Why are Protestants confused by Gays?

[jmcrae]

Plenty. What about it?

Good point. Unlike so many Protestant churches, Catholic doctrine doesn’t originate in the pulpit. It comes from the Magesterium.

 

[Calvinator]

Plenty. What about it?

Then maybe you should start a thread that is entitled “Why are Catholics confused by Gays?”.

 

[truthnlight]

The same reason Protestants are “confused” about divorce, sex outside of marriage, abortion, contraception, and euthanasia. They simply toss out biblical teaching when it is inconvenient.

“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.” -Matthew 12:31

 

[truthnlight]

Jude 1:7…

“Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange (Greek: different, other) flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

 

[mark_a]

Then maybe you should start a thread that is entitled “Why are Catholics confused by Gays?”.

Yeah, right.

And whenever we have a priest “acting up” you will note that the strong Catholics stay and address the problem while the weak Catholics go church shopping. And they don’t all end up at the same non-Catholic Church.

I’m glad to report though, that all the priests in my area are very orthodox.

 

[Maxply]

My big thing isn’t the specific subject of homosexuality.

It’s this: Protestants ostensibly want only the Bible to decide things for them. . . and in this issue, all of a sudden, the black and white scripture isn’t what many denominations wish to observe. . . hence, a lot of “interpretation.” Seems contradictory to me, just my view on their hermeneutics.

 

[Publisher]

I have been in Business Meeting as we considered the request of a gay couple to come under the “care of the Meeting”. We are not “confused” in the least.

Friends traditionally do not have “ministers” who “marry” it’s members…but each couple affirms their life long commitments to one another…and "marry’ each other…the Meeting is a witness to the union.

At the appointed time, the couple stands and states…

“In the presence of God and these our Friends, I take the (name) to be my wife/husband/partner, promising with Divine assistance to be unto thee a loving and faithful wife/husband/partner so long as we both shall live.”

And it is complete…the Meeting signs the certificate…in those states or countries where same sex unions is legal the Clerk of the Meeting sends in the appropriate documents…no confusion.

The scriptures are not sociology guides, but are to be understood in the context and times in which they were written.

The “ancients” view on homosexuality, psychology, medicine, science are not “binding”…neither was their view of a flat earth, a three tiered cosmology with “heaven” and “God” just beyond the blue canopy of the sky, with the “stars” as lights from heaven. We know now that the woman contributes 1/2 of the chromosonal material and is not simply “fertile ground” into which a man plants his seed as ancient humans once believed. A woman who cannot have a child is not necessarily 'barren"…a man’s seed does not contain a full human just waiting for “planting”. Even though the scriptures gives guidelines for holding slaves we now know slaverey is an evil institution.

The earth was not created in six literal days and human kind is not descended from primodial sinless “parents” who ate a piece of fruit against some diety’s wishes.

We have grown beyond such views…and sexuality is one of those things we are just now discovering it’s “secrets.”

 

[Onesimus]

The scriptures are not sociology guides, but are to be understood in the context and times in which they were written.

You should understand you views are rather parochial and do not hold up well unless one shares your presuppositions.

 

[strngrnrth]

I have been in Business Meeting as we considered the request of a gay couple to come under the “care of the Meeting”. We are not “confused” in the least.

Friends traditionally do not have “ministers” who “marry” it’s members…but each couple affirms their life long commitments to one another…and "marry’ each other…the Meeting is a witness to the union.

At the appointed time, the couple stands and states…

“In the presence of God and these our Friends, I take the (name) to be my wife/husband/partner, promising with Divine assistance to be unto thee a loving and faithful wife/husband/partner so long as we both shall live.”

And it is complete…the Meeting signs the certificate…in those states or countries where same sex unions is legal the Clerk of the Meeting sends in the appropriate documents…no confusion.

The scriptures are not sociology guides, but are to be understood in the context and times in which they were written.

The “ancients” view on homosexuality, psychology, medicine, science are not “binding”…neither was their view of a flat earth, a three tiered cosmology with “heaven” and “God” just beyond the blue canopy of the sky, with the “stars” as lights from heaven. We know now that the woman contributes 1/2 of the chromosonal material and is not simply “fertile ground” into which a man plants his seed as ancient humans once believed. A woman who cannot have a child is not necessarily 'barren"…a man’s seed does not contain a full human just waiting for “planting”. Even though the scriptures gives guidelines for holding slaves we now know slaverey is an evil institution.

The earth was not created in six literal days and human kind is not descended from primodial sinless “parents” who ate a piece of fruit against some diety’s wishes.

