tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3321402.post871888015149471155..comments2023-09-18T01:46:27.105-07:00Comments on Speaking Natalie: On HomosexualityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3321402.post-28588347636170115372008-12-19T12:16:00.000-08:002008-12-19T12:16:00.000-08:00Addendum to Jeremy:I say "pretty irrelevant" advis...Addendum to Jeremy:<BR/><BR/>I say "<I>pretty</I> irrelevant" advisedly, because I do think that general knowledge bears on the Bible generally. For instance, geology is an extra-Biblical concept, yet I do think it bears on some Biblical concepts, such as the creation of the Earth. Geology is "relevant" to the Bible in that sense. However, if we were to ask directly, "What does the Bible say about geology?" we would come up dry, because the Bible simply doesn't say anything about geology. Geology is "irrelevant" to the Bible in that sense.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, I'm sure we can come up with scenarios where knowing the state of modern research on sexual orientation impacts how we read the Bible (I can't think of any good ones at the moment, but I'm sure it could be done). This is why I don't say such research is "completely irrelevant" to the Bible. But I maintain that if we were to ask, "What does the Bible say about sexual orientation?" we would come up dry, just as if we had asked about geology. In that sense I consider sexual orientation research "pretty irrelevant" to the Bible.Nataliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12662787003156000207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3321402.post-6653217346332854212008-12-19T12:06:00.000-08:002008-12-19T12:06:00.000-08:00Thayet:I'm glad you can appreciate my method even ...<I>Thayet:</I><BR/><BR/>I'm glad you can appreciate my method even if we don't always have the same conclusions. I think it's method, and not result, that evidences true obedience to Scripture. I love you too.<BR/><BR/>I agree with you that what God cares about most is the state of our hearts. I think the question is whether homosexuality, or homosexual sex, is in the category of explicitly prohibited things, like adultery is. I think it is clear that homosexuality is not explicitly prohibited, and I don't even think it's <I>implicitly</I> prohibited. Homosexual <I>sex</I> is, I think, an ambiguous case.<BR/><BR/>Jeremy raises a good point that, while "homosexual sex" is often treated as a single concept, it really is as varied as any other sex. In modern times we could draw lines based on married vs. unmarried, loving vs. unloving, substitutionary vs. preferred (i.e., having same-gender sex merely because no opposite-gender sex is available - e.g., prisons and military service - vs. having same-gender sex even though opposite-gender sex is available), and probably several others. We should at least add to that the ancient distinction of cultic (i.e., religious) vs. non-cultic homosexual sex.<BR/><BR/>Each of those could and probably should get its own analysis, with potentially different results. With regard to the Leviticus passages, I find the discussion Alanna linked to, with its various interpretations, relatively persuasive (at least highly plausible). I can also see plenty of varied readings of the New Testament texts. I have an opinion as to which I feel is most plausible, but I don't think it's the only possible correct answer. It's worth emphasizing here that when I say I have "an opinion," I mean I have an opinion as to <I>how I will treat homosexual sex for myself</I>. Homosexual sex is not something that's likely to come up in my life, as a) there are not many men I have ever felt like having homosexual encounters with, b) the vast majority of those men are either taken or jerks, and c) I have no actual desire to have sexual encounters with anybody other than Thayet. As for my opinion of <I>other</I> people having homosexual sex (which is the only opinion most people care about), those fall into two categories: Christians and non-Christians. I don't expect non-Christians to care what the Bible says, so I don't really have anything to say in that case other than my standing opinion that they're really missing out by ignoring the whole Jesus thing. As for Christians having homosexual sex, I <I>do</I> expect them to care what the Bible says, but I consider the text sufficiently ambiguous that if they reach a different conclusion than I do I'm not going to call them wrong. Again, the important point for me is not the result but the method. If somebody honestly reads Scripture, with reasonable exposure to differing viewpoints, and concludes that there is no blanket prohibition against homosexual sex for Christians, then I have no problem with that (my own opinion notwithstanding). I <I>would</I> have a problem if a self-professed Christian came to the exact same conclusion by <I>ignoring</I> the Bible entirely, because that strikes at the core of what it means to be Christian. I would have the exact same problem if somebody concluded that "the Bible says" homosexual sex is prohibited but didn't actually read the Bible to come to that conclusion - that also strikes at the core of what it means to be Christian.