Via the Fark thread on this same topic:
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=3854724

I Corinthians 6:9 uses the phrase “nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind”

1 Timothy 1:9-10 uses the word “arsenokoitai” again.

THAT’S the one I was trying to remember (although I didn’t realize it was in two places)! That brings the total up to five (OT & NT).

As I said – I think this is all a stretch. And I don’t think it will make any real difference, anyway. The liberals will interpret in such a way as to be more inclusive (in which endeavor I’d encourage them), and the conservatives won’t give a fig about what they say.

There are three mentions of homosexuality in the New Testament. All three refer to preformed traditions, either Greek or Jewish. There is no NT author who placed enough importance on homosexuality to write his own sentence about it

There is an argument that homosexuality is “against nature”. This is not the idea of nature that we have in the 21st century but of human nature or the proper conduct that is becoming for a member of society. The attack on homosexuality could actually be against pederasty in the Greco-Roman texts. Pederasty involved forced male rape even by heterosexuals and slave boy prostitutes. You won’t catch me saying that enforced rape is ever a good or acceptable idea even when it still goes on today.

Pederasty says nothing about the modern idea of loving relationships between two people of the same gender. These sorts of gay relationships have been going on in secret and not-so-secret for centuries and have been broadly tolerated or ignored if not accepted. The laws against homosexuals are a recent invention that signify an increase in biblical literalism.

I Corinthians 6:9 uses the phrase “nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind” that most take to mean homosexuals. Putting aside the fact that homosexuality has little to do with effeminate behaviour the idea is almost certainly inaccurate. If Paul wanted to refer to homosexual behavior, he would have used the word “paiderasste” as this was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males. The word he did use was “arsenokoitai”. The exact meaning is lost but “arsen” means “man” so it is unlikely to refer to any behaviour that is between two women. The part “koitai” means “beds”. I could speculate that the word refers to male temple prostitutes, pimps, homosexual rapists or even masturbaters. I don’t think it refers to typical gay men though.

In Romans 1:26-27 the Greek phrase “para physin” is taken to mean “against nature” but elsewhere in the bible it is used as meaning to deviate from the ordinary or the be unconventional. Also the phrase “change their natural use” would seem to indicate that they were going against what they, and I mean the participants, found to be normal sexual behaviour. Perhaps the “vile affections” where drug induced or the result of a frenzied state of mind brought about by ritual. Again, not what we’d expect from an ordinary loving relationship between two people, no matter what their genders. The passage is really referring to idolatry and pagan vices and isn’t specifically condemning homosexuality.

1 Timothy 1:9-10 uses the word “arsenokoitai” again. This time the translators have picked this up to mean “for them that defile themselves with mankind” but, like the Corinthians passage, the meaning is unclear and probably does not refer to loving, homosexual relationships.

Thanks to http://www.religioustolerance.org for much of this information.

If Christians are going to condemn female musicians for singing about other girls and enjoying it then you’d think they’d make the effort to understand what their own book actually says. i.e. nothing definite about lesbians and dubious condemnation of loving male homosexual relationships.

I just need to condense that down to half a dozen words and put it on a sign.

The author summarizes:

* Paul disapproves of homosexuality to the extent that it is un-natural.
* Current understanding is that sexual orientation is innate. [natural]
* The church can now form a sacramental structure amongst gays for the expression and protection of the Christian sexual ethic of monogamy, fidelity and life-long intent.
* When Paul writes of gifts of the Spirit, first on his list is love – love of God and love of neighbor.
* Eventually we are going to express that love by a decision of servanthood to the faithful homosexuals among us.

As we have evolved a new and higher regard for women than was true for Paul in his time, so we are evolving a new regard for same-sex attraction than was true for Paul, and for most of us, in both his time and our own. That is why the Episcopal Church and other progressively oriented denominations are moving toward legitimizing “same-sex unions”. It is a plain matter of justice.

A more recent analysis of this passage has also been made. This new analysis is independent of the question of the degree of naturalness [biological, customary, or innate] associated with homosexual behavior. It analyzes the class of persons whom Paul was addressing. Read the text carefully:

“… even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another…”

If one reads the text carefully, it seems that Paul may be criticizing heterosexuals who dabble in homosexual acts. The text seems to imply that it is wrong for heterosexuals to indulge in homosexual acts because such activities would require them to change their natural use to that which is against their nature. This would seem not to apply to homosexuals since they find homosexuality normal [innate; ingrained, customary, agreeable to the world of nature] to their being.

Rowan Williams, the current Archbishop of Cantebury, theologian and scholar, agrees that this is more of a correct evaluation of the Pauline passage. Paul does not condemn homosexuals. He condemns heterosexuals who attempt to mimic homosexual behaviors.

I think it’s a stretch, but if it helps them to be inclusive, they’re welcome to it.

I’ve had a look through Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) too see the references to homosexuality. However, I can’t see how the church could use them to justify their statement.

Uenuku Kaitangata,

We covered that earlier. There are, possibly, one or two references to female homosexuality in the NT.

Although,

Romans 1:26

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature

has the only reference to girl on girl action. It clearly states that God makes women lesbians rather than good, honest, Christian, baby making machines for male pleasure. Bad God, naughty God.

Hoverfrog, now that I think about it, I’m not even sure this could be seen as a reference to homosexuality. “Unnatural lusts” could be understood in a variety of ways. The next line, however, is “In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.”, so it may be saying that the women behaved as did the men.

In any case, I think the Christians would say that because they didn’t turn to God, He allowed them to indulge their sinful preferences, thereby condemning themselves to hell.

The result is the same. God always gets off the hook.

Huh? Do you realize that this sign was written by a male pastor? Read it from that point of view. He kissed a girl, found he didn’t like it, and then went to Hell because he wanted to kiss boys.

Christian honesty, at last.

Duke

LOL!

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature

has the only reference to girl on girl action. It clearly states that God makes women lesbians rather than good, honest, Christian, baby making machines for male pleasure. Bad God, naughty God.

I think she should be more concerned with Deuteronomy 22:5

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

I clearly saw a picture of her wearing jeans the other day. Such manly vestements will send her straight to HELL as well as keep her legs warm in the winter. Warm legs will do her no good when the DEVIL comes to burn her. No good at all