Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu soc.religion.christian:21744
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!concert!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Christian Homosexuality (part 1 of 2)
Message-ID: <May.20.05.01.49.1993.22832@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 20 May 93 09:01:50 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Lines: 288
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

Note:  I am breaking this reply into 2 parts due to length.

mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>In article <May.11.02.36.34.1993.28074@athos.rutgers.edu> 
>mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (someone named Mark) writes:
>>mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>>>Homosexual Christians have indeed "checked out" these verses.  Some of
>>>them are used against us only through incredibly perverse interpretations.
>>>Others simply do not address the issues.
>> 
>>I can see that some of the above verses do not clearly address the issues, 
> 
>There are exactly ZERO verses that "clearly" address the issues.

I agree that there are no verses that have gone unchallenged by gay rights 
activists.  But if there are zero verses that "'clearly' address the issues," 
doesn't that mean that there are also no verses that clearly *support* your 
case?  Are you sure you want to say that there are zero verses that clearly 
address the issues?

>>however, a couple of them seem as though they do not require "incredibly 
>>perverse interpretations" in order to be seen as condemning homosexuality.
> 
>The kind of interpretation I see as "incredibly perverse" is that applied
>to the story of Sodom as if it were a blanket equation of homosexual
>behavior and rape.  Since Christians citing the Bible in such a context
>should be presumed to have at least READ the story, it amounts to slander
>-- a charge that homosexuality == rape -- to use that against us.

The story in Genesis 19 tells of the citizens of Sodom demanding an opportunity 
to "know" the two men who were Lot's guests; the fact that the Sodomites became 
angry when Lot offered them his daughters could be seen as indicating that they 
were interested only in homosexual intercourse.  Yes, what they wanted was 
rape, homosexual rape, and everybody agrees that that is wrong.  Some 
Christians believe that the homosexual aspect of their desire was just as 
sinful as the rape aspect of their desire.  The passage does not say what it 
was that so offended God, whether it was the homosexuality, or the intended 
rape, or both, but I believe that it is only fair to consider all the possible 
alternatives in the light of related Scriptures.  I do not believe that those 
who believe God was offended by both the homosexuality and the rape are trying 
to say that homosexuality is itself a form of rape.

You seems to take the view that the *only* sin described in Gen. 19 is in the 
fact that the Sodomites wanted to commit rape, and that it is unfair to 
"stigmatize" their homosexuality by associating it with the sin of rape.  I can 
see how you might reach such a conclusion if you started from the conclusion 
that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, but then again we're not 
supposed to start from our conclusions because that's circular reasoning.  If 
God is in fact opposed to homosexual intercourse in general, then the more 
probably interpretation is that He was at least as offended by the Sodomites' 
blatant homosexuality as He was by their intent to commit rape.  Later on I 
will document why I believe the Old Testament portrays God as One who despises 
*any* homosexual intercourse, even if both partners are consenting adults.

>>"... Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, 
>>nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor 
>drunkards, 
>>nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom  of God.  And such 
>were 
>>some of you..."  I Cor. 6:9-11.
> 
>The moderator adequately discusses the circularity of your use of _porneia_
>in this.  

The moderator found my proposal to be circular in that he regarded the church 
as the proper  authority for determining what *kinds* of marriages would be 
legitimate, and thus the church's refusal to recognize "perverted" marriages 
was circular reasoning.  My questions, however, had nothing to do with the 
church ordaining new kinds of marriages, and so his argument was something of a 
straw man.  In terms of my original question, the precise 
definition/translation of "porneia" isn't really important, unless you are 
trying to argue that the Bible doesn't really condemn extramarital sex.  I'm 
not sure the moderator was trying to do that.

In any case, I think both you and the moderator have missed the point here.  
When Jesus was asked about divorce, He replied, "Have you not read, that He who 
created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this 
cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife; and 
the two shall become one flesh'?  Consequently they are no longer two, but one 
flesh.  What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." (Mt. 
19:4-6).  I read here that the sexual union of a man (male) and his wife 
(female) is a divinely-ordained union.  In other words, the institution of 
heterosexual marriage is something ordained and established by God--not by men, 
and not by the church, but by God.  Men are not supposed to dissolve this 
union, in Jesus' words, because it is not something created by men.

This is not circular reasoning, this is just reading God's word.  I read in the 
Bible that God ordained the union of male and female.  I do not read of any 
similar divinely-ordained union of two males or two females.  Granted, there 
have been uninspired men who have ordained "alternative" unions (isn't Caligula 
reported to have "married" his horse?), but the only union that Jesus refers to 
as "what God has joined together" is the heterosexual union of a man and his 
wife.

(Pardon me for mentioning Caligula.  I know that's probably inflammatory, and I 
should save it for the discussion on bestiality, in part 2 of this post.  
Please hold off on passing judgement on me until you have read that section of 
my reply.)

