Seven Flawed Arguments
Is homosexuality a sin?
Those who answer Yes employ seven flawed arguments.
1. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. This argument says God will only bless marriages exactly like Adam and Eve, although God never makes that assertion in the Bible. For example, only two chapters after Adam and Eve, we discover a polygamous marriage in Genesis 4:19, on man with two women.[1]
2. Genesis 19 proves that God destroyed Sodom for the sin of homosexuality. This argument collapses when we notice that although the Bible mentions Sodom 48 times, it never mentions homosexuality in the context of any of those 48 verses.[2]
3. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 prove that God hates the sin of homosexuality. This argument ignores the context of "thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind." The context is shrine prostitution in worship of Molech and Ashtoreth, his fertility goddess consort, Leviticus 18:3, 21-22; 20:2, 3, 4, 5, 13. [3]
4. Matthew 19:3-12 proves that God only accepts male-female marriage relationships. This argument ignores a clearly stated exception for eunuchs, to Jesus' teaching, which He makes in vs. 11-12. Jesus lists three classes of eunuchs who cannot receive His teaching about Adam and Eve marriage. The first class He mentions is 'born eunuchs,' individuals born anatomically whole, who have not been physically castrated but who are not inclined toward heterosexual marriage. [4]
5. Romans 1:26-27 proves that God prohibits all homosexual relationships. This argument ignores the historical and religious context in which Roman Christians received Paul's letter. The issue for Paul and for God was prohibiting Christians from engaging in fertility goddess worship, (Cybele), not prohibiting committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships. [5]
6. 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 prove that homosexuals cannot go to heaven. This argument ignores the fact that the words malakoi and arsenokoites were never used in the first century, with the primary or exclusive meaning of homosexual. Even anti-gay scholars like Dr. Gordon Fee admit that malakoi and arsenokoites were rarely if ever used to mean homosexual in the first century. [6]
7. Jude 7 proves that God destroyed Sodom because of homosexuality. This argument dies a well-deserved death when we point out that the Greek word for "strange" flesh is heteros, from which we get our English word heterosexual. Jude says the fleshly sin committed by the men of Sodom was heterosexual sin.
Had Jude or God intended us to believe that homosexuality was the sin of Sodom, they would have used the Greek word homoios, from which we get our English word homosexual. If homoios had been used, that would have been our textual clue that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality.
To answer the question then, No, homosexuality is definitely not a sin.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
When Sex itself is not a sin, how then homosexuality is sin. If it is sin, all sorts of sexual acts be called sin. Who has defined, invented and decided about sins? The socalled orthodox, pillars of society, who are busy cheating and exploiting them in every way under the garb of religion. All fanatism. Sex is essentially a personal matter and nonone has right to proclaim it as fair or unfair. If somebody does not like it they can remain aloof from it, but never indulge in mud slinging on homosexuality. It is not , it will not be a sin.
If you believe in sin itself, then you also have to believe the same book when it says that homosexual acts are sins as well. Its all or none, not both.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
The exception to being joined in a union that is blessed by God (as referred to in Mark 10:5-9 or Matthew 19:4-6) is not an exception about the type of union but about remaining single. There are three classes of people who it is better for them not to marry (enter a union blessed by God). It simply means being single. There is no inclusion for those who are not inclined as you define - toward heterosexual marriage.
"11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Your point(7) about Jude 7 has been answered in another post by another post-er, strange flesh is a statement about relationships with angelic beings. So I won't elaborate about it.
Your arguments seem well thought out and I appreciate the depth to which you've gone to illustrate them. However, you've missed using Scripture as a whole, in it's appropriate context.
God is very clear about marriage, and I've made the due change in my life. I've listened to a lot of what society as a whole today deems as truth, but it doesn't mean that society is correct.
However, God is a good God, he has given anyone the opportunity to decide for himself/herself.
If I can choose no longer to be a homosexual, ask God for forgiveness of sin and am now entered in a marriage relationship - anyone can with God's guidance.
I've only tackled some of your arguments, since I've noted that other post-ers have rebutted your other arguments.
God bless.
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Scripture as we know it - is only scripture because the whole book (all 66 chapters) flow together in a common theme. Therefore, topics that talk about man and woman and man and woman being the exclusive partnership that God blesses (marriage) are crucial. I'm sorry to see that you've not mentioned it(Mark 10:6-9) in your Seven Flawed Arguments. It may be that you cannot explain the matter, or that it doesn't flow with your interpretation of what you feel Scripture is saying.
