Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
There has been no shortage of controversy as gay people assume increased roles as parents and married couples in our society, but almost nowhere has this conflict been more intense than in the church. Many religious leaders have condemned homosexuality, calling it a sin or even an abomination, but for millions of gay people around the world, there is nothing inherently sinful about their sexual preferences.
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
18:3
It matters who is being addressed
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
- Rick Brentlinger
September 12, 2008 7:54AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Romans 1?
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.
- sfgiantsfanmike
September 12, 2008 8:29AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How we determine what scripture means
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.
- Rick Brentlinger
September 12, 2008 10:44AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Anti-Gay?
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!!
- Martin
September 14, 2008 9:07PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What do we do in relationship?
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 . . .
- Martin
September 14, 2008 9:08PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Interpretation of Scripture
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
September 14, 2008 9:10PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Here's the real problem for the Yes side
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.
- Rick Brentlinger
September 14, 2008 9:54PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thanks for your response
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
September 17, 2008 7:33PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Shrine prostitution in Rome
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.
- Rick Brentlinger
September 17, 2008 9:26PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Additional Sources
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
- Rick Brentlinger
September 18, 2008 10:48AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So now the bible changes...?
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.
- aerie September 18, 2009 5:12AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.