|
Post by Shiggy on Sept 6, 2004 7:54:09 GMT -5
Just a little addition- An example of one of these different readings of God's word is the "Male Temple Prostitute" reading, in which nearly all the Bible's passages which are thought to condemn homosexuality are said to have been mistranslated, and originally referred only to temple prostitution. I'm sure you would have heard of this reading, but if not, there's some info in the previous posts on this thread by "Mike". I don't mean to cloud our debate further, but I am also very interested in the idea of sodomy as opposed to "homosexuality". Some would believe the Bible condemns only the physical sex act of sodomy (leaving lesbians, and gay men who don't practise sodomy, invisible and ambiguous), others would (with difficulty, I imagine) try to argue for the Bible's condemnation of a more generalised "homosexual identity". I can argue against this (I may not be a Bible scholar, but I do like to think that I am a knowledgeable social historian/sociologist in the area of Western sexuality. I have studied this in university level sociology ). Today's concept of 'the homosexual" as a type of person is actually a relatively recent social development. Before its emergence, the early church, English law and also early American colonial law prohibited "buggery" (eg.Henry VIII's "Buggery Act" of 1533). Before the 17th Century, there was no link between the act of sodomy and a specific (male) "sexual identity"; it was simply a sinful act to which all types of people were considered equally likely to be tempted. The 18th Century's medical discovery of the female womb through the first body dissections was followed by changes in notions of masculinity and femininity, and the notion of the "foppish", effeminate man began to arise as one who transgresses gender boundaries by behaving "like a woman". Men who engaged in sodomy began to be seen by society as "effeminate" (less masculine). To be masculine, a man now had to have sex solely with women. The categorisation of "the homosexual" first came about through the early scientific study of sexual "pathologies" and abnormalities, such as (in those days) sexual desire for the same sex (cf. the early works of Havelock-Ellis and William Von Krafft-Ebing). From here, Western society began to believe in the concept of types of people who "were" "homosexual". This has led to the emancipatory "gay rights"movements which are based on the idea that people are born homosexual, and are thus being discriminated against unfairly. *PHEW* This is another reason why I think that your assertion that early manuscripts have a word for "the homosexual" (as a type of person) are highly dubious. ---Might I add that in Ancient Greece young boys were initiated into the political society of the time through training in the control of their sexual impulses through sexual relationships with older men. This involved penile penetration of the boy, and so I think that if any of what you're saying is based on Greek texts, the issue has been simplified somewhere along the line (Clearly there was no notion of "the homosexual"then, and sodomy was widely, and socially acceptably, practised). I admit that this does date back to before the time of Christ (about 600BC), but I am suspicious that there were still lasting social effects of these social values -I'd need to research it more and I really can't be bothered. This should be enough! ANYWAY- I have just refuted that the Bible could possibly "be against" anything more than the act of sodomy, which leaves lesbians and many gay men still in the clear if even this is allowed. Sorry 'bout the length of this -I feel it had to be said.
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Sept 6, 2004 10:20:18 GMT -5
Although I don't have the time to post all that I wish to respond with right now, I will remind you that Romans 1:10 (which was written by Paul, as were the other verses I mentioned) demonstrates homosexuality, not just sodomy, as you claim, as being sinful.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Sept 6, 2004 15:58:19 GMT -5
I couldnt disagree more. the leading cause in divorce in pre marital sex, not christianity....
