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
Seven Flawed Arguments
Leviticus 18:22
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...
- sfgiantsfanmike
September 11, 2008 7:57AM
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.
Please read Leviticus 18:3, 21-22 & 20:2-5, 13, 23
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
- Rick Brentlinger
September 11, 2008 3:18PM
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.
18:3
"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
- sfgiantsfanmike
September 12, 2008 3:55AM
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.
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.