Scripture is clear here, what God has joined let no man separate. Now you may rightfully say that the context in which Jesus elaborates is a context of a discussion of adultery. (see Mark 10:2-4)
"2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3"What did Moses command you?" he replied. 4They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
However, it is within the context of speaking of adultery that we understand what God has put together. God has put together man and woman, this is the pure blessing of God.
I quote "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. This argument says God will only bless marriages exactly like Adam and Eve, although God never makes that assertion in the Bible. For example, only two chapters after Adam and Eve, we discover a polygamous marriage in Genesis 4:19, on man with two women."
However this assertion is not correct. He makes that assertion in Mark 10:6-9. Also, just because a listing is in the Bible does not authenticate itself because it is listed, nor because it appears to be blessed. What do I mean?
God created man and woman to be the perfect union, and when we read about the union with the man and two women, it does not say that God blessed that union. We do know that this happened after sin entered into the world and was not the joining that God entitled for humans (see Mark 10:7). Therefore, just because you have a listed (correctly as it's mentioned in the Bible) a union between man and two women, doesn't mean it's authenticated by the Bible.
Your statement about (4) Matthew 19:3-12 is also quite incorrect. Why so?
First, Jesus doesn't make an exception for heterosexual marriage. Jesus only replies to his disciples assertion in verse 10 that it is better not to marry. Jesus doesn't say it is better not to marry a woman but instead a man. Actually, there are no contradictions to marriage between a man and a woman, only Jesus' response to his disciples. His response details why it's better not to marry.
Second, you are right about three classes of eunuchs, but understand this - that a eunuch is one who has sexual organs removed (castration). And note the three classes, one born without sexual organs v.12, and one made that way by men (or humans) and finally one who has renounced marriage or become a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven(for ministry or the work of the clergy). There is no mention about exceptions for the case of homosexuality here, it appears to be your own interpretation.
Start with verse one of that chapter, where are temples mentioned? Maybe it's meaning is hidden in the hebrew, but in English it is not mentioned.
God is taking that chapter/time to address how we should not behave sexually, and then specifically mentions men laying with men... HELLO! If this was football, that would be a telegraphed pass...
George Rawlinson, 1812-1902, in History of Phoenicia, written in 1889, describes Molech as a god worshiped by the Canaanites and Phoenicians. Here is Rawlinson's description of shrine prostitutes.
“At the head of the Pantheon stood a god and a goddess, Baal (Molech) and Ashtoreth... As Baal was the embodiment of the generative principle in nature, so was Ashtoreth of the receptive and productive principle. She was the great nature goddess, the Magna Mater, regent of the stars, queen of heaven, giver of life, and source of woman's fecundity...
[Canaanite religion was notable for] the prevalence of licentious orgies [involving shrine prostitutes] and of human sacrifice... Early rabbis describe the image of Moloch as a human figure with a bull's head and outstretched arms; and the account which they give is confirmed by what Diodorus relates of the Carthaginian Kronos...
“‘In the worship of Astarte [Ashtoreth, the ancient Canaanite fertility goddess]
prostitution of women, and of effeminate men [shrine prostitutes], played the same part that child murder did in the worship of Baal...
[Pagan worshipers believed] no service more acceptable could be rendered a deity than that of unchastity... Thus lust itself became a service of the gods...’
One fruit of this system was the extraordinary institution of the Galli. [Rawlinson equates the Galli [shrine prostitutes] with the KJV’s ‘sodomites’ - the ‘qedesha’ of the Hebrew text.]
The Galli were men, who made themselves as much like women as they could, and offered themselves for purposes of unnatural lust [unnatural in the sense of not procreative] to either sex [shrine prostitutes]. Their existence may be traced in Israel and Judah, [I Kings 14:24, 15:12] as well as in Syria and Phœnicia.
At great festivals, under the influence of strong excitement, amid the din of flutes and drums and wild songs, a number of the male devotees would snatch up swords or knives, which lay ready for the purpose, throw off their garments, and coming forward with a loud shout, proceed to castrate themselves openly...
They joined with the priests and the sacred women at festival times in frenzied dances and other wild orgies, shouting, and cutting themselves [much like the prophets of Baal in I Kings 18:19, 28] on the arms, and submitting to be flogged one by another...”