<BR/><BR/>I think you give Paul short shrift, but you know that. I don't actually think marriage, sex, and homosexuality <I>are</I> his favorite topics. What he wrote about them gets quoted a lot, but I think that's more a reflection of modern interests than of Paul's. A reading of his entire extant body of work is that he wasn't deeply concerned with them at all. Paul's major interest and obsession, I think, was the saving grace of God and how that worked. In fact it seems to me that a goodly portion of his writings on the subjects of homosexuality, sex, and marriage was in response to questions other people had asked him.<BR/><BR/><I>Jeremy</I>:<BR/><BR/>I don't actually think the research is implicated at all. The definition of sexual orientation I'm inclined toward says nothing about whether sexual orientation is mutable (commonsense answer: of course it is; the question is when, and by what?), whether it's a choice (commonsense question: why are "choice" and "born with" mutually exclusive?), or what is the significance of its physical corollaries. All I've pointed out is that sexual orientation is a cultural construct, which I think is pretty obvious even though it's a cultural construct that has reference to certain physiological facts.<BR/><BR/>I focus on the culturally constructed nature of sexual orientation because it <I>wasn't</I> a cultural construct in the Biblical milieu. Oh, I'm sure there were people who preferred same-gender sex to opposite-gender sex then as now, but in the ancient world that wasn't a part of their identity. It wasn't an "is" about them. As a result, I don't think the Bible cares whether research shows that "sexual orientation" "is" mutable or immutable, or when it's mutable, or by what. Those are interesting scientific and sociological questions, but they're modern questions, not ancient ones. The moment you ask about sexual orientation <I>at all</I> you're talking about something extra-Biblical, which in my opinion makes sexual orientation research pretty irrelevant from the standpoint of analyzing what the Bible says.Nataliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12662787003156000207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3321402.post-69751985245811580862008-12-19T09:01:00.000-08:002008-12-19T09:01:00.000-08:00Wow, just a few simple questions and then about 15...Wow, just a few simple questions and then about 15 pages of response from three different people! Don't have nearly enough time to actually read it all in depth but I tried to read as fast as I could and a few brief comments might at least keep the conversation interesting...<BR/><BR/>On the thread of acts-vs-ism, I think I'm on the same page as you and maybe I could contribute a little bit by trolling <A HREF="http://www.ardentperf.com/2006/07/18/homosexuality/" REL="nofollow">an old conversation I had on the same topic</A> (interestingly, with a secular Jewish friend):<BR/><BR/><EM>"starting with the assumption that Jesus was God incarnate i can make a very strong case for the sole rational conclusion that homosexual *behaviour* is no more wrong than any sex outside of a marriage between one man and one woman. so honestly that means that the gay population isn’t any more in the wrong than, well, an awful lot of church people. :) and homosexual orientation isn’t any more wrong then, well, a heterosexual’s orientation to have sex with any hot girl/guy who allows it. (or anyone at all for a single person.) if i’m single for the rest of my life, well that would suck, but it wouldn’t make it right for me to have sex with someone."</EM><BR/><BR/>Theo's second question is really good and I think it nails a major misconception on the head. In my experience, most major churches and theologians teach something along the lines of what this post explains - that the <EM>behavior</EM> is sin. As far as "orientation" - different groups just have different understandings of what orientation means and they don't all agree with Kinsey or the APA. And nobody I know of thinks that there's something bad about a predisposition toward behavior that is morally wrong - I mean Christianity 101 says that we all have that.<BR/><BR/>But this is why I think that the questions about research are important. Even if you eschew opinion about research, you've already made a decision about who you think is reliable and reputable by the definition/nature of sexual orientation and the view of gender that you accept. You mentioned that you hadn't seen any research about the nature of orientation - I think that narth is a good place to start for some alternative viewpoints. (I'm aware that it's a heated and controversial subject. And highly politicized.)