GeorgeW

When homosexuality is condemned in Paul’s letters, it refers to Graeco-Roman pederasty and male prostitution..

Rivanna, Do any of the authentic Pauline letters condemn homosexual behavior? Or, is this like the strong sexism expressed in letters written in Paul's name, but not by Paul?

George

Perhaps entertaining notions of gender help people relate to such a God though and makes it more meaningful to them - much like Bishop Spong's analogy of if ever horses think of God, they probably think of a God who looks like a horse.

Paul,

A problem with Bishop Spong's analogy is that not all humans have, or still do, think of God as having human form. Animists, as an example, found God in non-human forms (rocks, trees, etc.). So, if he had said "if some horses think . . ." he would be on firmer ground.

George

FWIW, I am convinced that the Jews in biblical times thought of god in anthropomorphic terms and as male. God is often portrayed in male/masculine roles: father, warrior, king, etc. However, I don't think we are obligated to continue to think in these terms.

George

The book talks about the Shekinah or Sophia as the Wisdom of God being feminine.

Yvonne,

I have no problem, or worthwhile thoughts, about the idea of "Divine Feminine."

However, I think too much is made of the feminine gender of Greek sophia and Hebrew hokmah 'wisdom' (and the same for ru'ach 'spirit') Hebrew has only masculine and feminine genders which, unlike English, are just grammatical and do not signal the sex of the noun. Although Greek does have a neuter gender, I understand that Greek gender does not correspond to the sex of the object (e.g., a door is feminine and a wall masculine).

When an English speaker hears or reads 'she' we instinctively think female in a biological sense (or metaphorically). When a Hebrew or Greek speaking person hears the same, there is no biological association made.

George

The Soviet Union was virulently anti-gay, and virulently anti-religion at the same time.

And, Red China (although I don't know about the virulence).

George

Pete,

I am not suggesting that homophobia is not promoted by some churches, actively. What I am proposing is the underlying motivation for homophobia is not religious. One need not be religious to be homophobic. And, there are many religious people who are not.

Churches that promote this attitude are using a divine authority to appeal to a basic, underlying prejudice. Some churches did the same thing about slavery and racism. They didn't, IMO, cause people to be racist, they just gave an authoritative justification. But, at the same time, there were churches and religious people fighting against it. So, racism is not a religiously motivated attitude.

George

Rather, it doubts that the sexual categories we create reflect our innate essence. In the view of queer theory, sexual categories are seen as adopted identities. For instance, in our American cultural-linguistic framework, we have this idea of "coming out," but in Ancient Greece, the idea of a homosexual identity was absent. There was no concept of "homosexuality" to "come out" about.

Clearly, there is identity associated with homosexuality, as with most things human. But, if you are suggesting there is no basic biological difference between straight and gay, I think this is wrong. Are you suggesting that all men feel an equal attraction to other men and women?

George

At the risk of repeating myself from previous discussions that some may not have engaged in, I don't think we can blame homophobia on religion.

Any good theory should account for all and only the data. But the proposition that religion causes homophobia cannot be supported. There are devoutly religious people who are not homophobes and there are secular people who are homophobes. Therefore, religion cannot be the cause.

However, religion is sometimes used as a rationale to give our underlying prejudices divine authority.

George

I know of no one who would choose that as an "option" for their lives. But appearantly their are still numerous denominations who believe it is something that can be changed. Very sad.

Brian,

Hypothetically, what if they are right that one could change, so what? Why should homosexuals be compelled to change.

I think making the argument based on innateness is the wrong path to take. If innateness were the test, we would be obligated to accept any behavior with a genetic basis. Are willing to do that? What about pedophilia? Psychopaths?

Instead, I think what we should ask is, who is harmed? Why should benign practices someone else engages in be my concern?

George

I am curious to know what you (who have been engaging in this conversation) think about the origins of orientation and programs (like the ex-gay movement) designed to change peope, or make them straight.

Destructive, harmful, none of my business. Why should I insist on someone changing their orientation?

George

That is one of the popular progressive interpretations.

 

There cannot be "homosexuals" before the linguistic category existed. If you mean "innate same-sex attraction" by the word "homosexuality," then I would agree. However, the construct of homosexuality extends beyond mere innate attraction.

I did mean "innate same-sex attraction." What "extended" concept do you mean?

George

 

Neither God nor anyone else has condemned them to this consequence they choose it freely, because they spent their lives choosing it freely here and now.

Brian,

This 'free will' concept is one that I have difficulty with and has been litigated here from time to time.

George

I have no reason to think that there were no homosexual men in ancient Greece and Israel although probably not acknowledged as a natural orientation. I also have no reason not to think that same-sex relations were disapproved of in those societies. This is not a hang-up limited to Jews and Christians.

