I deny it is a fallacious banner as you put it. Many if not most of the exegetes who make claims that the OT and NT properly understood do not speak against homosexuality as we know it, have no axe to grind. They themselves are untouched by the gay issue, and are professional experts, simply following the evidence.
You’re statement is wrong, most exegetes do NOT believe 1 Corinthians 6:9 fails to mention homosexuals as we understand the term. The term Paul uses is
Arsenokoites, meaning:
one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual
This translation is consistent with the rest of scripture (including the Leviticus verses proscribing homosexual conduct). Moreover, Romans 1:27 is even more damning toward homosexual conduct:
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
This verse is extremely important (along with v. 26) because it really does clarify Paul’s state of mind with regard to homosexuality. In v. 26 Paul states “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.” This is in contrast to 1 Cor. 6:9 where the Greek term used for homosexual conduct is masculine. There has been much read into the fact that the term is masculine & seems to preclude lesbian relations, however, as we see here at Rom. 1:26 female homosexuality was simply less common than male homosexuality (as deviant behavior is less common among females generally speaking, particularly in those days). Moreover, in v. 27 the context of the statement does not allow for any other interpretation except homosexual relations.
It is not at all “redefining sin” so much as it is defining it correctly. God has not as you say, “clearly” deemed it sinful.
No … it IS redefining sin!
I would say that many American Episcopal churches, moved by the difficulty with the texts in question, and the unreliability of the conclusion that they truly reflect a ban on homosexual behavior as understood today, AND coupled with so many other examples of Christ’s inclusiveness and embrace of “other” in his world, have concluded that a person’s sexual orientation is simply not a subject that should bar anyone from full communion with the church, and expecially with the sacraments. If God deems otherwise, then God will deal with the individual and at least know that the Church has done her best to be compassionate and welcoming to all people.
There is NO difficulty with the text in question … the only difficulty is with the American Episcopalian Church (and all other liberal denominations following their lead).
Of course you know that Paul doesn’t use the term homosexual at all. That term was invented in the 1800’s.
Only in the mind of the Episcopalian do phrases like unnatural relations between men (or men lying with other men as with women) mean anything but homosexual?
If you do not see that the type of practice that Paul was seeing was not the type we deal essentially with today, then of course, you can’t assess the truth of Paul’s meaning. Paul was speaking about temple prostitutes, the use of children, and other relationships that deal with physical power over another individual.
I heard this absurd theory espoused by your homosexual bishop Gene Robinson one day. You’re a fool for buying into this garbage. The context (particularly of Rom. 1:26-27) simply does not allow for this translation (moreover, it’s a stretch to apply this interpretation to any other NT or OT verse that eludes to homosexual conduct).
moreover, the submissive partner was usually acting out of nature, being effeminate in dress and mannerism. Paul’s time did not have a clue that homosexuality was something that one is oriented to by nature or genes.
Didn’t God inspire Paul to write? Do you think God was ignorant with regard to our biology (which of course He created)?
He thought, as did all people of his time that homosexuality was simply an overflow of heterosexuality. One so crazed by passion that they no longer cared who they coupled with. There was NO understanding that homosexual persons could be involved in loving, caring, supportive relationships.
Again, you’re implying that the divinely inspired word of God is limited by what Paul (or any apostle or prophet for that matter) knew or didn’t know through their own finite experience or education. It’s an absurd way to interpret scripture.
There is nothing as you put it of being an “absurd” interpretation. It is the considered opinion of excellently trained and highly respected theologians and biblical experts worldwide. That you choose to deny it is of course your right.
NO … it’s the opinion of a minority of theologians, usually avowed homosexuals dressing up as men of God.
Don’t tell me they can change. The overwhelming majority of experts in the field admit it is not changeable, and even in those cults that claim they turn people back to heterosexuality, the “success” rate is pitifully small, and even many of those claim that the urges never go away, they just suppress them. At what psyche cost, I have no idea.
??? where did I say or imagine that homosexuals can or can’t change? I’m a conservative Presbyterian … built on the theology of Calvin. I don’t need to believe all people have the capacity to turn from a sinful lifestyle as prescribed by scripture, in fact we expressly deny that God endows all with His grace.
We preach a particular and irresistable grace. If it is true that homosexuals cannot change then they are simply damned, or predestined for perdition.