<BR/><BR/>But anyway... great post! Glad to see some good writing about what the bible actually does say. I wish more people would study it themselves. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3321402.post-91781622735692145872008-12-18T01:20:00.000-08:002008-12-18T01:20:00.000-08:00I hate to do this right before Christmas when ever...I hate to do this right before Christmas when everyone is supposed to be happy with each other, but since this has come up now, I'm gonna' comment freely. (I suspect I'm going to make myself fairly unpopular with some of the readers of this blog...) <BR/><BR/>For me there is one major element that determines whether any sexual act, homosexual or heterosexual is "moral" or acceptable (or whatever you want to call it)in terms of God: basically, are you engaging in said sexual act out of love for each other. Even premarital sex falls into this category for me.<BR/><BR/>God chose to make (and remake, a couple of times) humans in a certain image, with a specific set of emotional needs and traits. You can argue that the concept of lust is contrary to God's ways -- and I would agree with you, mostly -- but certainly the idea of "strong desire" is a natural trait as instilled in us by God. To that end, you can't convince me that it's "wrong" regardless of the gender you're "strongly desiring."<BR/><BR/>Instead, I'd say that any sexual act -- married, unmarried, same gender, opposite gender -- has the capacity to be ugly, shameful, and sinful if carried out from a place of darkness in the heart and/or spirit. Even the sex of the most vanilla of couples having the most vanilla sex can be pornographic in their hearts. In my opinion, sex, sex games, and other such recreational activities are perfectly fine if you're engaging in them with someone you love and care about, provided that adoration and comfort with the activity is mutual, regardless of gender relative to your own.<BR/><BR/>On a slightly different but related subject, I have <I>long</I> maintained that God would rather have a loving, supportive, faithful homosexual couple than a broken, abusive heterosexual one. God was not and is not discriminating in who He loves, and I strongly believe that we aren't meant to be discriminating either. End of tangent.<BR/><BR/>The more I ponder being Christian in light of the "Christian" people around me, the more strongly I believe that God (and what makes Him happy) is incredibly simple: Did you [insert action here] out of love and compassion? Obviously, there are lines here, murder in the heat of passion, as an example. "I loved him/her so much that I had to kill him/her." Adultery is a different but still applicable example. The couple in question might indeed love each other, but their actions are going against a clearly stated principle that exists in Christian tenant -- and their actions are <I>not</I> loving towards the adulterer's spouse. Hypocritical actions such as these that openly violate Christian doctrine are never going to be okay, and there are scores of examples like this. But in the day-to-day things, and I tend to think in most "religious" debates of this or similar nature, the bottom line for God is, as previously stated, not complicated at all. It's humans and our narrow-mindedness that close doors to each other and to God's actual intent towards us and how He intends us to act towards others. Humans project their moral codes on to Scripture and therefore on to God, and forget to respect the Bible -- both poetry and prose -- as a work of creative <I>art</I>. Not everything is meant at face value. Yes, you have to think about the content, mull it over, weigh parts against what else you know of the world, your heart, and your interactions with God.<BR/><BR/>Before I continue, it makes me happy that Natalie <I>thinks</I> about the text and respect it not only as a religious code, but also as a great writing. While I might not always agree with you, or might not agree with your path if we end up in the same place, I greatly appreciate the efforts you take along the way. It's this that keeps me loving you, no matter, how lame, arrogant, or pigheaded I think something you might say is. For the record, I think you did a pretty good job with this post!<BR/><BR/>As for the Scripture pointed to,(and for the benefit of those of you are consistently confuzzled because Thayet seems, "so much more earthy" than her husband), I'm going to ignore Natalie's selected passages merely illustrating that the Old Testament isn't entirely of relevance to modern Christianity, and comment on the others. