Anglican head Williams says anti-gays misread Bible

[Publisher]

Lev. 18:22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.

Lev. 20:13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

How can those two verses be misread? People who want to carry on the homosexual sin, while claiming to be servants of God will always invent “arguments” to justify their actions.

(2. Tim. 4:3 - 4) For there will be a time when people will not tolerate sound teaching. Instead, following their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves, because they have an insatiable curiosity to hear new things. And they will turn away from hearing the truth, but on the other hand they will turn aside to myths.

Yes but why do you ignore all the other “plain” abominations in Leviticus…do you ever eat shrimp or lobster? The writer of Leviticus sees the sexual acts between two men in the same way he sees eating shrimp…not a lot of proof there.

 

[KarenNC]

**Lev. 18:22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.

Lev. 20:13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.**

What about the other things prohibited in these chapters? Having intercourse with a woman who is menstruating (worthy of banishment from the their people), adultery (both should be put to death)?

Do you consider, then, (or, more importantly in this case, I suppose, can you show that the Anglican Church teaches) that Christians today are bound by all the laws in Leviticus? If not, why do you consider these to be binding?

Do you eat cheesburgers? Shellfish? Pork? Rare steak? If you have a business, do you pay each employee daily? Wear mixed fiber clothing? Do you cut the hair on the sides of your head or clip the corners of your beard? Have tattoos? All of these things (and many more) are equally as prohibited.

As for the New Testament arguments, I Corinthians 6:9 is usually pulled out, but it is instructive to read the entire sentence, which includes verse 10.
" 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Greed, drunkenness, slander, adultery are all classed equally with homosexuality. If the basis for objection to homosexuality lies in the teaching that they will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, I haven’t seen any movements to write laws preventing civil marriage among the greedy, swindlers, thieves, slanderers or drunkards. It is even legal for adulterers to have a civil marriage, though all of these pose a much greater threat to heterosexual marriage and the stability of the family and community than any consensual, monogamous, adult homosexual relationship I have ever heard of. Why not put your efforts into addressing the issues that impact the most people?

Note that I am not advocating that the Catholic Church be required to marry anyone it does not choose to (and it is blatantly evident that a law allowing a civil marriage does not require any religion to then perform a religious marriage, else there would be no question of whether someone who is divorced can be married in the Catholic Church).

 

[John_Hiner]

** “consensual, monogamous, adult homosexual relationship”**

I realize that one and one does not add up to two in this thread, but can one have a “monogamous homosexual” relationship? It thought it was either zero or two.

Pax et Lux Christi vobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[Publisher]

While the NIV uses the term “homosexual offender” it is unknown exactly what Paul was trying to say…it would appear to be more akin to “the corruptors of young boys” or “pederats” than “homosexual” as understood today…considering “homosexual” is a 20th century word not first century.

 

[Digger71]

While the NIV uses the term “homosexual offender” it is unknown exactly what Paul was trying to say…it would appear to be more akin to “the corruptors of young boys” or “pederats” than “homosexual” as understood today…considering “homosexual” is a 20th century word not first century.

Oh come on, My mate refers to his BF as “handsome boy”, depiste the fact both are over 40.

 

[CCM08]

I think the essential problem here is that, as we examine the bible, we can see that it doesn’t really understand homosexuality. It sees homosexual acts, more or less, as the deviancy of “heterosexual” persons who are engaging in same-sex relations solely for excessive pleasure.

This is exactly because modern “homosexuality” is a myth, an urban legand. In all the soceities of men searching the oceans of time no one at any time ever believed that people were “gay” or heterosexual. Homosexual acts have always been relagated to the pursuit of pleasure and/or sexual variety. Anicent Greel, the language of a soceity in which homosexual acts were neither rare nor neccessarily taboo, had no word for “homosexual.” The essence of the argument that St. Paul didn’t mean homosexuality is nonsense, he clearly is referring to the behavior of the day in which males and females had same sex relations for the same reason they visited prostitutes. He could not have commented on “homosexuality” because the concent would exist for nearly 2,000 years.

