Now let me assume the persona of "Gayla X Agete", the confused "Gay Christian Ally" --- although I could just as well assume the name "Kristen Powers."
Mr. Rogers: "If homosexuality in the Bible referred to homosexual rape, it would say so. If loving, monogamous homosexual relations were allowed, it would say so. God is not stupid, and He knows how to make distinctions, when there is one to be made."
Gayla: Exactly to the point. God does connect his Scriptural condemnation to sex expressed in idolatry, forcible rape, temple prostitution, and soft people addicted to luxury ("malakoi"). He made this distinction so we could see it's exploitative sex He objects to, not loving marital sex. He says this so clearly n Hebrews 13:4 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV) “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."
Marriage honorable for "all" means honorable for "all." It's “only” the whoremongers and adulterers He will judge."
Mr. Rogers: “The word “therefore” connects the making of Eve from a part of Adam’s body with the “one flesh” sexual union between a man and a woman in marriage: it is the reunion of the two constituent parts of a sexual whole. It is not another man who is the missing part or sexual complement of a man, but rather a woman. (Jesus emphasizes this connection between the two different sexes, “male and female,” in Matthew 19:4–6 and Mark 10:6–8.)
Gayla: Biblically, sharing the same bones and flesh is a common metaphor for kinship. In Genesis 29:14, Laban greets his nephew Jacob as "my bones and flesh"; and in 2 Samuel 19:12-13, David greets some of the men of Judah as "my brothers, my bone and my flesh"; see also, Judges 9:2; 2 Sam 5:1; 1 Chr 11:1)…" It doesn’t mean one is a male and theother is a female, nor does it mean that they’re married, or meant to be married!
In the NT, the way Paul uses “one flesh” shows that it doesn’t mean “to be married”: 1 Cor. 6:16: “Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH." Paul, in using this verse, is saying that when a person has sex with a prostitute, he becomes one flesh with her. Paul is in no way saying that the man and the prostitute are now married!
Mr. Rogers: “”Consistent with the pattern in Genesis 1–2, sexual intercourse outside of the marriage relationship between one man and one woman is prohibited. For example, “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14; reaffirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19:18; cf. Romans 13:9; James 2:11). In addition, other specific kinds of sexual intercourse outside of marriage are also prohibited, such as prostitution (1 Corinthians 6:15–18), incest (Leviticus 20:11–21; 1 Corinthians 5:1–2), and bestiality (Leviticus 18:23; 20:15–16).”
Gayla: I complertely agree with your argument here, since the Bible is clearly against any sexual intercourse outside of marriage. But our understanding of that has been a gradual thing. In the OT it was NOT clearly “one man and one woman”, because the Patriarchs and Kings all had plural marriages (plural wives) plus, concubines. Intercourse outside of marriage was sometimes clearly provided for (cf the distribution of virgin prisoners of war to the soldiers as part of the plunder --- that nasty business with the Midianites -- Numbers 31.) The definition of marriage has since been further refined to mean, no polygamy, no concubines, no gender discrimination, but just two people who love each other, regardless of gender. Paul sees the ultimate wrongness of gender discrimination when he says, Galatians 3:28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” That’s very supportive of marriage equality.
Mr. Rogers: ”Homosexual conduct is also viewed as a sin (something contrary to God’s will) in several passages of the Bible. Leviticus 18:22 says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination [Hebrew to‘ebah, actions that are extremely displeasing to God].”
Gayla: The Biblical context makes it clear that this is an OT thing that no longer applies to us. That same chapter, Leviticus 18, says it is an abomination to have intercourse with a woman who is menstruating. the Bible further refines this to mean you have to wait 7 days after the last spot of menstrual blood. The OT says that for sex to be kosher, the women had to have ritual mikvah baths to be purified, and all the men had to be circumcised. You ready to apply that?
Other parts of the OT describe the eating of various birds --- owls, eagles, waterfowl, etc. -- as well as shellfish and any kind of non-kosher meat, as an “abomination”; then there other related offenses such as mixing two kinds of fabrics and the growing of two types of seed in one field. These were provisions meant to keep the Jews strictly away from other tribes by making all of their customs different: the way they ate, dressed, farmed, and related to each other. All these 616 Mitzvot from Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers have been superseded in the New Covenant.