(from George Rawlinson, History of Phoenicia, 1889, Chapter XI.)
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html
"According to the doing of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, you shall not do; and according to the doings of the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you, you shall not do, nor shall you walk in their ordinances."*
I see where you are coming from when it comes to context, yet you forgot verse 4: "You shall observe My judgements and keep My ordinances, to walk in them: I am the LORD (YHWH) your God."* This then lets us know we are not to walk in the ways of the world (Egypt, Canaan), but in His ways. That changes the context.
I understand and knew about those practices, that they were destructive and the reason that the Canaanites were being purged (vomited) out of their land as well as the reason Egypt has never returned to the prominence it once had as the strongest nation; however, God specifically tells us to obey Him over the world, and what is the world telling us is okay now a days? Engage in sexual practices that would make the Canaanites blush and homosexuality. There is nothing new under the sun.
*Verses are from New King James Version
Leviticus addressed a particular historical and religious situation. That is why Leviticus is addressed to the children of Israel living under the Law.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Leviticus.html
1. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 1:2
2. “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying...” Lev 4:2
3. “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying...” Lev 11:2
4. “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying...” Lev 12:2
5. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 15:2
6. “Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 17:2
7. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 18:2
8. “Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 19:2
9. “Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel...” Lev 20:2
10. “Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron...” Lev 21:1
11. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 23:2
12. “Command the children of Israel...” Lev 24:2
13. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 25:2
14. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 27:2.
Remember Romans 6:14 -
"You are not under the law but under grace..."
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Torah-Observance.html
Okay, first I want to say that you're bringing up good points and I respect that. If I'm coming off the wrong way (especially looking back at the HELLO comment), I appologize. I get a little to emphatic at times when disscussing the scriptures.
Okay, so we're supposed to consider you is being addressed, so what about Romans 1? In verse 7 Paul states that he is addressing the saints, at least all the saints in Rome. Then in versus 18 to 32 he gives a long discourse on the "degeneration" of men who reject God. He calls men with men "shameful" and women leaving the natural use of the man. In this section he has nothing nice to say about the acts, and he is not addressing temples in the context but men in general.
It seems we may be destined to disagree, yet I feel it is worth while to hear your thoughts.
Before we can determine what scripture means for us today, we must understand what it meant for the people to whom it was originally given back then.
In plainer words, what scripture means today is limited by what it meant back then.
Scripture cannot mean NOW what it did not mean THEN.
Whatever meaning we assign to Paul's words has to have been a probable understanding in the first century.
There are three areas which help us understand what Paul meant back then.
1. The historical context. First century Rome was an idolatrous culture with hundreds of temples to pagan gods and goddesses. One fertility goddess in particular was Cybele, known as the Protectress of Rome.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1.html
2. The religious context. The most prominent goddess figure in first century Rome was Cybele, the Phrygian fertility goddess. Five worship sites honored her in Rome at the time Paul wrote Romans.
Roman coins bearing Cybele's likeness were inscribed with the words, Mater Deum, Mother of the gods.
Cybele was worshiped by castrated Galli priests who offered themselves sexually to male worshipers.
This is what Paul describes in Romans 1, citing the Old Testament experience of Jews who had rebelled against God and practiced fertility goddess worship.
3. The way Christians back then understood Paul's words in Romans 1.
Aristides, preaching before the Roman Emperor Hadrian, AD 126, linked Paul's words in Romans 1 to shrine prostitution.
Justin Martyr, preaching around AD 150, linked Paul's words in Romans 1 to shrine prostitution.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-And-Shrine-Prostitution.html
To read Romans 1 today and say scripture is condemning a committed, faithful, non-cultic lesbian or gay partnership is to give the text a new meaning which was unknown to the original readers.
And if it was unknown to the original readers, then that interpretation cannot be true because:
Scripture cannot mean NOW what it did not mean THEN.
You said Scripture cannot mean NOW what it did not mean THEN. This is a true statement. However, Scripture can have a different application then it did back then. You seem to be very concerned with the cultural context of cult prostitution in ancient Rome. And you seem to define "idolatry" in a very narrow sense. But Paul does not do this. Go on to Romans 1:28 when he begins to describe all manner of idolatry (which is simply worshipping anything besides creator God--today this could include worship of another person, worship of self, worship of money, worship of television, etc.):
"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them" (ESV).
