Being Christian and gay at the same time?

[Kulindahr]

I don't see it that way. I see Jesus being a religious reformer. He tells the Pharisees who loved to brow-beat the law over people's head and condemn people that '"they" are the ones who will not see heaven because they have condemned themselves with their on judgement.

I see this passage as Jesus sending the message that the Pharisees or religious sect have misinterpreted the law. Jesus is saying that gays and lesbians will be included in the rapture along with all the other saints. This fits perfectly with how Jesus did battle with the Pharisees.

There's no reason to think anyone in His audience would have thought the two women were lesbians -- they would have recognized two women getting up in the dark to grind grain to flour for breakfast, with the very common two-woman grinding mill.

So there's no reason anyone would think the two men were gay. He's grasping at straws, reading modern thoughts into an ancient text.

BTW, there's no reason to believe there will be such a thing as a "Rapture", either -- that's a very, very new doctrine based on another very new doctrine.


It would be nice to find that Jesus was talking about gays. Unfortunately, there's nothing to substantiate that except wishful thinking and lousy exegesis.

 

[mbamike]

The Evidence for the Same-Sex Theme

Luke 17:20-37 contains four pieces of same-sex thematic evidence.

The story of the destruction of Sodom, a major element of which is man-on-man sex. (This is true, despite the core issue of hospitality.)
The lightning and the eagles (verses 24 & 37), the primary logos of Zeus and his mortal companion Ganymede, who together were the ultimate cultural emblem of same-sex relationships in Roman culture.
The “Two men in one bed” of verse 34, whose only O.T. antecedents were the Levitical prohibitions against a man laying with a man as with a woman.
The “Two women grinding together in one place” of verse 35, whose double-entendre “grinding” is confirmed from both the O.T. and the Greek actually in use in the time of Christ and Luke. The word “mill,” which is present in Matthew, is absent from Luke, which absence leaves the “grinding” ambiguous.

SOURCE: Gays & Lesbians in Luke

To me it makes sense and fits perfectly into Jesus' denunciation against the Pharisees. Jesus was pointing out another error they made interpreting the law. So, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Nick4444]

But I cannot just ignore the fact of the evil concept that The Bible has about gay people, and I need to know how to reconcile my beliefs with what I am.

Have you read the Bible?
There is NO EVIL CONCEPT THAT THE BIBLE HAS ABOUT GAY PEOPLE!

By "Bible" you would be referring to the Christian Bible, which does include the Old Testament passages about the Jewish law, which was written to discourage what we now call "homosexual" behavior. There was good reason for this for that ancient tribe of Hebrews (among other reasons, there had to be reproduction, warriors, and farmers, faced as they were by larger groups intent then, as now, on their destruction). Most importantly, there was the matter of creating and defining their identity, which means that to distinguish themselves from several of the groups who would destroy them, who practiced open homosexuality, and the cult of male on male fellatio.

The New Testament passages against homosexuality, in part reflect this past sensibility, but most importantly speak to degeneracy -- those who lives revolve entirely around sexual gratification, and fail to develop their higher sensibilities, responsibilities, and obligations.

If "homosexuality" were in itself damning, then Jesus would not have pointed to the Roman Centurion as exhibiting greater faith than he had seen among the chosen people -- The words used to describe the Centurion's servant coincide most closely to what we would now recognize as a "homosexual" relationship (closest analog that comes to mind is a West Hollywood houseboy).

To emphasize, if there were something damning, Jesus would have pointed it out ...

 

[Kulindahr]

SOURCE: Gays & Lesbians in Luke

To me it makes sense and fits perfectly into Jesus' denunciation against the Pharisees. Jesus was pointing out another error they made interpreting the law. So, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

This may be an example of an interesting set of readings in the Bible: ones where the author appears to be adding meaning that wasn't originally there.

There's no reason to believe Jesus was talking about gays; all the cultural signals are against it. But the case for Luke hinting at it isn't bad, because he would have been aware of the overtones Greek and Roman readers would pick up. Without those, the interpretation is wishful thinking -- but with them it might be more.

 

[Kulindahr]

Have you read the Bible?
There is NO EVIL CONCEPT THAT THE BIBLE HAS ABOUT GAY PEOPLE!

By "Bible" you would be referring to the Christian Bible, which does include the Old Testament passages about the Jewish law, which was written to discourage what we now call "homosexual" behavior. There was good reason for this for that ancient tribe of Hebrews (among other reasons, there had to be reproduction, warriors, and farmers, faced as they were by larger groups intent then, as now, on their destruction). Most importantly, there was the matter of creating and defining their identity, which means that to distinguish themselves from several of the groups who would destroy them, who practiced open homosexuality, and the cult of male on male fellatio.

The New Testament passages against homosexuality, in part reflect this past sensibility, but most importantly speak to degeneracy -- those who lives revolve entirely around sexual gratification, and fail to develop their higher sensibilities, responsibilities, and obligations.