We have grown beyond such views…and sexuality is one of those things we are just now discovering it’s “secrets.”

The Bible affirms that the earth is round and hangs upon nothing (we call that nothingness outer space). It also says something about the seed of the woman. Hmmm. Sounds like genetic material to me. Stars are lights. One of the Biblical words for heaven means sky, i.e., what you see when you look up. As for “some deity”, well, I believe in one.

 

[Publisher]

I have no illusions that everyone accepts my views…they are my views, which I share with most of my Meeting.

The ideas of a “suspended earth” and the “seed of a woman” interpretations are of modern origin…these “mondern understandings of scripture” were unknown for millenia, only once that the teachings of the Bible in regard to science, geography and cosmology were in error did the more literalistic “true believers” come to such conclusions…if you are comfortable in your beliefs…I am “comfortable” for you as well.

As long as those beliefs insipre kindness and joy and peace toward your fellow man, so much the better, but if they inspire hate, prejudice and bigotry toward any segment of society…they need to be re-evaluated and any “diety” which inspires such beliefs is suspect…IMO.

There is no “confusion”…at least for this “Protestant”.

 

[Onesimus]

The ideas of a “suspended earth” and the “seed of a woman” interpretations are of modern origin…these “mondern understandings of scripture” were unknown for millenia…

To the contrary: they lay dormant. Exactly what one would expect of a message to mankind that comes from outside the domain of time.

Now as to the re-evaluation of homosexuality in light of modern conjecture, well that’s just plain apostasy.

 

[Publisher]

To the contrary: they lay dormant. Exactly what one would expect of a message to mankind that comes from outside the domain of time.

Now as to the re-evaluation of homosexuality in light of modern conjecture, well that’s just plain apostasy.

I’ve been accused of worse.

 

[estesbob]

Grace & Peace!
1–The human authors of scripture did not have the 19th century understanding of sexuality which gave rise to the term “homosexual”, nor did they have in mind our 20th and 21st century notions of what that term means. They could not be addressing homosexuality as we understand it.

You are assuming that homosexual beahvior as some today understand it is correct. What you are engageing is presentism-the idea that our society is so enlightnened that we can toss out all the mores of those who went before us.

2–Context. Mentions of homosexually-oriented activity almost exclusively take place in contexts which discuss either a) gentile culture; or b) gentile religious practice. Which suggests to many scholars that context is key–homosexual activity is wrong because it takes place in the context of gentile worship (which included cult prostitution) or is a feature of gentile culture–which culture as a whole is considered unsavory. This accords with Paul’s references in Romans which serve a rhetorical point–this is what gentiles do because of misguided religion, but you Jewish people, what is your excuse? In other words, the unsavory context makes the activity unsavory.

You are correct that context is everything. When somone starts interperting Scripture in a different way than it has been interperted for the last 2,000 years you have to ask in what context do they do so? The context of these new improved interpertations is that those who make them invaribly have an agenda to present homosexual behavior as normal and on equal Par with heterosexual realtionships.

And since you bring scripture into the mix it means we can examine this from the Spiritual aspect. What kind of God would allow a misnunderstaning of the sinfullness of homosexual behavior to afflict homosexuals for 2,000 years?

Absent any volume of writings of the Church fathers and other Bible Scholars over the last 2,000 years validating your personal interperation of these passages we must assume you are once again engageing in presentism

3–Translations. Many words translated in some Bibles as “homosexual” could not possibly carry that meaning to the ancient writers (given point 1 above) and are so translated given a particular present cultural bias. A word like “malakoi” which has been variously translated “effeminate” or “sexual pervert” or “male prostitute” means soft, and in other Greek writings refers to a quality of softness (such as cloth, or freshly tilled soil); a person of loose morals, or one who has no self-control; or a weak possibly effeminate person. Literally, it could mean “soft people”. Given the context in Paul’s epistles, libertinism is the implication.

Once agan we ask us to accpet your personal interpetation of Scripture. Although one , I guess, could interpert these passages in the way you want to it would be much more valid to intererpert them in the manner they have always been interperted. Your statement that the writers of Scripture suffer from a cultural bias again assumes a rather inept Goid who allowed centuries of incorrect interpertation of his Word. The more likely explantion is that you are the one who is exhibiting cultural bias.

Some, though, would translate malakoi as “male receptive partner” based on a reading of arsenokoites as “male active partner”. That seems to suggest that “arsenokoites” would be a technical term that Greek audiences would be familiar with. It’s not. The first real attested use of arsenokoites is Paul, as (some have suggested) it looks like he’s attempting to use it to encapsulate in one word the verse in Leviticus which refers to “men lying with men as with women” (though literally the Hebrew refers to “men lying the lyings of women”). Literally, arsenokoites means “men who lie down”. It’s possible he’s referring to prostitutes. It’s possible he’s referring to the active male partner. It’s possible he’s referring to any number of things.