So, is Paul still only talking about cult prostitutes here? He seems to be talking about everyone. I am thinking about the times I have envied, or gossiped, or was disobedient to my parents. The question I am asking is: why would Paul have switched so rapidly from talking about a specific group of people to talking about everyone?
First and foremost, we must understand what Paul was trying to say with his words. What was the author intended meaning. This is primary. It is strongly related to how the original audience would have understood Paul's letter, but they are not the same thing. You seem to have given precedence to the cultural context of the passage over and above the context of the passage in the letter itself. Both are equally important. I would argue that placing a passage within the context of its surrounding passages, within the context of the letter itself, and within the context of the Bible as a whole is first and foremost in biblical interpretation. Cultural context is our aide along the way, but if our findings do not fit the context of the surrounding passages, then we need to go back to the drawing board and reassess what Paul was trying to say.
What do you think?
Martin wrote: "However, Scripture can have a different application then it did back then."
Again, bending the bible to whatever point you are trying to make. One of the main Christian delusions is that God is the same past, present, future. The Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end. And now you're gonna say that it can have a different "application" now? How twisted of you.
Do you believe in a literal interpretation or not??
It's lunacy. It's emotionalism, indoctrination, lies. It's dangerous because it enforces delusion thinking on those of us who choose rational thinking.
Martin-
I think much of what you've said is reasonable and I agree with much of what you've said.
I see Paul's argument in Romans 1-3 as entirely unrelated to lesbianism or homosexuality. The same sex activity Paul mentions is in the context of idolatry (therefore he is referencing shrine prostitution) because his argument is about idolatry.
His argument is not about lesbian and gay committed partnerships. Those aren't even the issue. Paul makes absolutely no comment in Romans 1:26-27 or I Corinthians 6:9 or I Timothy 1:10 about committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships.
Romans 1:28-32 simply continues Paul's recitation of the effects of idolatry. I do not believe the sole context of Romans 1 is shrine prostitution. The context is idolatry and shrine prostitution is one of the results of idolatry.
Idolatry caused people to reject God's truth, worship idols, engage in shrine prostitution in worship of the fertility goddess. Some idolaters also commit the sins in Paul's vice list, vs. 28-31.
Here's the real problem.
Exegesis = the historical meaning of the text. What did the text mean to the people to whom it was given?
Hermeneutics = the current meaning of the text. What does the text mean to us today?
1. The Ex-Gay industry gets the exegesis wrong by insisting that Paul intended to prohibit committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships (as if those were a major problem in Rome and just HAD to be addressed).
2. The Ex-Gay industry then gets the hermeneutics wrong by insisting that Romans 1:26-27 condemns and prohibits committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships today.
The false teaching of the Ex-Gay movement has caused years of self-hatred, confusion and spiritual self-flagellation among gays and lesbians who buy into their false teaching.
Hi Rick,
Thanks for responding. I would highly recommend Craig Keener's IVP Bible Backgrounds commentary on the New Testament for anyone who wants to look into the cultural context of specific passages. It is highly accessible and a great resource.
Also, hermeneutics is not the "current meaning of the text." It is the method of biblical interpretation. Exegesis is the process of biblical interpretation.
You are right when you say that Romans 1-3 has nothing to do with homosexuality or lesbianism. These identities simply did not exist when Paul wrote his letter. The word "homosexual" and "lesbian" did not come into common usage until the 20th century. As far as the bible is concerned there are two types of sexuality, healthy and unhealthy (often called sexual immorality, perversion, etc.)
If we cannot agree on the particular cultural reference of 1:26-28, maybe we can agree on this: Paul was a Jew. The Jewish tradition at that time had little to no toleration for sexual interaction between two men or two woman. If you need references (and I am not just talking Old Testament, but Mishnad and Talmud), I'll find them for you.
So, again, if we are trying to determine Paul's intended meaning for this verse, and we see that he is giving an all-inclusive account in Romans 1-3 ("we are all sinners"), why would he have stopped to address a specific cultural practice, especially when he knew that much of his audience, other Jews, would have already had a negative view of same-sex sex? Furthermore, if he wanted to forbid cult prostitution in Romans 1:26-28, why wouldn't he have used specific language like Deut. 23:17: "None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, and none of the sons of Israel shall be a cult prostitute?" Paul surely knew the Jewish Scriptures by heart.