If "homosexuality" were in itself damning, then Jesus would not have pointed to the Roman Centurion as exhibiting greater faith than he had seen among the chosen people -- The words used to describe the Centurion's servant coincide most closely to what we would now recognize as a "homosexual" relationship (closest analog that comes to mind is a West Hollywood houseboy).

To emphasize, if there were something damning, Jesus would have pointed it out ...

The centurion and servant is a much better case -- in fact, the relationship being sexual is something that has been suggested for a very long time, not just recently invented.

 

[TX-Beau]

OK I had to laugh about the whole lesbian "grinding" thing. One really has to be looking to support and agenda to see that as a reference to a couple of dykes scissoring it up.

 

[mbamike]

OK I had to laugh about the whole lesbian "grinding" thing. One really has to be looking to support and agenda to see that as a reference to a couple of dykes scissoring it up.

In the Hebrew Bible, “grind” is used as an acceptable euphemism for sexual intercourse in at least four places: Job 31:10, Judges 16:21, Isaiah 47:2-3, and Lamentations 5:13.

SOURCE: Luke's Gay Apocalypse

“Grind” was used in at least four ancient languages as a euphemism for sexual activities and experiences: 1) Hebrew, 2) Sumerian, 3) Latin, and 4) Greek.

SOURCE: Luke's Gay Apocalypes

 

[mbamike]

There's no reason to believe Jesus was talking about gays; all the cultural signals are against it.

You seem to be stuck in the past. I read this as Jesus prophesying about an event in the future, similar to the visions John saw on the isle of Patmos. These gays and lesbians could be alive during our lifetime or will live in our future. We just know they were having sex when the rapture occurred. So, what was culturally acceptable is not important.

In addition, Jesus was sending out two messages. One to the Pharisees, showing they have misinterpreted the law. Second to the gays and lesbians, showing they are not condemned but accepted by God.

 

[kallipolis]

The Greek noun παῖς /pais is used in the New Covenant scriptures 24 times with a range of meanings including “adolescent,” “child” and “servant.” In the LXX (the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures) it appears numerous times always referring to a “servant” rather like Joseph was to both Potiphar, and Pharaoh.

In modern Greek a παιδί is a kid, child, teenager, adolescent with the further thought that the word paedophile is derived from the Greek word for child. It is correct that παιδί could be, and probably was used as a term of endearment for a slave, or indentured servant...however, such a relationship should not be construed as sexual....for an older man, younger man friendship speaks more of a father, son relationship that appears often throughout scripture when recalling the Prodigal Son, The Father/Son viz. Jesus of Nazareth.

I believe that the captioned exegesis provided by Mike spends too much time reading into the meaning of the word PAIS..the word appearing in the original Koine Greek...21st century understandings that speak to an agenda....meanings unknown to first century, and earlier communities...

We may not assume that because the centurion had publicly declared his affection for his servant that they were involved in a sexual relationship. Servants, and their masters lived as a family unit, each with their responsibilities.. for the relationships were realistically based upon mutual support....while also recognizing that not all masters were kind, and loving towards their servants.

Kulindahr correctly remind us that importing 21st century understandings, into first century scenarios can warp the wisdom that this particular story attempts to convey....that ones faith in The Saviour, to save us from our self destructive behavior does not depend upon the visible presence of the divine mystery.

That the prime directive of the divine mystery invites all human life to love one another, and live in the truth (the truth will set you free) tells us that love for our fellow human being is never a matter of conforming to social norms that demand we deny our true self.

John 13:34-35

34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

John was a mere teenager when he joined Jesus' band of brothers....emphasizing that he was the disciple, whom Jesus loved.

John 13
21 After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, “Very truly I tell you, one of you is going to betray me.”

22 His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant.

23 One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him.

24 Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, “Ask him which one he means.”

25 Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, “Lord, who is it?”

26 Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.

end

 

[TX-Beau]

SOURCE: Luke's Gay Apocalypse

SOURCE: Luke's Gay Apocalypes

mbamike, that's not proof, that is opinion requiring the scissoring dykes to be true.

 

[Jacquemar]

^^ Yeah, it sounds like wishful thinking to me.

 

[Kulindahr]

You seem to be stuck in the past. I read this as Jesus prophesying about an event in the future, similar to the visions John saw on the isle of Patmos. These gays and lesbians could be alive during our lifetime or will live in our future. We just know they were having sex when the rapture occurred. So, what was culturally acceptable is not important.

In addition, Jesus was sending out two messages. One to the Pharisees, showing they have misinterpreted the law. Second to the gays and lesbians, showing they are not condemned but accepted by God.

Tons of wishful thinking won't change the meaning of words. Make up what you want, but there's no substance here -- it's obvious what Jesus' words meant to his listeners, and sex isn't part of it: it's two women up before dawn grinding grain for breakfast, and probably their husbands still in bed sleeping, expecting breakfast to be ready when they get up.

