The Bible does not address homosexuality because homosexuality is a reference to a sexual orientation. And sexual orientation is a modern concept that developed in the 19th century. This is not to say there was no such thing as same sex intercourse anciently, but they organized their understanding of humn sexuality and their rationales for what was going on and what was appropriate and inappropriate in much different ways. So when we say homosexuality, we're referring to a conceptual framework that did not exist anciently. So the Bible does not address homosexuality because the concept didn't exist. The Bible does address acts of same -sex intercourse and the bible does prohibit and condemn them.

Now, I think the primary manifestation of these acts was probably in cultic acts and prostitution and things like that. But certainly the condemnations of it extend to other manifestations of it. Now, when we look at the rationales for why these things were inappropriate, when we look at their understanding of what was going on with same sex intercourse anciently, where it was coming from and these kinds of things, the rationales and the ethical frameworks are entirely outdated and have absolutely no relevance to us today.

If we try to leverage the Bible to suggest that these prohibitions and condemnations are relevant to today, we must strip them from their historical and ethical and conceptual settings. And that does injustice to the text in order to do injustice to people today. So people want to take prohibitions on tattoos, the endorsement of slavery and the endorsement of polygamy and try to rationalize them away by suggesting that they are products of an outdated society, or that was the way things were anciently. Great! But you have to be consistent about that. So people who leverage the Bible to try to prohibit or condemn same -sex intercourse today are doing so not because the text indicates that's what we have to do today. It's overwhelming that they're being influenced by their identity politics because opposition to same -sex intercourse has become such a powerful and central identity marker for conservative brands, particularly of Christianity, particularly right -wing authoritarian Christianity. So anyone trying to leverage the Bible to prohibit and condemn same -sex intercourse today is only doing because it serves their identity politics, and not because the Bible requires it.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Prodigal Son

Member since May 2023

735 posts

Posted on 5/11/24 at 10:45 pm to Rust Cohle

quote:
The Bible does not address homosexuality

Have you read it?

It absolutely addresses homosexuality.

quote:
And sexual orientation is a modern concept that developed in the 19th century

Wut

quote:
This is not to say there was no such thing as same sex intercourse anciently, but they organized their understanding of humn sexuality and their rationales for what was going on and what was appropriate and inappropriate in much different ways.

Really? So two dudes banging was somehow different then? I’m not following your logic here.

quote:
So when we say homosexuality, we're referring to a conceptual framework that did not exist anciently

No. When we say homosexuality, we’re saying exactly the same thing they were saying- two dudes banging. You can try to “re-imagine” whatever you want, but it doesn’t change anything other than your perception.

quote:
So the Bible does not address homosexuality because the concept didn't exist

That is some serious mental gymnastics there.

quote:
The Bible does address acts of same -sex intercourse and the bible does prohibit and condemn them.

Right. So, the Bible condemns homosexuality. Good night.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Champagne

Already Conquered USA.

Member since Oct 2007

48685 posts

Posted on 5/11/24 at 11:40 pm to Rust Cohle

quote:
The Bible does not address homosexuality because homosexuality is a reference to a sexual orientation. And sexual orientation is a modern concept that developed in the 19th century. This is not to say there was no such thing as same sex intercourse anciently, but they organized their understanding of humn sexuality and their rationales for what was going on and what was appropriate and inappropriate in much different ways. So when we say homosexuality, we're referring to a conceptual framework that did not exist anciently. So the Bible does not address homosexuality because the concept didn't exist. The Bible does address acts of same -sex intercourse and the bible does prohibit and condemn them.

Now, I think the primary manifestation of these acts was probably in cultic acts and prostitution and things like that. But certainly the condemnations of it extend to other manifestations of it. Now, when we look at the rationales for why these things were inappropriate, when we look at their understanding of what was going on with same sex intercourse anciently, where it was coming from and these kinds of things, the rationales and the ethical frameworks are entirely outdated and have absolutely no relevance to us today.

If we try to leverage the Bible to suggest that these prohibitions and condemnations are relevant to today, we must strip them from their historical and ethical and conceptual settings. And that does injustice to the text in order to do injustice to people today. So people want to take prohibitions on tattoos, the endorsement of slavery and the endorsement of polygamy and try to rationalize them away by suggesting that they are products of an outdated society, or that was the way things were anciently. Great! But you have to be consistent about that. So people who leverage the Bible to try to prohibit or condemn same -sex intercourse today are doing so not because the text indicates that's what we have to do today. It's overwhelming that they're being influenced by their identity politics because opposition to same -sex intercourse has become such a powerful and central identity marker for conservative brands, particularly of Christianity, particularly right -wing authoritarian Christianity. So anyone trying to leverage the Bible to prohibit and condemn same -sex intercourse today is only doing because it serves their identity politics, and not because the Bible requires it.

Thank you very much for explaining how a mainstream Protestant denomination that has Bible Alone and Faith Alone as core beliefs could interpret the Bible to allow Gay Sex and Gay Preachers. I don't know if this is the Official United Methodist analysis or not, but, you are certainly the first to take a shot at it and I applaud you for trying.

I do wish that we could find a United Methodist person around here to give us the "Official" Methodist analysis on how this idea works in the context of Bible Alone.

But more importantly, thanks for taking the time to explain it. You did indeed articulate a reasonable analysis of how this new idea might be explained in the context of Bible Alone. I expect that your analysis is very close to the UMC's analysis.

This post was edited on 5/11/24 at 11:42 pm

0 ...

Report Post

O-T Lounge - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board