Some refer malakoi to pederasty, and arsenokoites to male prostitution. There’s no clear scholarly consensus, however.

What’s clear is this: male prostitution, either as a prostitute or as a client, is wrong; as is pederasty. Temple prostitution, likewise, is wrong.

Stretching it a bit (that is, ignoring context), the most that can be said is either that treating your male partner as a woman is wrong, or anal sex is wrong.

Based on these verses, however, we cannot say that loving homosexual relationships are wrong in themselves.

Based on only your new imporved personal interpertation of Scripture. The more likely interpertation is that the verses mean what they say and mean exactly what the Church has interperted them to mean since the day they were written.

I

 

[Grateful4mercy]

I have been in Business Meeting as we considered the request of a gay couple to come under the “care of the Meeting”. We are not “confused” in the least.

Friends traditionally do not have “ministers” who “marry” it’s members…but each couple affirms their life long commitments to one another…and "marry’ each other…the Meeting is a witness to the union.

At the appointed time, the couple stands and states…

“In the presence of God and these our Friends, I take the (name) to be my wife/husband/partner, promising with Divine assistance to be unto thee a loving and faithful wife/husband/partner so long as we both shall live.”

Same thing happened at MY wedding, what a coincidence.

The Priest is there as a witness and to offer up blessings and give the nervous couple their lines when they freeze up, but the ceremony is ministered by the couple. Sort of interesting that most people don’t know that. I guess most weddings are a total blur so that little tid-bit of information doesn’t stick with them.

The Quaker life is totally facinating, I had no idea. Please keep teaching!

 

[tomarin]

wouldn’t a more appropriate and fair title for this thread be “why are some protestants confused by gays?” or even “why are some mainline protestant denominations confused by gays?”

the wording of this thread title sounds unnecessarily antagonistic to me (also you’re not supposed to use the word “prots” according to the forum rules).

 

[Onesimus]

I’ve been accused of worse.

That is irrelevant.

How do you qualify whether it is, in fact, true or not?

Do you deny there is a catagory called “apostate” that will suffer the fate outlined in the books of Peter and Jude?

 

[Publisher]

That is irrelevant.

How do you qualify whether it is, in fact, true or not?

Do you deny there is a catagory called “apostate” that will suffer the fate outlined in the books of Peter and Jude?

I follow the Light as He has revealed it to me…the true Light which lightens every man.

I have no fear of God’s judgement…He sees the heart…He sees the secret motivations…He alone is Judge…I know His heart is reflected in Jesus of Nazareth…as Job said…and I have claimed it as my own testimony of my trust in Him…“Though He slay me, still will I trust Him.”

So, I am very Good Hands…the Best of Hands…the One who knows me best, loves me most…I am loved not in spite of who I am…I am loved becasue of who I am…I will embrace any judgement He will place upon me…for it will be right and true.

 

[Onesimus]

I follow the Light as He has revealed it to me…the true Light which lightens every man.

I have no fear of God’s judgement…He sees the heart…He sees the secret motivations…He alone is Judge…I know His heart is reflected in Jesus of Nazareth…as Job said…and I have claimed it as my own testimony of my trust in Him…“Though He slay me, still will I trust Him.”

So, I am very Good Hands…the Best of Hands…the One who knows me best, loves me most…I am loved not in spite of who I am…I am loved becasue of who I am…I will embrace any judgement He will place upon me…for it will be right and true.

All very nobel sounding, but it doesn’t really answer the question.

As I recall there is a parable told by Jesus in which the master takes a very dim view of the servant who uses fatalism to justify his own lack of industry.

 

[Publisher]

All very nobel sounding, but it doesn’t really answer the question.

As I recall there is a parable told by Jesus in which the master takes a very dim view of the servant who uses fatalism to justify his own lack of industry.

Yes he did, but I’m not worried about how well I “square up” before the Light in your eyes…I “stand square in the Light” and my conscience is at peace in Him.

He also spoke of the last judgement and wondered why he wasn’t given water, or clothing, or food, or visitation while in prison…I will answer those questions when posed to me…and trust in His mercy.

 

[truagape]

Sorry, I have to disagree. Jewish and Christian teaching has always been that homosexual relationships are immoral and sinful.

uhh… as it was just plainly revealed to you in post #2, SCRIPTURE HASN’T!!