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Genesis 19: I think you're right in that if you are going to use this passage to glean knowledge on how God feels about sexuality, the most you can get is about a specific sexual acts not sexual orientation. However, I don't think that is what this section is really all about. I don't think the proposed action of their choice is so much the center of attention as the fact that they are being malicious. Also, can we remember the fact that Lot was willing to give the mob his daughters instead? How is <I>that</I> okay? Is it okay to rebuke the mob and count this passage as a major factor in talking to God's feelings on homosexuality (or homosexual sex), but not in talking to child abuse, or heterosexual rape, or any other number of things that are surely -- clearly -- immoralities in God's eyes? I think people are missing the boat on this one.<BR/><BR/>Re: Judges 19: see above.<BR/><BR/>I don't have a particularly good argument against God's instructions for sexual morality given to Moses in Leviticus, since it's put rather directly. The best I can say is that those were from an older version of the Lord. He, like us and our moral continuum throughout our lives, changed, and changes in the details. Fortunately the essence of God (and what I believe actually matters to Him) stays the same -- are you loving one another as you love <I>Him</I>.<BR/><BR/>If I haven't gotten myself in trouble with you as a reader yet, you might want to brace yourself:<BR/><BR/>Paul was a nut.<BR/><BR/>I take almost everything he says with a grain of salt. And I believe you should, too.<BR/><BR/>The more I think about his actions, beliefs, and personal code the more I am convinced that he, himself, was a closet homosexual. Why else the ranting about marriage, sex, and homosexuality, to name a few of his favorite topics? It would not surprise me in the least if we could all zip back in time, find Paul's private diary, and learn that he was passionately, <I>romantically</I> in love with Christ.<BR/><BR/>It's passages like the one selected from Romans that drive me completely insane. "God gave [the immoral people] over to shameful lusts." Okay, God isn't trying to save His people or punish them, or anything. He's merely letting them have their way. This "bad" is on God. I seem to recall that we're supposed to forgive each other and support each other, and not give up on each other, no matter how bad it is. It's good to know that God can get worked up to the point of being disgusted, too -- so much so that He throws His hands up in the air and walks away for a bit. But what is this passage really about? And let us consider the source: a seemingly sexually-phobic Paul ranting that God was distressed because of all the immoralities committed by mankind. But he only <I>really</I> harps on sexuality in particular? Is that God's idea or his own? What are we <I>really</I> to learn about God from this passage except that we are indeed created in His image and being disgusted is a part of that construct?<BR/><BR/>1 Corinthians 6:9-10: I feel this passage points directly to the belief that God mostly cares about what is in our hearts -- sexual orientation, preference, acts, curiosities, and everything else be damned. The 99% of the list of sexual "villains" are people who are not engaging in sex with a pure heart or with loving intentions for the parties involved. Only the last entry -- "homosexual offenders" -- is ambivalent regarding the state of mind and heart of the party in question. Again, given the source, I would argue that this bit is thrown in on Paul's behalf and not on that of God. This is especially true given the rest of the list of non-sexual offenders that follows. <BR/><BR/>As an aside -- and I don't think what I'm about to suggest is true, given the author, but just for fun...What if, just <I>what if</I>, by "homosexual offenders" the author was literally referring to people [read as heterosexuals] who offend homosexuals via their ignorance and closed hearts? End of aside. I now return you to your originally intended comment...<BR/><BR/>The idea of one's intention and heart being at the center of all matters, specifically sexual ones, continues in the same chapter verses 12-18, which is entirely about sexual immorality but never once references <I>homo</I>sexuality. Prostitution is the only category of sexual offenders mentioned here, and, I'd argue, is exemplary of exactly what God is trying to say: impure hearts = impure sexual acts, regardless of orientation. There is nothing wrong with sex or "strong desire" and I believe we, as humans, sex and sexuality are God-given gifts, and we are meant to have fun with them and enjoy one another; however, we are also meant to be responsible with them and responsible for each other, and it is the depths of our hearts that matter to God in judging these issues/actions. And if you believe in the power of any of the words in the Bible then I trust you believe that God is in your heart and knows your heart and your intentions, and you will be judged accordingly as He has promised.