You seem to have reiterated your same points in the last post. Do you have any other evidence then simply that shrine prostitution was happening in Rome in the 1st century? Do you also acknowledge that men were having sex with men outside of pagan rituals? Do you acknowledge that pederasty was a common occurence in Rome in the 1st century?
So, after all of this, my question remains, how is your intepretation more logical? It is only based on an inference and one that does not seem likely.
This is not about self-flagellation. This is about honestly dealing with the biblical text.
Martin asked:
"Do you have any other evidence then simply that shrine prostitution was happening in Rome in the 1st century...
It is only based on an inference and one that does not seem likely. "
See also, Oswalt, John N., "The Old Testament and Homosexuality" in Charles W. Keysor, ed., What Your Should Know About Homosexuality, (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 1979), 65f.
"In Rome homosexuality was one of the official functions of the male cult prostitute - as in Canaan."
For a more detailed view, read:
http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/paulcybl.html #ii
Se also, Homosexuality & Civilization, 2006, by Louis Crompton, p. 41. Crompton states that the cult of Cybele was introduced into Rome during the Punic War in 204 BC.
See also, Ancient Mystery Cults, by Walter Burkert and Sacred Sexuality, by Mann and Lyle and Women's Life in Greece and Rome, by Mary R. Lefkowitz, 2005.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Cult-Prostitutes.html
Hi Rick,
Thanks for the response. The reason I continue to focus on Romans 1:26-28 is because it is the most blantantly problematic for your position. Unfortunately, I must say that you have simply found many ways to repeat the same evidence you have already given but in different ways. Simply put, you believe that Romans 1:26-28 is talking specifically about shrine prostitution. I believe this position to be untenable based especially upon the context of Romans itself, the context of chapters 1-3, and the cultural context of the passage itself. You did not answer my questions about homosexuality in Rome outside of shrine prostitution or about the common practice of pederasty.
Your arguments represent inductive reasoning in its worst form. You say that because there were pagan temples in Rome (which is your only evidence, you have just found 6 different ways of saying it), and because homosexual sex occurred there, Paul must have been talking about shrine prostitution in vv 1:26-28. Simply put this is poor and sloppy logic.
You have leveled claims of eisegesis (reading your own position into the biblical text) against those who believe homosexual action to be a sin (see Rick's most recent objection to the Exodus post about God's intention for sexuality). I believe that you are guilty of eisegesis in this instance and your repetition of the same evidence proves my point.
For anyone actually interested in the cultural context of this passage, specifically the fact that Paul wrote as a Jew and wrote with a reconcilliatory tone between Jews and Gentiles, I would urge you to read Rabbi Dr. Nachum Amsel's brilliant paper on Homosexuality in Orthodox Judaism.
http://www.lookstein.org/resources/homosexuality_amsel.pdf
While he brings in modern Jewish ideas about homosexuality, his insights into the Torah, Mishnah, and Talmud will be very helpful for anyone searching for Truth on this topic. Please remember that Paul, the man who wrote the Epistle to the Romans, was a Jew. The best place to start when trying to determine Paul's intention in writing this passage is to look at what Jews said about the topic prior to Paul writing Romans.
I look forward to your response.
Martin wrote:
"Simply put, you believe that Romans 1:26-28 is talking specifically about shrine prostitution. I believe this position to be untenable based especially upon the context of Romans itself"
Okay Martin but you have presented no facts to support your disagreement with shrine prostitution as the specific context of Romans 1. You have merely stated your opinion that Paul is not addressing shrine prostitution and your opinion about context.
ON THE OTHER HAND...
I have given you reference after reference, from Aristides and Justin Martyr who lived within 100 years of the writing of Romans to Philo the Jewish philosopher (Paul's contemporary) to modern scholars like Merrill F. Under (who held two earned doctorates) who assert that shrine prostitution WAS the issue in first century Rome.
I also listed other scholarly books which point out that Rome was rife with shrine prostitution.
The Link to Jeramy's website gives additional information which I have not listed on my website or in this discussion.
It would be profitable for you to read, Paul and the goddess Religions, at this Link, paying careful attention to the footnotes:
http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/paulcybl.html
In the face of all that, you appear to assert the traditional anti-gay position that Paul was NOT addressing the cultural, historical and religious situation in first century Rome but instead intended to lambast same sex committed partnerships between two women or two men.
