Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Here's an interesting article on homosexuality and biblical scholarship


  • Please log in to reply
202 replies to this topic

#16 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,516 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 08:49 AM

So if the bible only speaks against effeminate men, is it okay for me to fug a dude? If I grew out my beard a bit and drank some whiskey no one would consider me effeminate, so I should be in the clear


Jesus kinda looks like a bear in all those paintings too.

I think you're on to something.

#17 TbTeRRoR

TbTeRRoR

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 494 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:27 AM

So you think according to the bible these people who you classify as effeminate and not gay will not find the kingdom of heaven beacause they are mearly soft? I'm pretty sure the bible's definition isn't if the can can sing like a woman and has a high pitched voice and isn't masculine then he cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. Being meek and the bibles implication of the greek word meaning soft ones are two different things.
Prince is a good example. I concede but despite that-



Romans 1:26-27



26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Is this not a clear reference to homosexuality?


#18 Gazi

Gazi

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,798 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:33 AM

So you think according to the bible these people who you classify as effeminate and not gay will not find the kingdom of heaven beacause they are mearly soft? I'm pretty sure the bible's definition isn't if the can can sing like a woman and has a high pitched voice and isn't masculine then he cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. Being meek and the bibles implication of the greek word meaning soft ones are two different things.
Prince is a good example. I concede but despite that-



Romans 1:26-27



26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Is this not a clear reference to homosexuality?


Sounds like it applies to heterosexual women having gay sex and not homosexual women or men (who get no mentions here). No reference to homosexuality

#19 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,341 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:38 AM

So you think according to the bible these people who you classify as effeminate and not gay will not find the kingdom of heaven beacause they are mearly soft? I'm pretty sure the bible's definition isn't if the can can sing like a woman and has a high pitched voice and isn't masculine then he cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. Being meek and the bibles implication of the greek word meaning soft ones are two different things.
Prince is a good example. I concede but despite that-



Romans 1:26-27



26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Is this not a clear reference to homosexuality?


did you read the article?

Proposition 6: The one passage in the New Testament that almost certainly does refer to homosexuality is based on some highly debatable presuppositions about its nature and causes.  
        The passage in question is Romans 1:26–27. Earlier in this chapter, the author is talking about idolatry, the worship of false gods. Then, beginning in verse 24, he talks about the results of idolatry. Verses 24 and 25 identify the results of idolatry as lust, impurity, and the degrading of one’s body. Then, verses 26 and 27 spell out in more detail the nature of this lust, impurity, and bodily degradation as follows (New Revised Standard Version):

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Following verses 26 and 27, the remainder of the chapter lists some of the other results of idolatry, and the list is rather similar to the catalogues in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 and 1 Timothy 1:8–11. In other words, homosexuality is but one among other types of unacceptable behaviors.  
        What must be emphasized, then, is that the passage, taken as a whole, is not about homosexuality. It is about idolatry. The only reason it mentions homosexuality at all is because the author assumes that it is a result of willful idolatry. Knowing full well that there is one true God, people nevertheless freely choose to worship false gods. As punishment for this idolatry, God “gives them up” to homosexual activity. Thus, in a sense, homosexuality is not so much a sin as it is a punishment for sin. This should mean, however, that no monotheist would ever take part in homosexual activity—no practicing Jew or Christian or Muslim. Only worshippers of false gods would engage in such activity. This was a fairly common assumption within first-century Judaism, and it is one of the dubious presuppositions that underlie Romans 1:26–27. Clearly, however, it is not consistent with what we can observe in the world around us.
        The passage also makes at least two other assumptions that point to its essential irrelevance so far as modern discussions of homosexuality are concerned. First, it assumes that homosexuality is somehow “unnatural”—contrary to nature—or a better translation would be “beyond what is natural.” In other words, it isn’t just unusual for people to engage in homosexual activity. It is abnormal; it “goes beyond” that which is natural. According to the American Psychological Association, however, “most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive, and biological factors.”10 Moreover, psychologists tend to be extremely cautious about using such categories as “natural” and “unnatural,” “normal” and “abnormal” when talking about human behavior.
        Second, the passage assumes that homosexuality is an expression of insatiable lust. People turn to homosexual activity because heterosexual activity simply fails to satisfy them. They want more! As Dale B. Martin points out, it is somewhat like gluttony: gluttony is too much eating, and homosexuality is too much sex.11 People engage in homosexual activity because they “can’t get enough” of sex otherwise. And this, of course, is related to the notion that homosexuality “goes beyond” that which is natural. Homosexuality is essentially excessive sexuality. Together with the author’s emphasis on the verb “exchange,” this suggests that, in modern terms, the reference in the passage may be more to bisexuality than to homosexuality. If such is the case, then the passage would appear to have little relevance for people whose sole orientation is homosexual.
        In light of the assumptions that underlie Romans 1:26–27, perhaps the question to be raised when reading these verses is the following: “Exactly what is it that is being opposed here, and why is it being opposed?” Is it simply homosexuality per se, or is it the idolatry, the “abnormality,” and the insatiable lust that, in the first-century Jewish mind, were associated with homosexual activity? And a second question is this: What would the author of Romans 1:26–27 say about a loving, committed, monogamous homosexual relationship—one that was not rooted in idolatry, one that did not represent a rejection of one’s own true nature, and one that was not characterized by excessive lust? I think the answer has to be that we simply do not know, because, once again, the author is talking about something quite different.