Anyway, my original question was not whether we should translate "porneia" in a 
way that condemns only a select few kinds of extramarital sex, my question was: 
given that heterosexual marriage is the only union described by the Bible as 
divinely-ordained, and given a Biblical prohibition against sex outside of 
marriage, is homosexual intercourse sinful?  Of course, I see now that first we 
need to ask whether the Bible really condemns sex outside of marriage.  You 
seem to be trying to argue that only certain kinds of extramarital sex (and 
other sins) are really wrong:

>>I think we can all agree (with Paul) that there are SOME kinds of
>activity that could be named by "fornication" or "theft" or "coveting" or
>"reviling" or "drunkenness" which would well deserve condemnation.  We may
>or may not agree to the bounds of those categories, however; and the very
>fact that they are argued over suggests that not only is the matter not at
>all "clear" but that Paul -- an excellent rhetorician -- had no interest
>in MAKING them clear, leaving matters rather to our Spirit-led decisions,
>with all the uncomfortable living-with-other-readings that has dominated
>Christian discussion of ALL these areas.

Alternatively, it may be that the definition of such terms as "porneia" and all 
the rest was, in Paul's day, what we would call a FAQ; i.e. the Law, as the 
"tutor" appointed by God to lead us to Christ, had just spent some sixteen 
centuries drumming into the heads of God's people the idea that things like 
homosexual intercourse were abominations that deserved punishment by death.  
Perhaps Paul didn't go into detail on what "porneia" &c were because after 1600 
years he considered the question to have been dealt with already.  Perhaps the 
reason God's apostles and prophets did not devote a great deal of time defining 
a distinct, New Testament sexuality was because He did not intend any 
significant changes in the sexuality He had already established by the Law.  
I'll discuss the Law and homosexuality in greater detail below, but I just 
wanted to point out that the New Testament's failure to develop a detailed new 
standard of sexuality is not necessarily evidence that God does not care about 
sexual conduct--especially after 1600 years of putting people to death for 
practicing homosexuality!

>Homosexual behavior is no different.  I (and the other gay Christians I
>know) are adamant in condemning rape -- heterosexual or homosexual -- and
>child molestation -- heterosexual or homosexual -- and even the possibly
>"harmless" but obsessive kinds of sex -- heterosexual or homosexual --
>that would stand condemned by Paul in the very continuation of the chapter
>you cite [may I mildly suggest that what *Paul* does in his letter that
>you want to use is perhaps a good guide to his meaning?]
> 
>        "'I am free to do anything,' you say.  Yes, but not everything
>        is for my good.  No doubt I am free to do anything, but I for one
>        will not let anything make free with me."  [1 Cor. 6:12]
> 
>Which is a restatement that we must have no other "god" before God.  A
>commandment neither I nor any other gay Christian wishes to break.  Some
>people are indeed involved in obsessively driven modes of sexual behavior.
>It is just as wrong (though slightly less incendiary, so it's a secondary
>argument from the 'phobic contingent) to equate homosexuality with such
>behavior as to equate it with the rape of God's messengers.

And how do you define an "obsessively driven" mode of sexual behavior?  How do 
you determine the difference between obsessive sexual behavior and normal sex 
drives?  Is the desire to have "sinful" sex an obsessively driven mode of 
behavior?  I think you see that this is circular reasoning:  Why is it defined 
as sinful?  Because it is obsessive.  What makes it obsessive?  The fact that 
the person is driven to seek it even though it's sinful.  Or is it obsessive 
because it is a desire for that which society condemns?  Once again, that's 
circular:  Why is it defined as obsessive?  Because the person wants it even 
though society condemns it.  Why does society condemn it?  Because it is 
obsessive.

You seem to be trying to limit the Bible's condemnation of "porneia" to only 
"perverted" sex acts, but I don't think you can really define "perverted" 
without falling into exactly the same circularity you accuse me of.  What, 
then, is Paul condemning when he declares that "Fornicators...shall not enter 
the kindgom of heaven"?

>I won't deal with the exegesis of Leviticus, except very tangentially.
>Fundamentally, you are exhibiting the same circularity here as in your
>assumption that you know what _porneia_ means.

I think you misunderstood me:  I was not trying to make an argument on some 
technical definition of "porneia", I was raising the issues of the sinfulness 
of extramarital sex and the lack of any Scriptural evidence of a homosexual 
counterpart to the divinely-ordained union of heterosexual couples.

>There are plenty of
>laws prohibiting sexual behavior to be found in Leviticus, most of
>which Christians ignore completely.  They never even BOTHER to examine
>them.  They just *assume* that they know which ones are "moral" and
>which ones are "ritual."  Well, I have news for you.  Any anthropology
>course should sensitize you to ritual and clean vs. unlcean as categories
>in an awful lot of societies (we have them too, but buried pretty deep).
>And I cannot see any ground for distinguishing these bits of Leviticus
>from the "ritual law" which NO Christian I know feels applies to us.
> 
>I'm dead serious here.  When people start going on (as they do in this
>matter) about how "repulsive" and "unnatural" our acts are -- and what
>do they know about it, huh? -- it is a solid clue to the same sort of
>arbitrary cultural inculcations as the American prejudice against eating
>insects.