Just for the record, I am vitally interested in the cultural context of Romans.
You seem intent on arguing about context without presenting anything but your opinion in support of your argument.
I have read Rabbi Amsel's brief paper and find it unpersuasive.
Rabbi Amsel fails to note that none of the 38 mentions of Sodom in the Old Testament mentions homosexuality. If the Torah (the first five books of Moses) and Talmud (Jewish commentary on the first five books of Moses) are as anti-homosexual as Dr. Amsel asserts, surely one of the human authors of scripture would have blasted homosexuality when writing about Sodom yet none of them did that.
A much better treatment of the Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 passages is Rabbi Jacob Milgrom's 3000 page commentary on Leviticus, part of the Anchor Bible Commentary Series.
Dr. Milgrom asserts that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 applied only to Jews and resident aliens living IN the land of Israel, thus the threat to expel them for violating the Levitical commands. Milgrom further asserts that the Levitical prohibitions did not apply to anyone living outside the land of Israel.
Dr. Milgrom links Molech worship and sexual aberrations.
"The prohibition against offering chld sacrifices to Molek... adds a new rationale for eschewing Canaanite practices. The Canaanites were expelled from the land for polluting it not only by their sexual aberrations but also by their Molek worship." - p. 1551 (Leviticus 17-22, Anchor Bible Commentary)
"Schwartz... suggests that Molek worship was included among prohibited sexual unions because both were labeled toebot 'abominations' for which the expulsion of the Canaanites did, and the Israelites would, take place, (vv. 25-28). - p. 1559
"Furthermore, elsewhere the H legist uses the verb zana 'whore' in describing Molek worship (20:5)... thereby associating it with a sexual offense..." - p. 1559
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Cult-Prostitutes.html
Therefore, God did not expel the Egyptians from Egypt or the Romans from Rome or the Grecians from Greece for violating Lev 18:22 and 20:13.
Martin wrote:
"The best place to start when trying to determine Paul's intention in writing this passage [Romans 1] is to look at what Jews said about the topic prior to Paul writing Romans."
Excellent point Martin - I agree with you wholeheartedly about that.
Which raises four interesting questions for you:
1. Why did no human author of the Old Testament link Sodom and homosexuality?
2. Why does no Old Testament passage speak negatively about lesbian partnerships?
3. Since no Old Testament passage speaks negatively about lesbian partnerships, how could Paul be expressing a strongly felt and deeply held Jewish anti-lesbian viewpoint in Romans 1:26?
3. Since every Old Testament passage alleged to deal with homosexuality actually deals with shrine prostitution, what FACTS inform your view that Paul is not dealing with shrine prostitution but is dealing with committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships?
Nice work Rick. I appreciate your ability to argue and to do it well. Jeremy Townsley's article was enlightening to say the least.
My point in the last post was that shrine prostitution was one issue among many in Rome. Your evidence all points to this one fact: shrine prostitution was taking place in first century Rome. I don't think that any honest biblical interpreter would disagree with you here, but thanks for all the historical references and scholars you have used to support your position.
You read too much of your own presuppositions into my post and once again went into your "anti-gay rhetoric." I am not "anti-gay" nor have I ever been. I'd prefer if in the future you did not resort to this type of "straw man argument." It makes debate really difficult. If you feel I have done this to you, please let me know.
My evidence (which I had already mentioned): pederasty in Rome, homosexual sex outside of pagan temples in Rome, Jewish oral tradition (Mishnah and Talmud) pointing to an interpretation of Torah that defines homosexual sex as a sin. Can you please contend with these issues?
Or maybe I'll take another tactic. For argument's sake, lets just say that you and Townsley are right. Let's say that Paul specifically had cult prostitution in mind when he wrote about homosexual sex in Romans 1. The issue again is homosexual sex, not homosexuality. I am talking about an action, not an identity or state of being.
So, the question remains: how do we apply this teaching today? Is anal sex OK? Is oral sex OK? When you say committed, same sex relationships, are you talking about sexual or non-sexual relationships? When two men are having sex, what is sinful and what is not sinful? Or is any of it sinful? Is anal sex OK in the context of a committed relationship? Is oral sex OK in the context of a committed relationship? Is mutual masturbation OK in the context of a committed relationship?