 

[CCM08]

Note that I am not advocating that the Catholic Church be required to marry anyone it does not choose to (and it is blatantly evident that a law allowing a civil marriage does not require any religion to then perform a religious marriage, else there would be no question of whether someone who is divorced can be married in the Catholic Church).

If the homosexual lobby wins on the issue the next step is going to be constant pressure by homosexual groups on the government to attack the tax status of any church that won’t preform homosexual marriage.

 

[Gnosis]

This is exactly because modern “homosexuality” is a myth, an urban legand. In all the soceities of men searching the oceans of time no one at any time ever believed that people were “gay” or heterosexual. Homosexual acts have always been relagated to the pursuit of pleasure and/or sexual variety. Anicent Greel, the language of a soceity in which homosexual acts were neither rare nor neccessarily taboo, had no word for “homosexual.” The essence of the argument that St. Paul didn’t mean homosexuality is nonsense, he clearly is referring to the behavior of the day in which males and females had same sex relations for the same reason they visited prostitutes. He could not have commented on “homosexuality” because the concent would exist for nearly 2,000 years.

Whether or not homosexuality is a “myth” is very much up for debate.

Regardless, in St. Paul’s day people were not living in same-sex monogmous relationships. Sexuality is seen as something sacred, obviously, and for people who are assumed to be “heterosexual” in orientation to be engaging in illicit and extra-marital activities is condemned, whether or not with people of the same sex.

There was no option for a person interested in the same sex to live as though sexuality was something sacred and reserved for a person whom you want to love and devote your life to. In these societies it was something that could only be done “on the side”.

That is different today. Many gay people look at sexuality as sacred and are completely in line with Church morality- except for the fact that they are gay. The two contexts are not comparable. The bible doesn’t give us the answer this time, i think we need to be able to live with that.

 

[MelanieAnne]

It is not necessary to determine what sort of sex is OK and what sort of sex is not OK. What is necessary to understand is that sex outside of marriage is not OK. Homosexual sex is not OK for the same reason that sex between heterosexuals outside of marriage is not OK. End of story. All the rest is BALONEY.

I am not married. It is not OK for me to have sex. For homosexuals not validly married in the eyes of the church (good luck getting that!) it is likewise not OK for them to have sexual relations with anyone. I truly do not understand why this is so hard to figure out. People are simply trying to make excuses for what they want to do. That doesn’t make it right.

To be homosexual is not, in an of itself, a sin, at least not as I understand sin. To engage in sexual relations with anyone outside the bounds of a valid marriage is a sin. For anyone.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now and every shall be world without end. Amen

 

[hosemonkey]

If the homosexual lobby wins on the issue the next step is going to be constant pressure by homosexual groups on the government to attack the tax status of any church that won’t preform homosexual marriage.

Amen! I don’t care how some Anglican bishop “interprets” Scripture, the Scriptural references are clear to me. Homosexuality is wrong, disgusting, immoral and dead-end. Man was made for woman, woman was made for man. All the semantic twisting in the world will not change it. I do not hate “gay” people, I hate what they do and I hate what they are trying to do, to try to convince us that that which is evil is good and that which is twisted is normal. Look at the destruction that homosexuality has caused in our own Church. Pedophiles? NO! Homosexuals. Using Scripture to justify sin is an abomination. The Anglican Church is tearing itself apart over this issue and those like it.

 

[Chuck_M]

It is not necessary to determine what sort of sex is OK and what sort of sex is not OK. What is necessary to understand is that sex outside of marriage is not OK. Homosexual sex is not OK for the same reason that sex between heterosexuals outside of marriage is not OK. End of story. All the rest is BALONEY.

My thoughts exactly. I think it often helps to take a step back and look at the bigger picture when debating inflammatory subjects like this one. Simplify, simplify!

