LUconn wrote:you forgot posting on ff at 4:30 in the morning. I'm interested to hear your disagreements. I'll post the quote:
"Many of the same passages of Scripture that condemn adultery as abominable also condemn homosexuality. Anyone who is even slightly familiar with Torah or the Book of Romans would have to admit that both activities are regarded as sinful. Jesus, a first-century Rabbi, would have also held this belief."
Ok, now that I'm at work and that I've done the most immediate actions that need to be done lets get to the basics. The Torah also codemns playing football (because you're touching pigskin), eating shrimp and wearing clothes of mixed fabric. Jesus came, and by his death, burial and resurrection has freed us from the law.
As for the Book of Romans, first let me be clear, I am by no means an expert on the culture of the Ancient Roman empire, or the culture of the Middle East as a part of the Ancient Roman empire. I never studied Greek, Latin, Hebrew or Aramaic. I was also never a theology major, my undergrad was in Communications with a concentration in Print Journalism and my master's is in Business Administration with a concentration in International Business. However, I generally agree with the following taken from this site:
http://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php
Prooftext #2: Idols and Consequences (Romans 1:18-32)
Of all the prooftexts, this is the longest and most complex. In the first chapter of his letter to the Romans, Paul talks about a group of people who "knew God" but "neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him." Their hearts are darkened, and they begin worshipping idols. As a direct result of this idol worship, they begin engaging in homosexual behaviors (which they previously were not doing). Ultimately, they become depraved and God gives them over to a whole list of sins.
Most Traditionalists read this passage as referring to all humanity, with the idol worship used as a metaphor rather than a specific event. In their reading of the passage, Paul is essentially saying, "People (in general) have turned from God (represented by idol worship) and as a result, have become sinful (including homosexuality)." I don't think the language of the passage quite supports that interpretation, however.
Paul begins by talking about all of humanity, to be sure, but he quickly moves to a specific example as a demonstration of humanity's fallenness. The specific example is one his Roman readers would be immediately familiar with: the fertility cults in Rome, where men and women engaged in sexual orgies that included both heterosexual and homosexual sex rites. Remember, Paul wants a vivid example of fallenness for his audience, something they can all nod their heads in agreement with, because he's getting ready to turn the tables on them in the next chapter. In ancient Rome, "homosexuality" as a general phenomenon wouldn't have been the vivid illustration he was looking for (unlike today, when many conservative pastors use it for just that). [3] Roman fertility cults, however, were a great example that served his purpose nicely and required no explanation to his readers.
Notice that Paul talks about homosexuality in connection with the fertility rites (look for the "therefore" in v. 24 and "because of this" in v. 26), and not in the list of sins at the end of the passage. This is our clue that Paul isn't bringing it up as "another example of sinful behavior." Why, then, does Paul make such a big deal about the homosexual aspect of these rites? For two reasons: 1) to highlight the "unnaturalness" of turning from God; and 2) to describe the rites in the most unappealing way he can think of, to unify everyone in saying, "Yes! How disgustingly immoral!"
Now let there be no mistake; Paul has nothing positive to say about homosexuality in this passage. Clearly he views it as a bad thing, or at the very least, a "shameful" and "unnatural" thing. We must recognize that. At the same time, we must also recognize that homosexuality is not the point of this passage, even though some Christians today try to use it that way. It's mentioned for a specific reason in connection with specific acts that were familiar to his audience.
So this passage speaks negatively of homosexual behavior, but on the other hand, it does so in a context which is clearly sinful. Paul does say homosexuality is "shameful" and "unnatural," but he says the same thing (using the same Greek words) about men with long hair in 1 Corinthians 11:14, and we generally consider that to be cultural. Is this a prohibition for all time, or is it a matter of context, like with the tax collectors? Based on what we've seen so far, it's tough to say. I wouldn't put too much faith in either reading without something a lot more concrete to back it up.
I think, when looking at the book of Romans and other letters written by Paul, it is important to look at the cultural context and to who he was writing to, what it was about at that time and why it was written. There is Scripture where Paul says women should be quiet in the church, and again there is a debate over the cultural context of this. One side says there was a group of women in one particular church that were chattering and Paul was telling them to be quiet, another side says women should not be pastors, and some on that side take it to the extreme and say women should not have any leadership roles in the church at all. Back then, it is important to note that a committed sexual relationship was an exception to the rule, not the norm, and there is no evidence - that I'm aware of, anway (again I'm not an expert) - to indicate the idea of gay marriage existed.
Finally, I would like to state that I prayed for years for God to take away my attraction to members of the same sex. I was never molested and had plenty of hugs as a child from both my mother and father. There were nights I'd cry silently in my room, begging for it to be gone. This continued at LU throughout most of my undergrad, even while I dated women, who would eventually end it b/c they could sense I wasn't attracted to them in the romantic sense. I went to Pastor Dane for counseling my junior year, and again my last year of grad school. I was told there was no "cure," just to not act on it. However, I have a hard time believing that God would give someone a desire for something (a companion), and not give them the tools needed for a heterosexual marriage (i.e. opposite-sex attraction) and call anything else sin. Do I believe that there are people called to celibacy? Yes...and I believe they are those people who are content with being single, at least most of the time.
However, I do know that since I have come to terms with the fact that I am attracted to the same-sex, that God is ok with it, I have been in much better physical and emotional health. Like Brandon, I learned to like and love me. Which is good, b/c my boyfriend also likes and loves me
Ok, back to work...
- By Dalegarz1