Can you define what we are talking about? You and I seem to be talking about different things. I am not trying to prove that Paul ever condemned committed same sex partnerships. This would be outside of the cultural context. Here I believe you have "straw-manned" my position as well. Rather I am arguing that he depicts homosexual sex (anal sex, oral sex, mutual masturbation between two men or two woman) as sinful. This is the issue. Again, I am not talking about committed same sex partnerships. If they are non-sexual same sex partnerships, I see no problem with them whatsoever.
I look forward to your response.
Okay, we agree on the fact that shrine prostitution WAS taking place in first century Rome. As you point out, any honest Biblical interpreter would agree on that fact.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1.html
We also agree that pederasty and same sex activity outside Roman temples was taking place in Rome.
So how do we honestly decide what Paul (and God) intended us to conclude from Romans 1:26-27?
----------------------------------------------
I. Keep in mind that Paul links the sexual behavior of females in Romans 1:26 to the sexual behavior of males in Romans 1:27 by saying (likewise also the men...). Whatever Paul is talking about, both females and males were engaging in the same behavior.
II. Keep in mind that Paul links the behavior he mentions to his idolatry argument. The point of Romans 1 is idolatry and forsaking the true God. Whatever Paul is talking about involves rejecting God, worshiping idols and idolatry.
III. Keep in mind that Paul's beliefs as a Jew are rooted in the Old Testament. Whatever Paul is talking about is prohibited behavior based on what the Old Testament actually says.
----------------------------------------------
Now we are in a position to evaluate the possible interpretations and make a decision informed by the facts.
***** Question 1 - PEDERASTY *****
Is Paul talking about pederasty (the Greek practice of an older man having a sexual relationship with a younger man)?
No. Because Paul links female sexual practice in Romans 1:26 with equivalent male sexual practice in 1:27 (likewise also the men...), whatever is going on must be typical of both females and males in the first century.
Since history is generally silent about female pederasty in first century Rome, we may safely conclude that pederasty is not what Paul is talking about in Romans 1:26-27.
***** Question 2 - HOMOSEXUALITY IN GENERAL *****
Is Paul talking about homosexuality in general? Did Paul intend to convey to his readers that same sex activity between two women or two men, even in committed, faithful, non-cultic partnership, is wrong and places the same sex partners under the wrath of God?
No. Paul's beliefs as a Jew are rooted in the Old Testament and the OT never proscribes lesbian, sexually intimate, same sex partnerships. If Paul is talking about same sex sexual activity in general, his analogy breaks down (likewise also the men...) and does not fit with his argument about rejecting God and practicing idolatry.
***** Question 3 - SHRINE PROSTITUTION *****
Is Paul talking about a particular kind of same sex sexual activity which he and God intended to prohibit?
Yes. There is one kind of same sex sexual activity which occurred in first century Rome that meets all the criteria, that is, anal sex in worship of the fertility goddess.
a. The behavior Paul mentions must be something both women and men were doing. Female and male devotees of the fertility goddess allowed themselves to be used for anal sex as part of their pagan worship.
This meets the criterion of Paul's "likewise also the men..." which equates the sexual activity both women and men were engaging in.
b. The behavior Paul mentions must involve rejecting the true God and must involve some form of pagan idolatry which is the point of Paul's argument in Romans 1.
This meets the criterion of rejecting God and practicing idolatry which all devotees of fertility goddess worship engaged in.
c. The behavior Paul prohibits must be behavior prohibited in the Old Testament. Shrine prostitution is prohibited in the Old Testament, for women and for men.
"There shall be no cult prostitute among the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a cult prostitute (a sodomite) among the sons of Israel." - Deuteronomy 23:17, The Amplified Bible.
Therefore cult prostitution or shrine prostitution is the example Paul intended to describe and proscribe in Romans 1:26-27.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Molech.html
Martin asked:
"why would he [Paul] have stopped to address a specific cultural practice, especially when he knew that much of his audience, other Jews, would have already had a negative view of same-sex sex?
Furthermore, if he wanted to forbid cult prostitution in Romans 1:26-28, why wouldn't he have used specific language..."
* * * * * * * * * *
Paul alludes to shrine prostitution by citing its practice without using the precise phrase "shrine prostitution."
How Do We Know This?