Mr. Rogers: ”In a long list of sins, Paul also includes “men who practice homosexuality” (1 Corinthians 6:9).This phrase translates two different Greek terms: malakos means “soft” or “effeminate” and was commonly used in the Greco-Roman world to refer to the “passive” partner in homosexual acts, while arsenokoites is a combination of Greek arsen (meaning “man”) and koite (here meaning “sexual intercourse”). The term arsenokoites was apparently coined by Paul from the Septuagint (Greek translation) of Leviticus 20:13, and means (in plural) “men who have intercourse with men.”
Gayla: There is excellent Biblical evidence that arsenokoitai means a man fornicating with a man, not just the act of having intercourse with a man. If it were the latter, it would also apply to a married woman “bedding” a man; but obviously it is lawful for her to do so, because they are spouses; they are married. Similarly with gay couples: if it were arsenokoitai, fornication, I would be a sin; but if they are spouses, in marriage, this is not a sin.
As for “malakoi,” it means, simply, “soft.” The same word is usually used to describe fine, delicate fabric. This is how Jesus uses it: “What did you go out to the desert? To see a man dressed in soft clothes (malakos)?” If applied to a person, it wold mean a delicate, perhaps weak and cowering man. Its application to sex is dubious. In the LXX this Greek word applies to those who live in luxury.
Mr. Rogers: “In 1 Timothy 1:10 Paul uses the same word arsenokoites in the midst of vices derived from “the law” (here, the second half of the Ten Commandments), which means that this verse also should be interpreted as an absolute prohibition of male-with-male intercourse”
Gayla: No, the Biblical criterion of the Commandment against “adultery” is not “straight or gay?” It’s “married or unmarried”? It is an absolute prohibition of all fornication and adultery. This text in itself gives us to understand that marriage is the only proper setting which sanctifies sexual union. It is a pro-marriage argument. It is not an argument against gay marriage.
Mr. Rogers: ”Early Jewish interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and early Christian interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, also show that these verses were understood as absolute prohibitions against all types of homosexual conduct.”
Gayla: That’s just -- as you said----interpretation. In other words, the traditions of men. Jewish “interpretation” is obviously nor authoritative: these are the same people that interpret the Scriptures to deny that Jesus is the Christ. Early Christian interpretation was similarly not free from error. I would rather depend on the words of Scripture alone, not human interpretation and the “traditions of men.”
Mr. Rogers, as you know -- and as other reads and lurkers I hope are aware -- I myself am not “Gayla” and I emphatically do not believe in “Gayla’s” -- or Kristen Powers’ -- arguments.
However, I deny that they are simply in open and knowing rebellion against God’s revealed will. They think they are DOING God’s will and holding strong AGAINST the “traditions of men” which have always been prone to error. Look at what the majority of Christians used to believe about the earth being the center of the Universe, slavery being OK, and discrimination against gay people being OK -- all based on erroneous interpretations of the Bible, ---they would say!
I think a good many of them have been seriously misled by clever teachers, and are further encouraged along this path because of the widespread bias against Christian Tradition (what all Christianity has agreed upon until approx. 15 minutes ago). They have, as well, an unfounded confidence in each person’s competence to correctly interpret the words of Scripture.
as for discrimination, what is that? Not celebrating immoral behavior is now "discrimination"?
as for discrimination, what is that? Not celebrating immoral behavior is now "discrimination"?
“Gayla: Exactly to the point. God does connect his Scriptural condemnation to sex expressed in idolatry, forcible rape, temple prostitution, and soft people addicted to luxury (”malakoi”). He made this distinction so we could see it’s exploitative sex He objects to, not loving marital sex.”
Here is the problem with Gayla’s argument: It is false. Period. It is not a true statement. God makes no distinction, and His Word is clear. Someone who rejects the clear and obvious teaching of God’s Word is NOT following the Holy Spirit, and Hebrews makes it clear that rejecting God after tasting Him and knowing He is good is a very dangerous thing!