1 Timothy 1:9-10
Here Paul uses the same word he did in 1 Corinthians 6:9 to designate one class of people who will not inherit the kingdom of God — αρσενοκοιται (aresenkoitai). So I see no need to take the time to repeat what I said in my previous post about what the word means. Here Paul says that the law is for "the lawless and disobedient," including those who engage in homosexual conduct. In other words, the law is good in that it tells people to avoid conduct contrary to sound teaching, conduct such as that outlined in these verses. Those who do not engage in such conduct do not need the law to guide them away from it.
To me, this passage in its effect says nothing more than what we already have from Corinthians, but the repetition is significant in that it confirms the importance of the doctrine. There are scholars who suggest that the author is not actually Paul himself, but someone writing in his tradition. If so it gives evidence that the teaching of 1 Corinthians and Romans on the topic was taken as an accepted point of Pauline doctrine by his immediate followers.
Note: It has been more than six months since I have posted in this series. You might want to review the previous posts by clicking on the label "St. Paul."
Another Note: July 11 is St. Benedict's Day. I posted on it last year.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I get so tired of this and what reformed murderer St Paul was supposed to have said. As a gay man how can you accept his statement that engaging in homosexuality, like adultery, is considered as being lawless and disobedient.
I nearly screamed and hit the roof when you recently commented on Seth's blog saying "But then I wouldn't partake in gay sex because it is immoral." Gay sex is NOT immoral so please dont say that again as a supposedly GAY man
The Church is a dying institution full of deluded people that need something false to believe in to give themselves some kind of self respect. And it is turning, and has turned thousands of people including me to steer well clear of it.
It's stance on homosexuality is shocking to say the least simply because you believe in scriptures written by who knows who, that most had no connection to where the supposed original source came from.
I personally blame the Church for the anti-gay hostilities or should I say atrocities taking place in Africa right now where being gay is akin to being a serial murderer, all because the Church chooses to brainwash the people about how evil homosexuality is.
It is false for you to say that 'ALL scriptures are the word of God in human language.'
Being gay is not immoral nor is it a sin and you are fooling yourself by claiming to be celibate. The human body has to eject natural reproductive fluids whether you may admit it or not.
RE: Sex....
On a recent open air gay cruise on a busy hot night I was fortunate enough to have 'Worked' my way through 6 or 7 attractive guys (and even 2 cute Asian guys together). Well I certainly didn't believe I was sinning. But I suppose you'll tell me in your misjudged wisdom that I will go to Hell.
I now respect more so the current and more sensible statements on how we all got here by the brilliant mind of Lawrence Krauss.
@ deejohn — Thanks for commenting. It seems that we are in some disagreement here.
The purpose of this series is to present my understanding of what St. Paul is saying for consideration by readers who consider that his writings are holy scripture that should be taken seriously. So of course I understand that if you don't believe that the Bible is somehow the word of God, then you won't accept what it says as being something that deserves to be heeded.
As to how I as a gay man, in the sense of being almost exclusively sexually attracted to men, can accept a teaching that says gay sex is immoral, I'll say two things. One: I believe that the scriptures are clear on the point, and as a Christian, I believe they are the word of God, and I believe that the evident purpose of the reproductive system in all species with sexual reproduction corroborates this. And the teaching of scripture includes the passages in Genesis about creation of humans as male and female being joined to to command to be fruitful and multiply with the consequence that husband and wife become one flesh. Two: I do not think that my desires are the creators of morality. I can easily accept that it could be immoral for me to do things that I am strongly motivated to do.
I understand that you disagree with my conclusions. And I certainly cannot say that you will go to Hell for what you did on the cruise, because what you have to follow is your conscience — your rational judgment of what is right or wrong in particular circumstances. Sin is when you do what your conscience tells you is wrong, or refrain from doing what your conscience tells you you are obliged to do. So if you have a conscience which assures you that gay sex is not immoral under those circumstances, then you don't sin when you do it. Just don't shout down a conscience which is trying to tell you, "You shouldn't be doing this," whether the "this" in question has to do with sex or anything else.
Best wishes.
Thankyou for responding. As you know I had a Catholic upbringing and if there's one thing I learnt after years of Religious indoctrination it was that God was compassionate with all things, and that no subjects were looked down on.