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3321402.post-3832259892594871812008-12-17T22:57:00.000-08:002008-12-17T22:57:00.000-08:00I'll do the best I can, my friend ...1) Modern Jud...I'll do the best I can, my friend ...<BR/><BR/>1) Modern Judaism seems, to my outsider's eyes, so far removed from the text of the Tanakh that I feel completely unqualified to discuss how a modern Jew of any stripe would feel about your question. I don't even really know enough about the major schools of Jewish hermeneutics to speculate. Restricting myself to what I know about the Judaism of antiquity, though, and to the texts I've cited, it seems to me that the Jewish God and Christian God feel pretty equally about homosexual sex. Again, though, I have absolutely zero idea how that translates into modern Jewish thought.<BR/><BR/>2) This is one of those areas where Christian practice is often different from Christian theory. For the sake of simplicity Christian attitudes towards the authority of religious instruction can be broken down into three positions. The first is the Catholic position, where certain types of instruction from higher authorities <I>are</I> considered authoritative in the same way that Scripture is, for essentially the reasons you articulate. The second is the Protestant reaction to that doctrine, which states that there is <I>nothing</I> as authoritative as the text of Scripture, and enshrines the right of all individual believers to interpret that text according to their conscience and best intellectual ability. Nominally, that is the position that <I>all</I> Protestant denominations take. In practice, there is often a third, middle position, where individual Christians will give greater weight to the opinions of some people than others when interpreting the Bible. This middle position obviously has a lot of room for variation, from giving weight to those more learned than oneself because of their greater knowledge or expertise (which certainly seems appropriate to me) to unthinking substitution of the opinions of others for doing one's own legwork (which seems to me like its worst, least legitimate form). Personally I fall into the third group myself. I certainly value the wisdom of those I consider spiritually mature, and I value the knowledge of those I consider learned, but I try very hard to maintain my intellectual independence.<BR/><BR/>3) To me the text as it stands fits both possibilities equally. I see your point, but it also seems to me that if God had a problem with homosexual sex only, presumably he would not have bothered to discuss anything else with a people who had no real concept of sexual orientation. Neither seems, to me, more likely than the other on the basis of the text itself.<BR/><BR/>This isn't to say that the acts-vs-ism distinction is one I find particularly persuasive as a logical matter. If I were constructing a religious position on this myself I would certainly do my damndest to avoid the very problem that you point out. But doing that would make me not a Christian but someone who merely thinks Christianity contains a lot of good ideas. As I consider that option off the table, I am stuck with the position the text leaves me in, however uncomfortable it may be.<BR/><BR/>On a second look, though, while it may seem <I>problematic</I>, it doesn't seem at all absurd or contradictory to have God say, "I love you as you are, but I do not want you to do all you find natural or all that seems good in your own eyes." That is the sort of thing that the Christian God says <I>all the time</I>, so saying it about homosexual sex acts certainly seems within the realm of possibility. That doesn't make it any less uncomfortable or problematic, but it does make it seem like not a contradiction or obviously contrary to the nature of God, to me. Which leaves me with the reading of the text that I have, which I try to grapple with as best I can. Nothing says wrestling with Scripture is inconsistent with accepting its authority. Indeed there are several celebrated passages which suggest the exact opposite (e.g., Genesis 32; Acts 17, especially v. 11)<BR/><BR/>4) I assume you mean, "to what extent do Christians have a responsibility to discourage others from engaging in acts upon which God frowns, solely because God frowns upon them", as opposed to any other (e.g., civic) responsibility to discourage others from engaging in acts upon which God <I>happens</I> to frown (e.g., you might say we have a civic responsibility to discourage people from committing murder).