Please remember what you just said here for when we discuss bestiality, in part 
2.

>On what basis, other than assuming your conclusion, can you
>say that the law against male-male intercourse in Leviticus is NOT a part
>of the ritual law?

I am glad you asked.  Would you agree that if God condemns homosexual 
intercourse even among those who are not under the Law of Moses, then this 
would show that God's condemnation of homosexual acts goes beyond the ritual 
law?  If I can show you from Scripture that God punished the homosexual 
behavior of people who were *not* under the Law of Moses, would you agree that 
God's definition of homosexual intercourse as an abomination is not limited to 
just the ritual law and those who are under the Law?

I've been having a private Email discussion with a 7th Day Adventist on the 
subject of the Sabbath, and my main point against a Christian sabbath-keeping 
requirement has been that nowhere in Scripture does God command Gentiles to 
rest on the sabbath, nor does He ever condemn Gentiles for failing to rest on 
the Sabbath.  This illustrates the difference between universal requirements 
such as "Thou shalt not kill", and requirements that are merely part of the 
(temporary, Jews-only) Law of Moses, such as the Sabbath.

The point you are trying to make is that you think the classification of 
homosexual intercourse as "an abomination" is *just* a part of the temporary, 
Jews-only Law of Moses.  I on the other hand believe that it was labelled by 
God as an abomination for Gentiles as well as Jews, and that He punished those 
guilty of this behavior by death or exile.  Here's why:

Back in Genesis 15, God promises to give Abraham all the land that was then in 
the possession of "the Amorite"--kinda hard on the Amorite, don't you think?  
But in verse 16 we have a clue that this might not be as unjust as it sounds:  
it seems God is going to postpone this takeover for quite a while, because "the 
iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete".

Remember, this is all long before there was a ritual law.  What then was the 
iniquity the Amorite was committing that, when complete, would justify his 
being cast out of his own land and/or killed?  Go back and look at Lev. 18 
again.  Verses 1-23 list a variety of sins, including child sacrifice, incest, 
homosexuality, and bestiality.  Beginning in verse 24, God starts saying, "Do 
not defile yourselves by any of these things; for _by_all_these_ _things_ the 
nations which I am casting out before you _have_ _become_defiled_.  For the 
land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its punishment upon it, so 
the land has spewed out its inhabitants... For whoever does any of these 
abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their 
people."

Notice that God says the Gentile nations (who are *not* under the ritual Law of 
Moses) are about to be punished because they have "defiled" themselves and 
their land by committing "abominations" that include incest, bestiality, and 
homosexuality.  Flip ahead two chapters to Lev. 20, and you will find these 
same "abominations" listed, and this time God decrees the death penalty on 
anyone involved in any of these things, including, specifically, a man "lying 
with another man as one lies with a woman" (Lv. 20:13).  Their 
"bloodguiltiness" was upon them, meaning that in God's eyes, they deserved to 
die for having done such things.  According to Lev. 18:26-29, even "the alien 
[non-Jew] who sojourns among you" was to refrain from these practices, on 
penalty of being "cut off [by God?] from among their people."

Under the circumstances, I believe it would be very difficult to support the 
claim that in the Old Testament God objected only to the intended rape, and not 
the homosexuality, in Sodom.  Since God took the trouble to specifically list 
sex between two consenting men as one of the reasons for wiping out the 
Canaanite nations, (not homosexual rape, mind you, but plain, voluntary gay 
sex), I'd say God was not neutral on the subject of homosexual behavior, even 
by those who had nothing to do with the Mosaic Covenant.

>For those Christians who *do* think that *some* parts of Leviticus can
>be "law" for Christians (while others are not even to be thought about)
>it is incumbent on you *in every case, handled on its own merits* to
>determine why you "pick" one and ignore another.

According to II Tim. 3:16, all Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable 
for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness; thus, I 
believe that even though we Gentile Christians are not under the Law, we can 
learn from studying it.  If a certain action is defined as a sin because it is 
a violation of the Law, then it is a sin only for those who are under the Law 
(for example, in the case of Sabbath-keeping).  Where God reveals that certain 
actions are abominations even for those who are not under the Law, then I 
conclude that God's objection to the practice is not based on whether or not a 
person is under the Law, but on the sinfulness of the act itself.  In the case 
of homosexuality, homosexual intercourse is defined by God as a defiling 
abomination for Gentiles as well as Jews, i.e. for those who are not under the 
Law as well as for those who are.  Thus, I am not at all trying to say that 
Gentile Christians have any obligation to keep any part of the Law, I am simply 
saying that God referred to homosexuality as a sin even for those who are not 
obligated to keep the Law.  If this is so, then I do not think we can appeal to 
our exemption from the Law as valid grounds for legitimizing a practice God has 
declared a bloodguilty abomination that defiles both Jew and Gentile.

(continued in Part 2)

- Mark