#20 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,621 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:48 AM

Effeminate is used in the New testatment.


I Challenge you to show me an effeminate man and prove he is not gay. There are of cousre 2 types of gay men the effeminate ones and the more manly ones...... See what I did there... yeah Effeminate is in the new testament.

Dont' confuse with meek with effeminate. Jesus was meek.


I'm pretty sure I've read this before

Challenge accepted

















































Posted Image

This is tougher than I thought

#21 SZ James

SZ James

    herd it on routers

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,603 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:54 AM

Posted Image

Posted Image

#22 TbTeRRoR

TbTeRRoR

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 494 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:56 AM

lol well if I'm effeminate then you guys haven't got a chance!

#23 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,341 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:05 AM

lol well if I'm effeminate then you guys haven't got a chance!



kevin max of dc talk was ridiculed by hardline conservative groups as being effeminate

#24 SZ James

SZ James

    herd it on routers

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,603 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:08 AM

kevin max of dc talk was ridiculed by hardline conservative groups as being effeminate


?

random

#25 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,341 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:13 AM

?

random


dc talk is a late 90's christian rock/rap group that helped usher in modern music into mainstream christian culture, and they met a lot of resistance from groups who saw rap and rock as intrinsically of the devil. one of their favorite tactics was leveling the term "effeminate" at one of the vocalists who wore his hair shaggily and wore floral print dress shirts, etc.

just providing context within tbterror's likely realm of knowledge and highlighting the fact that effeminate is a nuanced concept

#26 SZ James

SZ James

    herd it on routers

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,603 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:17 AM

dc talk is a late 90's christian rock/rap group that helped usher in modern music into mainstream christian culture, and they met a lot of resistance from groups who saw rap and rock as intrinsically of the devil. one of their favorite tactics was leveling the term "effeminate" at one of the vocalists who wore his hair shaggily and wore floral print dress shirts, etc.

just providing context within tbterror's likely realm of knowledge and highlighting the fact that effeminate is a nuanced concept


never heard of em but I'll go out on a limb and say tbterror probably thinks they're going to hell too because that helps perpetuate his gay witch hunt

now back to the bible..

#27 Gazi

Gazi

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,798 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:22 AM

Posted Image


Posted Image

#28 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,474 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 12:59 PM

So it's ok to be gay if you aren't effeminate, or do you think all gay men are effeminate?

#29 Porn Shop Clerk

Porn Shop Clerk

    Honky

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,760 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 01:19 PM

TbTerror is more obsessed with homosexuality than any straight male has a logical reason to be.

Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

#30 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,474 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 01:21 PM

oh that goes without saying. public opinion has swung so fast and far that probably approaching 100% of the hold outs are closet cases.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com