But, that was then and this is now.

George

First of all, let me apologize for not realizing Greek text turns into gibberish on the forums. Secondly, I insinuated that classic translations, such as the NIV, err when they translate "arsenokoites" as "homosexuals."

I found one instance in a word search of the NIV; 1 Tim 10, "for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine."

The Early Christian Reader translates this as "sodomites" then has a footnote that says, "or male homosexuals, the Gk word used here is found only here and 1 Cor. 6:10 in our literature; it is also used in Polycarp To the Philipeans 5:3."

I would not have chosen this word as the concept of sexual orientation didn't exist at that time. However, I think a reasonable argument in an idiomatic translation could be made as this was condemning same-sex practices (not orientation). Whether they should have been banned is another issue altogether (I think not).

Is 'homosexual' used in The Voice translation?

George

Most people are not well versed enough to realize that "αρσενοκοιτης" translated as "homosexuals" is highly improper. [...] "sexuality" and "homosexuality" are modernist-linguistic constructs . . .

John,

I am not clear on your point. The idea of sexual orientation is a modern concept. Are you saying that this translation uses the word "homosexual?" And, if so, in what context?

George

Paul,

Good thoughts, thanks.

George

Linda, welcome to the forum. I applaud your efforts to reach out to those who may feel alienated. Also,I hope you will hang around awhile and contribute to the discussions.

George

I think my beliefs and way of life have to, in some sense and at some level, go back to Jesus (or the best information we have about him), not to Moses, or to Joshua, or to Paul. Of course, I realize that Jesus was also a product of his own religion and culture.

FWIW, Wright in The Evolution of God attributes the idea of universal love more to Paul than Jesus. He says that Jesus' concept was more limited to Jews where Paul had a broader horizon.

George

I have no objection to anyone recommending any film or music and I do support this section. I just found the title potentially restricting, but without definition. And, honestly, I don't think we need a formal definition. Most participants (at least the ones who stay around) generally exercise reasonable judgement.

Presumably, something like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" would not be appropriate by any reasonable measure. (So, I wasn't planning to recommend it although it may meet my personal aesthetic standard. )

George

Speaking of films that deliver light-hearted romantic comedy with an inspiring, almost visionary theme--

my husband and I both thoroughly enjoyed “Salmon Fishing in the Yemen.” Surprisingly good.

We saw it last night and liked it as well. But, I have particularly fond feelings for Yemen and Yemenis. At least one scene was definitely filmed in Yemen (the initial visit in the village) and a number of others could well have been (the dam scenes).

However, I am not sure what constitutes a PC movie. Happy ending? Uplifting message? Great scenery? Great music?

George

And that is what I can't, but am curious to, understand. What in human thought is going on in that?

Scott Atran ("In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion") says, "Religious sacrifices are not only designed to materially costly, they also aim to be emotionally arousing. Blood, especially human blood, is optimal for sacrifice on both accounts."

George

Guapo,

I also would be interested if you believe the Bible is the single, exclusive written revelation of God. If so, I would be interested in precisely which version and language you think is the correct revelation and why. And, I would be interested in how you proved other religious texts (like the Qur'an or Book of Mormon) to be false.

As Dutch suggested, these issues would be best kept in separate threads so as to maintain focus.

This could provoke some interesting discussion. Are you open to other's views?

George

There are many things. I can get into the occult and I can even get into the authority of Scripture with historical & scientific evidence, and even with personal evidence. It just depends, are you really going to listen to what I have to say or not? I don't want to write everything to you, and then you just ignore it. I'm not trying to be rude, I just need to know if you actually want to listen or if you just want to mock me.

(it would have to be a separate topic as to avoid spam)

I will listen and I will not "mock" you. But, I reserve the right to question any claims and to disagree.

Also, unless I missed it, you have not yet introduced yourself in the appropriate thread.

George

My point was that the PC, while seeking unity with other religions, would also prefer the Muslim for instance to loosen up their grip on their literal interpretation of their text, dogma's, and creeds... So maybe the ideal would be a pluralistic embracing of "progressives" of all religions.

Eric,

While it is probably true that there are more progressive Christians than progressive Muslims, they do exist. In fact, there is a book titled "Progressive Muslims" (Omid Safi, Editor) which is a compilation of essays written by 16 different Muslim writers addrssing "justice, gender and pluralism." In many of the essays, one could easily substitute Christian and it would comfortably fit the context.

George

Guapo,

You cite biblical verses to support your points. This assumes the divine inspiration of these texts. I would be interested to know how you went about determining that these particular texts are divinely inspired and therefore authoritative.

George