1. Because there were 5 worship sites in first century Rome dedicated to Cybele, the Mater Deum,
2. because Cybele's main temple loomed atop the Palatine Hill, clearly visible to the crowds who thronged the Circus Maximus,
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1.html
3. because first century Rome boasted hundreds of pagan temples including temples dedicated to other fertility goddesses,
4. because these facts were so well-known to the Christians who received Paul's epistle to the Romans,
5. because first century Christians were intimately familiar, as we are not, with the religious situation in Rome,
6. because undoubtedly some of the Roman Christians got saved out of the pagan religious cults including the cult of Cybele,
Paul therefore warns them against the sexual practices which undergirded fertility goddess worship.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-And-Shrine-Prostitution.html
* * * * * * * * * *
Martin asked:
"Do you have any other evidence then simply that shrine prostitution was happening in Rome in the 1st century...
It is only based on an inference and one that does not seem likely. "
* * * * * * * * * *
The leading antigay apologist of our time, Dr. Robert Gagnon, cites Philo, 20 BC-AD 50, to support his assertion that male cult prostitutes (shrine prostitutes) were well known to first century Jews, although, in Gagnon’s opinion Paul did not primarily have shrine prostitution in mind, in Romans 1.
“The existence of male (same sex) cult prostitutes was well known to Jews of the period, [first century AD] as Philo’s comments testify..."
Robert Gagnon, The Bible And Homosexual Practice, p. 105.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1-And-Homosexuality.html
Merrill F. Unger, in Unger's Bible Dictionary, p. 1035, tells us:
"The sodomites were not inhabitants of Sodom nor their descendants, but men consecrated to the unnatural vice of Sodom (Gen 19:5; comp. Rom 1:27) as a religious rite..."
Dr. Unger believed that Paul in Romans 1:27 was referring to shrine prostitution.
But what do we do in relationship? How do we treat our loved ones? People mess up in biblical interpretation when they either try to remove New Testament requirements of obedience or they once again put back on the "yoke of slavery" (the law) that they have been freed from. The fact is that true relationship demands love. Loving someone is wanting what's best for the person you love. What father or mother in their right minds, would want their child to do anything that would harm them?
I often here people quote out of context Matthew 7 about not judging others. People respond indignantly when anyone challenges their beliefs or their choice of lifestyles and simply say, "didn't Jesus say not to judge." Well actually, in Matthew 7:5, Jesus tells us to judge our brothers and sisters in Christ. What he is condemning is hypocrisy, not judging. In other words, he is condemning being "judgmental," not judging your brother or sister in Christ. Read the passage. It says, "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." In other words, if you have taken the time to examine yourself and to deal with your own sin, you can then, and only then, more on to judging a brother or sister in Christ for their sin issues.
But this must be done in love? Speak the truth in love and so on and so forth . . .
First off, let me say thank you for your thoughtful comments. I can see that you have really looked into this issue. I have read the article on Romans and Shine Prostitution and found it to be well-argued. Although, I am a little bothered by the use of the term anti-gay. I have read portions of Gagnon's book and he, like yourself, struggled with this issue. Early on in the book, he writes about his heartfelt struggle.
When someone argues that homosexual practice is a sin, this does not make them anti-homosexual, or anti-anything. I have desperately struggled with this issue personally and for the sake of others. I would never characterize myself as anti-gay. As I grow closer to Jesus, I feel more and more his love for all people well up inside of me. I wish the church as a whole weren't homophobic. I wish I didn't have to hear people around me, most of whom are Christians, use "gay" and other words I won't mention, as derogatory comments. (When I am feeling bold, I gently correct them.) Sometimes I don't want to call myself a Christian because this associates me with some of the people who have incited hate-mongering against homosexuals. My heart aches over this struggle because I have personally been affected by it and I have met many others who have felt these affects as well.
In the sending of his only son, Jesus Christ, God offered all people a saving relationship with himself. This is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant: "I will bless you and make you a great nation and through you all people will be blessed". In this fulfillment, the people of God became all those who accepted, believed in, and followed the one whom God sent, Jesus Christ. In the Mosaic or Sinai covenant, Israel was required to obey the Mosaic law in order to receive salvation. But in Christ, the people of God, all people, Jew and Gentile, were freed from the law and now received salvation through the grace of Jesus Christ by faith.
So, to put it briefly, in Christ, God has removed the contractual obligation of the law and has offered a relationship. This never ceases to amaze me!! He wants to be in relationship with me!!