Finding: Women who cohabited before marriage were 33 percent more likely to have a marriage that ends in divorce or separation than women who did not cohabit before marriage. Compared to women who did not engage in premarital sex, those who had their first sexual encounter before marrying were approximately 34 percent more likely to divorce. For every year they delayed sex, the risk of marital disruption was reduced by about 8 percent. Teachman, Jay Journal of Marriage and Family 2003
Finding: While a woman's intimate premarital relationship that was exclusively with her husband did not affect the risk of marital disruption, having at least one other intimate relationship prior to marriage was linked to an increased risk of divorce (The increase in risk associated with having had a sexual relationship with another partner ranged from 53 percent to 119 percent). The risk of divorce is substantially higher if the woman not only ... Teachman, Jay Journal of Marriage and Family 2003
Finding: Boys who were unsupervised for five or fewer hours per week had a mean of 3.7 lifetime sex partners, while those left alone for five to 29 hours per week had an average of 4.2 lifetime sex partners and those home alone for more than 30 hours a week averaged 4.68 sex partners throughout their lifetime (p<.001). Lifetime sex partners for girls who spent such amounts of time without parental supervision averaged 2.12, 2.53, and 2.53, respectively. Cohen, Deborah A. Pediatrics 2002
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Sept 7, 2004 3:26:03 GMT -5
I couldnt disagree more. the leading cause in divorce in pre marital sex, not christianity.... Finding: Women who cohabited before marriage were 33 percent more likely to have a marriage that ends in divorce or separation than women who did not cohabit before marriage. Compared to women who did not engage in premarital sex, those who had their first sexual encounter before marrying were approximately 34 percent more likely to divorce. For every year they delayed sex, the risk of marital disruption was reduced by about 8 percent. Teachman, Jay Journal of Marriage and Family 2003 The problem with this statement is that you interpret divorce as necessarily bad and no divorce as indicating a good marriage. Issues such as domestic violence and the woman (or man) being too scared to leave would appear in your statistics as "not divorce" and therefore good, while most divorces occur because people were not happy in the mariage. It is better psychologically to get divorced than to stay in a shitty marriage. Furthermore, you are forgetting that your statistics only include couples who are married - these are not the only kinds of relationships. You also assume that "cohabiting before marriage" means sex before marriage. This is often not true at all. My boyfriend and I cohabit and do not have sex. These days, there are many other factors which influence the rate of cohabitation, such as the high cost of living, which force people to move in together sooner. So the trends in your statistics could be due to countless other factors, such as poor people cohabiting more ($ difficulties) and divorcing more (more daily stresses), producing a correlation between cohabitation and divorce not based on causality at all. Correlation does not indicate causality. Finding: While a woman's intimate premarital relationship that was exclusively with her husband did not affect the risk of marital disruption, having at least one other intimate relationship prior to marriage was linked to an increased risk of divorce (The increase in risk associated with having had a sexual relationship with another partner ranged from 53 percent to 119 percent). The risk of divorce is substantially higher if the woman not only ... Teachman, Jay Journal of Marriage and Family 2003 My previous paragraph also applies to this finding. Also, the point about having a sexual relationship with only one person before marriage NOT affecting divorce risk shows that there is no harm in it - this actually supports my view. Finding: Boys who were unsupervised for five or fewer hours per week had a mean of 3.7 lifetime sex partners, while those left alone for five to 29 hours per week had an average of 4.2 lifetime sex partners and those home alone for more than 30 hours a week averaged 4.68 sex partners throughout their lifetime (p<.001). Lifetime sex partners for girls who spent such amounts of time without parental supervision averaged 2.12, 2.53, and 2.53, respectively. Cohen, Deborah A. Pediatrics 2002 I really can't see what this has to do with this argument. (?)
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Sept 7, 2004 3:35:03 GMT -5
Although I don't have the time to post all that I wish to respond with right now, I will remind you that Romans 1:10 (which was written by Paul, as were the other verses I mentioned) demonstrates homosexuality, not just sodomy, as you claim, as being sinful. No, Areopagite, I have already refuted this point. I believe this is one of the verses which is included in the "Temple prostitute" interpretation, and it cannot be true, due to the fact that the concept of "the homosexual person did not exist until the late 17th century. This raises the question: what is it that is wrong about "homosexuality" - is it sinful to be "in love" with someone of the same sex, because many teenagers often develop "crushes" on same-sex mentors, such as a special teacher or friend, often without recognising it as romantic love. This is considered a relatively innocent and normal part of adolescent development. Is it the sex? I am of the opinion that it has a LOT to do with the sex. That's what it was about in the early church and before. Is it the gay culture? Surely not. Views of being gay as "immoral" are sexual immorality issues. There is much more to being gay than sex. This is where the problem appears about how we define "homosexuality" (whatever that means) as "wrong". Love is not sex.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Sept 7, 2004 20:56:52 GMT -5
first lets get the easy one out of the way: I am more then positive nearly aall couples who live together before marriage have sex or some type of sexual relation
second
I will return with statistics proving that absolutly false without a doubt
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Sept 7, 2004 23:52:22 GMT -5
first lets get the easy one out of the way: I am more then positive nearly aall couples who live together before marriage have sex or some type of sexual relation Surely you must see that this is just your opinion, and mine is different, so you have no argument. second I will return with statistics proving that absolutly false without a doubt You need to realise that statistics do not always prove a point. The minority is important, too. I'm studying psych at uni at the moment, and I know that guilt around sex usually does cause sexual difficulties later on. It's simply a maladaptive way to feel about one's natural feelings. I want to add that masturbation is certainly a natural and extremely important activity for learning about your body and what kinds of stimulation you enjoy the most. If this is denied, there are negative results. Women in particular are much less likely to have orgasms later in life (and often even at all - EVER) if they don't masturbate in adolescence to learn how. Guilt is not conducive to an enjoyable and healthy sexuality, in women OR men. This is why I don't believe such prohibitions serve any purpose other than as means of the Church exercising social power and surveillance.