<BR/><BR/>This is a question that I think the American church has not sufficiently addressed. The answer of the European church, by and large, is "None whatever; live and let live, and keep all religious discourse out of the public sphere." I don't think that can be <I>quite</I> the right answer, as I don't see how it squares with passages in the Bible that clearly call for spreading the Word (e.g., Matthew 28:16-20).<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, spreading the Word is not the same thing as spreading Christian morality. They're really two very different things, and I think a large (and lamentably politically active) portion of the American church has forgotten that. In my opinion, getting those two things confused will end up putting the cart before the horse. It is one thing to discourage a fellow Christian from engaging in acts upon which God frowns. That is the sort of thing one is <I>supposed</I> to do; it's part of being co-religionists, of being members of the same Church ("Church" the theological concept, not necessarily the legal entity or social organization). One is supposed to do it lovingly, of course, but it's clearly the sort of thing that is contemplated.<BR/><BR/>Discouraging people who aren't Christians from engaging in acts upon which God frowns is, in my opinion, not something Christians have any responsibility to do whatsoever. In my second Proposition 8 post I discussed briefly one of the passages that I think sometimes gets misinterpreted to lead to a contrary conclusion, and you can read about that if you just do a word search for "Chronicles" on this page. My view of a Christian's responsibility to discourage non-Christians from engaging in acts upon which God frowns is that they have a responsibility to do all they can to make people fall in love with Jesus (and see also my Proposition 8 posts for some thoughts on how they should - and shouldn't - go about doing that). But a person's relationship with Jesus is not at all the same as whether a person engages in acts upon which God frowns. The latter is merely morality; the former is a different sort of thing altogether.Nataliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12662787003156000207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3321402.post-54497736144977698352008-12-17T22:05:00.000-08:002008-12-17T22:05:00.000-08:00So, of course, I'm responding to this post because...So, of course, I'm responding to this post because of non-academic interest, but I hope that my questions are intellectual and academic, and I certainly will not "take personally" any particular response.<BR/><BR/>I should couch everything I say with the admission that I have not studied (or even read much of any translation of) the Bible, so I'm not particularly trying to make any argument of my own; I really am curious about some of the finer points of what you said.<BR/><BR/>(1) Perhaps you haven't studied Jewish (etc.) law enough to comment, but if you have, I have an exercise in relative thinking: it seems that Christians are not bound by the Torah passages, but should our Jewish friends assume that their God frowns more strongly on homosexual sex than the Christian God?<BR/><BR/>(2) Maybe this is another relativist question?: Many Christians take a lot of religious guidance from the instructions handed down by the Church, and many Christian churches, having studied the Bible carefully, conclude that God does frown on homosexual<I>ity</I>. Is there a place in your Biblical methodology for your instruction from (human) higher authorities? For example, perhaps someone (perhaps a religious leader) has talked to God a lot, and He told that person that homosexual<I>ity</I> is bad. Granted, He didn't tell them through the Bible, but doesn't that count too?<BR/><BR/>(3) I'm not particularly swayed by your acts-vs-ism distinction. Certainly, the Bible makes it clear that God loves everyone, and so probably doesn't hate homosexual<I>s</I>. But the fact that Paul didn't have the language to talk about homosexual<I>ity</I>, it seems to me, makes it more likely that God meant to condemn it. I mean, if Paul did have a notion of ``sexual orientation'', and yet still only talked about the sex acts, that would be very good evidence that God really wanted to distinguish only certain activity as bad, and not a certain status. But if He had wanted to say that it was bad to be a homosexual, and say it at the time and place of the Bible, then it seems that He would have done it the way we currently have the book. And if God did believe that homosexuality, in the modern conception, was not problematic, then He certainly would not have condemned homosexual sex acts, since such activity is part of how homosexuals define ourselves.<BR/><BR/>(4) To what extent do Christians have a responsibility to discourage others from engaging in acts upon which God frowns?Theohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03344294173628793721noreply@blogger.com