 

[Tonks40]

To be homosexual is not, in an of itself, a sin, at least not as I understand sin. To engage in sexual relations with anyone outside the bounds of a valid marriage is a sin. For anyone.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now and every shall be world without end. Amen

This is exactly what is the issue here. Why have so many people tried to twist this around to fit their “feelings” about the issue is beyond my comprehension!

 

[blessedtoo]

Yes but why do you ignore all the other “plain” abominations in Leviticus…do you ever eat shrimp or lobster? The writer of Leviticus sees the sexual acts between two men in the same way he sees eating shrimp…not a lot of proof there.

Leviticus is basically two books. One part is concerned with Priestly duties and rites, the other with morality and holiness. The admonitions you cite such as the ban on eating of shellfish was part of the Mosaic dietary law and part of the priestly code. This particular law (in addition to laws concerning ritual cleanliness, sacrifices, blood, etc) was set aside by God when Jesus Christ instituted a new covenant through His shed blood. The Mosaic laws which were upheld by the priests were no longer practiced once Christ, the first and true Priest, fulfilled them with His sacrifice. The moral code, however, was upheld and continues to this day through the Christian Church.

 

[blessedtoo]

I think the essential problem here is that, as we examine the bible, we can see that it doesn’t really understand homosexuality. It sees homosexual acts, more or less, as the deviancy of “heterosexual” persons who are engaging in same-sex relations solely for excessive pleasure.

There’s no idea of homosexuality as a sexuality in the bible. It more or less paints a picture of married men, or men who will get married, having sexual relations with men on the side. This is obvious in in the story of Sodom and Gomhorra where Lot offers his daughters in the stead of the two guests. Why would he do that if they are homosexuals? This is a city where people just have rampant, lust driven sex with anyone. These are married men who want to take advantage of people.

You are attempting the “different culture” and the “out-of-context” argument. The fact is, in Leviticus, Romans, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, homosexuality is mentioned in the context of sexual and immoral behavior! The context is quite clear – a variety of behaviors are prohibited; homosexuality – along with adultery, fornication and idolatry – is one of them. None of the prohibitions are concerned with the degree of attachments in these scenarios. It is simply not a relevant factor because love is not enough to justify a relationship. An unmarried Christian couple may be very much in love; if they become sexually involved before marriage, it will still be sin, no matter how much love went into it. And it will still be wrong. A married man can fall deeply in love with a woman other than his wife; that will never sanctify adultery.
The “cultural” argument fares no better. In some cases, a Scripture may seem culturally bound (injunctions against long hair on men, or women speaking to their husbands during church.) But again—five times? Five different Scriptures, from both testaments, addressed to highly different cultures (from the Hebrew to the Roman) are obviously not culturally bound. The cultures they address are just too different.

In addition, if we accept that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, could we be so arrogant to assume He would not have forseen our current culture’s attempts to legitimize this immoral behavior?

 

[Contarini]

He obviously never interpreted this book in the Bible did he?.

Actually this is a much weaker text to use for this purupose. Clearly the passage is condemning rape, particularly rape of guests. Obviously the fact that the rape is homosexual would make it seem particularly horrifying, but homosexuality is clearly not the main point.

As to the article–I never cease to be amazed at how quickly Catholics on this board will believe newspaper reports of theological statements, and in this case people apparently aren’t even reading the article. Williams is not reported as saying that the text leaves any doubt as to whether Paul thought homosexuality was immoral. On the contrary, he makes it clear that Paul did think that. However, Williams is saying (quite rightly) that the main point of the passage is that whenever we judge others, we are opening ourselves to condemnation. I don’t see how you can read Romans 1-2 as a whole and not come to that conclusion.

++Williams is saying absolutely nothing unorthodox here.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Williams is fooling himself if he thinks for a minute than any old testament figure or any father of the early church would have approved of homosexuality!