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Sept 8, 2004 8:07:05 GMT -5
No, Areopagite, I have already refuted this point. I believe this is one of the verses which is included in the "Temple prostitute" interpretation, and it cannot be true, due to the fact that the concept of "the homosexual person did not exist until the late 17th century. This raises the question: what is it that is wrong about "homosexuality" - is it sinful to be "in love" with someone of the same sex, because many teenagers often develop "crushes" on same-sex mentors, such as a special teacher or friend, often without recognising it as romantic love. This is considered a relatively innocent and normal part of adolescent development. Is it the sex? I am of the opinion that it has a LOT to do with the sex. That's what it was about in the early church and before. Is it the gay culture? Surely not. Views of being gay as "immoral" are sexual immorality issues. There is much more to being gay than sex. This is where the problem appears about how we define "homosexuality" (whatever that means) as "wrong". Love is not sex. Sorry Shiggy, I put the wrong passage in that post, although I did put the right passage in the post before that. The passage is Romans 1:26-27, but I have a suspicion that you didn't even bother to read it, considering the reply you gave. Romans 1:26-2726 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and recieving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. Now I suggest you read all of Romans 1 in order for this passage to sink in even deeper. Despite your objections that "homosexual" can be translated "male temple prostitute" (which I utterly reject), this passage refers to homosexuality and places it in the category of sin. Also, the "concept of the homosexual not existing until the 7th century" is a ridiculous argument. Homosexuality exist before 4500 B.C., as we can see from penateuch. Lastly, what's wrong about homosexuality is that its sin. It is rebellion against God's created order. The passage in Romans 1, which I displayed, clearly demonstrates this. God created Adam. Then God created Eve, who was to be Adam's wife. Notice how God didn't create Jimmy from Adam's rib. God intended for sex to be his way: within a monogamous heterosexual marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Sept 8, 2004 8:33:15 GMT -5
Now I suggest you read all of Romans 1 in order for this passage to sink in even deeper. Despite your objections that "homosexual" can be translated "male temple prostitute" (which I utterly reject), this passage refers to homosexuality and places it in the category of sin. You have failed to address my issue about the definition of what you mean by "homosexual". My argument was that this refers to the SEXUAL ACTS THEMSELVES as sins, rather than the idea that one is born with an innate "sexual orientation" - a very recent socio-historical concept. This is why the Bible cannot be taken any further than condemning the physical ACTS and sexual aspects of being gay, whether they be part of the gay person's life or not. Therefore, I consider it presumptuous for the Church and for Christians to claim that any aspect of being gay is sinful other than the sex acts themselves. Also, the "concept of the homosexual not existing until the 7th century" is a ridiculous argument. Homosexuality exist before 4500 B.C., as we can see from penateuch. Honestly, Areopagite, I thought you would have understood my argument. The "homosexuality"you refer to as existing before 4500 BC is only the physical sex acts. There existed no concept of some people being "heterosexual", and others being "homosexual" back then; sodomy was just another sexual activity - it did not define people as members of sexual categories like those we know today. It is not a "ridiculous argument"; sociology and anthropology have discovered these historical progressions of the emergence of social concepts people hold. Lastly, what's wrong about homosexuality is that its sin. It is rebellion against God's created order. The passage in Romans 1, which I displayed, clearly demonstrates this. God created Adam. Then God created Eve, who was to be Adam's wife. Notice how God didn't create Jimmy from Adam's rib. God intended for sex to be his way: within a monogamous heterosexual marriage. This is just your opinion and so does not hold relevance to this argument. If "homosexuality" is a sin, you must first define what you mean when you say "homosexuality" and, biblically, the only way you can do this is solely regarding the physical acts of sodomy, or (in view of the verse you gave) sexual lust for members of the same sex (male or female). Other aspects, such as romantic love or gay culture, you cannot touch. Doing so only indicates your personal opinions and the ideas that have been provided to you by others' opinions (such as in church).
|
|