the sake of ethical consistency, look over all the terms in that list-
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that unjust persons will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor malakoi, nor arsenokoitai, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Assuming that malakoi and arsenokoitai mean what YOU want them to mean, how about the other entries on this vice list? Why place all the moral weight onto a dubious translation of the two obscure Greek words, meanwhile ignoring the other items of this Pauline vice-list? The culprit must be hypocrisy and ignorance. Bud, we desperately need consistency and constraint in interpreting this passage. There are terrible theological and ethical outcomes spawned by our disrespectful readings.
And what exactly do the two obscure Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai, mean anyway?
The terms malakoi and arsenokoitai occur nowhere else in 1 Corinthians and are unique to 1 Corinthians among the seven authentic Pauline letters. The latter term, arsenokoitai, appears in the Deutero-Pauline letter of 1 Timothy (1:9-10), never again in the New Testament, and only rarely thereafter.
The former term, malakoi, appears only twice more in the New Testament (Matthew 11:8 / Luke 7:25) and thereafter, combined again with arsenokoitai, in a quotation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 contained in Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians (5:3).
Given the rarity of this lexical combination in the Greek world generally, the lack of Pauline and biblical contexts for determining what Paul might have meant by the terms in 1 Corinthians is especially problematic. Thus it is hardly surprising that there is at present NO scholarly consensus concerning their meaning and significance in 1 Corinthians or concerning their relevance to the issue of homosexuality.
A Comparison of Bible Translations of malakoi and arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9:
Vulgate:
neque molles neque masculorum concubitores
Martin Luther:
noch die Weichlinge noch die Knabenschänder
Zürcher Bible:
noch Lustknaben noch Knabenschänder
KJV:
nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind
Goodspeed 1923:
or sensual or given to unnatural vice
Moffatt 1926:
catamites, sodomites
Bible de Jerusalem 1961:
ni dépravés, ni gens de moeurs infames
Jerusalem Bible 1966:
catamites, sodomites
New JB 1985:
self-indulgent, sodomites
Knox New Testament:
the effeminate, the sinners against nature
La Biblia 1990:
ni los afeminados, ni los homosexuales
La Sacra Biblia 1984:
nè gli effeminati, nè i sodomiti
NAB 1990:
nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals
NEB 1970:
guilty of …homosexual perversion
Nueva Biblia Espanola:
invertidos, sodomitas
RSV 1946:
nor homosexuals
RSV 1971:
nor sexual perverts
New RSV 1989:
male prostitutes, sodomites
Revised English Bible:
sexual pervert
TEV 1976:
or homosexual perverts
Weymouth New Testament:
nor men guilty of unnatural crime
Look at those disagreements in translations (i.e., interpretations)! “Every translation is an interpretation.” This is precisely because all language derives its meaning from social systems. No two cultures are identical in every respect. Hence even the very best translations are, in some way, betrayals. By accommodating a reader in one culture (e.g., 21st-century English-speakers), translators introduce concepts foreign to the cultural world of the texts they translate. Ultimately, translators misrepresent something the ancient author wrote.
Hence the Italian proverb, “Traduttore, traditore.” Or “every translator is a traitor.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 offers us a “Judas Iscariot,” “Brutus,” or “Benedict Arnold” sized example of treacherous Biblical translation/interpretation. (Maybe it’s too soon to say “Donald Trump sized betrayal”?)
Look at the disagrements in translations above. Should the two different Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai, be combined into the English “homosexuals”? That’s what the Revised Standard Version did. The translators rendered two Greek words into one English expression. But is that rendering accurate? By the way, that term “homosexual” (just like “heterosexual”) is of recent vintage, coined way after the Enlightenment and watershed event of the Industrial Revolution. We are talking late-1800s!
The Good News Translation (formerly Today’s English Version) renders these two words into one expression, “homosexual perverts.” Why would that be the rendering? Are the translators distinguishing “homosexuals” from “perverse homosexuals”?
How can the Bible, an ancient library, say anything about “homosexual” and “homosexuality” if both these terns are recent 19th-century conceptual constructs? Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, or any other ancient language, simply lacks counterparts to these concepts. In other words, far from being clear and evident about homosexuals and homosexuality, the Bible doesn’t know either. Ultimately, the Bible mentions nothing about them.
Austrian-Hungarian Károly Mária Kertbeny coined the term “homosexual” in 1869. Decades later, it was introduced to the English-speaking world in the 1890s by Charles Gilbert Chaddock in his translation of the second edition of R. Krafft-Ebbing’s “Psychopathia Sexualis.” Following that, in 1892, “homosexual” was included in the Oxford English Dictionary.
@@BibleAlivePresentations - Do you really believe that because your superior failed to sanction two of your superiors who are "greedy thieves" but who apparently does sanction you because you are "Gay" that the Eternal will do the same on Judgement day? Paul says that none of these people will inherit the kingdom of God.
Perhaps this is the root of your problem, you really believe that an Archbishop or the Pope can actually forgive the two thieves you mentioned but he won't forgive or indulge you. Well neither priest nor Pope can forgive sins, all unrepentant sinners will be held to account - and especially those who twist the scriptures in an attempt to justify others in their sins.
Na
Ya.
How often the maxim is proven true--
"If it gets me pissed, I must dismiss!"