Clearly you did not read the whole article, or you would have read this:

It would not help pro-gay liberals, he said, because Paul and his readers clearly agreed that homosexuality was “as obviously immoral as idol worship or disobedience to parents.”

Discussion would be so much fun if people would actually bother to read what they are supposedly responding to.

Edwin

 

[Publisher]

Leviticus is basically two books. One part is concerned with Priestly duties and rites, the other with morality and holiness. The admonitions you cite such as the ban on eating of shellfish was part of the Mosaic dietary law and part of the priestly code. This particular law (in addition to laws concerning ritual cleanliness, sacrifices, blood, etc) was set aside by God when Jesus Christ instituted a new covenant through His shed blood. The Mosaic laws which were upheld by the priests were no longer practiced once Christ, the first and true Priest, fulfilled them with His sacrifice. The moral code, however, was upheld and continues to this day through the Christian Church.

Please cite the verse in Leviticus which distinguishes the two…I don’t think I’ve ever read…“Next verse is part of the moral law”…and then a few verses later read “we’re back to the priestly ceremonial law now…but the next verse we’re going back to moral law.”

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Yes but why do you ignore all the other “plain” abominations in Leviticus…do you ever eat shrimp or lobster? The writer of Leviticus sees the sexual acts between two men in the same way he sees eating shrimp…not a lot of proof there.

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

This is an obvious reference to God’s intended purpose for the sexual act. One man, one woman, within the bounds of marriage, and homosexuality isn’t even hinted at as being a part of God’s design.

As for your reference to dietary restrictions:

15:10 Then he called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand.
15:11 What defiles a person is not what goes into the mouth; it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles a person.”

10:9 About noon the next day, while they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray.
10:10 He became hungry and wanted to eat, but while they were preparing the meal, a trance came over him.
10:11 He saw heaven opened and an object something like a large sheet descending, being let down to earth by its four corners.
10:12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth and wild birds.
10:13 Then a voice said to him, “Get up, Peter; slaughter and eat!”
10:14 But Peter said, “Certainly not, Lord, for I have never eaten anything defiled and ritually unclean!”
10:15 The voice spoke to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not consider ritually unclean!”
10:16 This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into heaven.

 

[fix]

As to the article–I never cease to be amazed at how quickly Catholics on this board will believe newspaper reports of theological statements, and in this case people apparently aren’t even reading the article. Williams is not reported as saying that the text leaves any doubt as to whether Paul thought homosexuality was immoral. On the contrary, he makes it clear that Paul did think that. However, Williams is saying (quite rightly) that the main point of the passage is that whenever we judge others, we are opening ourselves to condemnation. I don’t see how you can read Romans 1-2 as a whole and not come to that conclusion.

++Williams is saying absolutely nothing unorthodox here.

In Christ,

Edwin

From the article:

NEITHER SIDE WINS
Williams said reinterpreting Paul’s epistle as a warning against smug self-righteousness rather than homosexuality would favor neither side over the other in the bitter struggle that threatens to plunge the Anglican Communion into schism.
It would not help pro-gay liberals, he said, because Paul and his readers clearly agreed that homosexuality was “as obviously immoral as idol worship or disobedience to parents.”
This reading would also upset anti-gay conservatives, who have been “up to this point happily identifying with Paul’s castigation of someone else,” and challenge them to ask whether they were right to judge others, he added.
“This does nothing to settle the exegetical questions fiercely debated at the moment,” Williams said.

So, what is his Point?

In Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

[Contarini]

From the article:

So, what is his Point?

I thought he was clear–but I always think Williams is clear and other people always find him confusing. . . .

His point is that we should not use Scripture to judge others without looking back at ourselves for ways in which we are unfaithful. In this instance, for instance, I as a conservative Anglican would say that the whole debate about homosexuality is an occasion for us to re-examine our views about sexual morality in general, particularly our horrifying tolerance for divorce and serial monogamy and our implicit acceptance of the culture’s lies about the nature of sexual identity and the purpose of marriage.

Edwin