Things Learned from LGBTQ+ Discussions

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I'm very behind in responding to things here, but am trying to catch up as I can. Below is an excerpt from the HuffPo article posted on the other LGBT thread (the article that the term "clobber verses" came from). The article was titled "The Best Case for the Bible Not Condemning Homosexuality".

Excerpt in red, italics and bold are NOT added by me:

-----

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 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. —Romans 1:26-27

In the times during which the New Testament was written, the Roman conquerors of the region frequently and openly engaged in homosexual acts between older men and boys, and between men and their male slaves. These acts of non-consensual sex were considered normal and socially acceptable. They were, however, morally repulsive to Paul, as today they would be to everyone, gay and straight.

The universally acknowledged authoritative reference on matters of antiquity is the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Here is what the OCD (third edition revised, 2003) says in its section about homosexuality as practiced in the time of Paul:

“...the sexual penetration of male prostitutes or slaves by conventionally masculine elite men, who might purchase slaves expressly for that purpose, was not considered morally problematic.”

This is the societal context in which Paul wrote of homosexual acts, and it is this context that Christians are obliged to bring to their understanding and interpretation of the three clobber passages. Paul certainly condemned the same-sex sexual activity he saw around him. It was coercive; it was without constraint; it involved older men and boys. As a moral man, Paul was revolted by these acts — as, certainly, he would have been by the same acts had they been heterosexual in nature.

The Bible’s clobber passages were written about same-sex acts between heterosexual persons, and do not address the subject of homosexual acts between a committed gay couple, because the concept of a person being a homosexual did not exist at the time the Bible was written.

-----

Okay. Anyone see the glaring issue with this?

The verses in Romans 1 that are cited refer to BOTH women lusting for each other as well as men. However, the article's response speaks only of the historical existence of MALE prostitute/coercive/conquering type acts.

Sorry. This doesn't hold up unless you can also show that there were somehow women who also had coercive homosexual relations with women slaves. These verses in Romans say "in the same way".....so the male/male relations and female/female relations are of the same type. If the argument is that male relations mentioned are about what is essentially coercive rape of a younger male, then the article also has to show the same type of coercive rape of younger females BY WOMEN also historically occurred and was similarly seen as acceptable in society. I'm not saying this isn't the case, but I have not see one instance of this in any of the articles supporting LGBT that deal with these verses. They always wave the male coercive acts around while conveniently skipping the fact that identical female acts are also in the verse, and yet provide no historical mention of female coercive rape being acceptable in society in those times.

Absent that, these verses are speaking of homosexual relations.

Furthermore, the words are "lusting for one other". This is both parties participating in lusting after one another. No one would describe coercive rape that way. It's not rape. It's consensual homosexual relations.....two men and two women wanting to have sex with each other (again, the ACT, not just having feelings). Shown as sin in Scripture, in the New Testament.

Q: Unlike Corinthians and Timothy, Romans 1:26-27 clearly condemns same-sex erotic behavior for both men and women. How can this be mistranslation? “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” (ESV)

Answer:
Paul describes a complex descent into sin beginning many verses earlier in Romans 1, but what should be very clear for any reader in the chronology and context of Paul’s narrative in Romans 1 is that this has absolutely nothing to do with same-sex relationships. This is not an ambiguous, generalized portrayal of non-Christians. Paul is painting a picture of the pagan religious industry and its consumers. This likely was epitomized by either the Temple of Aphrodite itself or a Cybeline cult in Corinth. The former had its prostitution ring that would have operated in the temple or around the city, while the latter actually hosted orgies of men and women who mutilated their sex organs to achieve a state of “genderless transcendence.”

Moreover, Paul is speaking specifically about people who have rejected God, worship idols, are consumed with lust and love sin. That we would apply the reasoning of this passage to all people with a homosexual orientation, including people who love Jesus, makes a mockery of Paul’s careful logic.

But what about Paul detailing the homosexual behavior of men and women as “dishonorable,” “shameless,” and “contrary to nature”? Surely we can’t ignore that just because Paul is addressing the moral corruption that comes with pagan temple cults around him. Yet, Paul also describes their homosexuality as a result of “passions,” essentially unbridled lust and desire, but this is not the nature of a same-sex marriage that we seek to affirm.
Even more critical to Paul’s context is that Paul identifies all this homosexual activity to initially heterosexual idolaters. In the verses prior Paul describes the heterosexual sex ceremonies these people were having, which is why he also includes the critical caveat that both these men and women either gave up or exchanged “natural relations for what is contrary to nature.” Fitting within the ancient Mediterranean worldview that often viewed homosexuality as excessive and uncontrolled sexual desire by otherwise heterosexual people, Paul essentially saw them as straight people having gay sex. Heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts during the worship of pagan gods, which bears an uncanny resemblance to the Levitical context, has no logical bearing on same-sex relationships.

Are we then saying that Paul would have endorsed same-sex relationships? No. Paul’s formative exposure to homosexuality was limited to older men engaged in sexual relationships with younger boys (i.e. pederasty), temple prostitution, and wild temple cultic orgies. Additionally, as a former Jewish Pharisee in the first century, Paul was culturally predisposed to scorn expressions of homosexuality. However, just as we excuse Paul’s acceptance of slavery (Colossians 3:22) based on his ancient cultural and religious context, we should also be very careful to import his experience with expressions of first-century homosexuality into our current context of loving and monogamous same-sex relationships.