So for his followers and diarists, clearly moralist's of the day, who misguidedly castigated and outlawed the state of homosexuality, well they were quite clearly wrong simply because it goes against all of God's known compassion. It makes you wonder if the Disciples ever actually sat down with their Master and openly discussed this issue that in years to come would turn people away from the Church.
One imagines the the Church would be a thriving institution if it wasn't for this one great flaw.
But I certainly never ever experience guilt when experiencing pleasures of the flesh, and certainly not so since that first time aged 16. Before the age of 16 I was propositioned many times by boys I secretly worshipped and idolized but was so naive not to realize what was really happening, so those opportunities were gone and lost. To this day I still exersice my wrist over those lost opportunities but after my first experience where I couldn't hold back any longer I never again felt any guilt, where as I'm guessing that you have felt guilt over a lifetime as it is in total conflict with your religious beliefs as outlined by God's blind followers, but not by God himself because no one has any genuine written records of anything He said on the issue.
One wonders if you would feel differently if temptation were offered to you on a plate. Perhaps you have constantly avoided putting yourself anywhere near it for fear of becoming normal like all gay men.
I sometimes think you would make a good Father as I know that you give out some good advice to some of our fellow bloggers, particularly troubled ones, and we do after all share some of the same blogger friends.
But I can never see you becoming a complete gay man until you fully reject the notion that being gay is sinfull and immoral.
Yes it is right to be an upstanding well behaved, free of crime and respected citizen, but to live your life by scriptures that to many make no sense at all just seems like a waste of a life.
Oh btw, last Saturday BBC2 broadcast live during prime-time Verdi's opera Simon Boccanegra with Placido Domingo abandoning his normal tenor role for a baritone. A good production but wasnt quite taken with it compared to the likes of Nabucco, Rigoletto and La Traviata.
But I did catch recently on Youtube the final moments of Don Carlo. Phew what a ball busting ending. Such power. But then again it was all about religion. The great Verdi was human after all.
D.
"for God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son..."
It does NOT say...except homosexuals...nor did Jesus ever say "he that believeth in me except homosexuals shall have everlasting life". If God loves the world, He loves EVERYTHING in it, He cannot pick and choose. He made me homosexual, therefore He loves me, whether or not the hate-spewers who call themselves "Christian" like it or not.
Thanks for the comments.
@ deejohn — Certainly God is compassionate. He knows us, understands our struggles, and wants to draw us to himself. But compassion does not mean that everything we do is okay. It does mean that he is always ready to forgive when we do something wrong. Compassion does not mean that doing the right thing comes easily. It means that he knows how difficult it is.
I was a bit disappointed in Domingo's Boccanegra. Maybe my expectations were too high, but neither the recognition scene nor the council chamber scene quite lived up to them. La Traviata has never been one of my favorites. I think Il Trovatore and La Forza del Destino are at the top of my list, with Don Carlo fairly close behind. Then perhaps Simon Boccanegra.
@ Anonymous — As you can see from my "First Things First" note on my front page, I agree with you 100% that God loves everybody, without exception. Anybody who call himself a Christian and thinks God hates gays doesn't understand Christianity. Where I don't quite agree is with saying he made you homosexual. I think the homosexual orientation may be one of the things that come with being in a fallen world, rather than part of the perfect world of the Garden of Eden. That doesn't mean that having a homosexual orientation is a sin. But even though God loves everybody, unconditionally and eternally, that doesn't mean they never sin. Just that he'll always forgive them when they are ready to be forgiven.
Sometimes I wonder about the validity of making equivalencies between what we know call "gay" or "homosexual" and what sexuality was for people in Paul's day. I know, being in Asia, there is no concept "gay"...and has never been. "Gay" is an imported concept from America and western Europe. I've heard the argument made before about these passages, and I think it is one of the more valid arguments, can Pauline doctrine even apply to me if it was never intended for my kind in the first place?
@ James — It's an interesting point you make, but I don't think it really proves that Paul's doctrine doesn't apply to people with a homosexual orientation. If having a condition which predisposes a person to behave in a certain way means that it's okay to follow their inclination, then it's okay for an anorexic to starve him/herself and for an alcoholic to drink him/herself to death. The fact that one is predisposed to act in a certain way does not prove that it is moral to do so.
Post a Comment