Reading stuff into where it isn't is the same sort of thinking that gave us a severely homophobic generation, with men afraid to show the least affection for other men because someone might read sex into it. It's not just crappy scholarship, it's crappy human relations. Indeed, in terms of scholarship, it's the very same thing young earth creationist fundamentalists do to say the earth is six thousand years old... and that fundamentalists do to say that being gay is evil.

Butchering the Word of God isn't pretty no matter who does it. Heck, butchering literature isn't pretty no matter who does it!

 

[Kulindahr]

mbamike, that's not proof, that is opinion requiring the scissoring dykes to be true.

^^ Yeah, it sounds like wishful thinking to me.

It's provided me with some good laughs, as it would to most people who have had any experience dealing with ancient literature and figuring out what it means -- Bible or otherwise.

 

[mbamike]

mbamike, that's not proof, that is opinion requiring the scissoring dykes to be true.

There is more substance here than just opinion. Goetz has presented his thesis and is defending it through peer review. He writes in a rebuttal,

"You left out two other pieces of evidence. The four pieces of evidence together do establish a theme. 1) Sodom has strong man-on-man sex content. 2) Two men in one bed has made straight men feel uncomfortable for centuries, with it’s man-on-man sex connotations. 3) Two women grinding together, well, that has strong female sexual content. and 4) Together, Zeus and Ganymede are the ultimate Greco-Roman symbol of male romantic relationships.

I don’t think students of the synoptic gospels have been able to determine which was written first, Matthew or Luke, so I can’s say for sure whether Matthew wrote in reply to Luke or vice versa. But I am sure of the associations of Sodom, two men in one bed, female grinding, and Zeus and Ganymede." SOURCE: 40 Responses to Gays & Lesbians in Luke

Also, I am not understanding what is so funny about lesbians "scissoring" as you put it. It is ubiquitous that gays and lesbians as well as heterosexuals engage is sexual activities.

 

[mbamike]

^^ Yeah, it sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Tons of wishful thinking won't change the meaning of words. Make up what you want, but there's no substance here -- it's obvious what Jesus' words meant to his listeners, and sex isn't part of it: it's two women up before dawn grinding grain for breakfast, and probably their husbands still in bed sleeping, expecting breakfast to be ready when they get up.

Reading stuff into where it isn't is the same sort of thinking that gave us a severely homophobic generation, with men afraid to show the least affection for other men because someone might read sex into it. It's not just crappy scholarship, it's crappy human relations. Indeed, in terms of scholarship, it's the very same thing young earth creationist fundamentalists do to say the earth is six thousand years old... and that fundamentalists do to say that being gay is evil.

Butchering the Word of God isn't pretty no matter who does it. Heck, butchering literature isn't pretty no matter who does it!

It's provided me with some good laughs, as it would to most people who have had any experience dealing with ancient literature and figuring out what it means -- Bible or otherwise.

I'm sure the first person to suggest "The Clobber Passages" did not condemn homosexuality got laughed at too. However, biblical scholars re-studied the passages and now the idea that homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible has begun to take root.

We should at least read Goetz's thesis in its entirety before dismissing it as "wishful thinking." Similarly, Goetz offers this rebuttal to similar objections:

"Your response seems to be simply to say, “I don’t buy it. I’ll go along with the traditional interpretations,” which is, of course, your prerogative.

The context and proximity of these four elements to one another is important, or else any appeal you ever make to the importance of “taking it in context” is empty. You seem to assume you know their “intended usage.” I have offered linguistic, historical, and Biblical evidence in support of Christ’s acceptance of gay and lesbian believers, and you seem to think that simply offering the standard interpretation of some Protestants is adequate rebuttal.

1. You have separated the opening and closing symbols from one another. They belong together. Lightning and Eagle were the quintessential symbols of Zeus and Ganymede.

John, I’ve used this illustration before. Let’s say I read a short story. The opening sentence mentions a “crown of thorns.” The final sentence mentions a “cross.” No matter what else is in the short story, I know that somehow the crucifixion of Christ is important. Same here. The lightning and the eagle were the symbols of Zeus, and the eagle of Ganymede. “Luke’s Small Apocalypse” is a recognized unit of scripture, and Luke placed these symbols from Roman religion at the beginning and the end. I’m not saying that Luke accepted Roman religion, simply that he used two, immediately recognizable symbols. I have given you some historical information you may not have had before. If you read and interpret the New Testament out of its historical context, well, I don’t think anyone thinks that is a reasonable approach to Bible interpretation.

2. “Two men in one bed.” This can be translated either people or men. It’s fifty-fifty, until you take it in the context of three other pieces of evidence that have a gay-related understanding. Again, I see you taking this out of its immediate context.

3. Women Grinding: Compare this difference: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 5:3) with “Blessed are you who are poor, because the kingdom of God is yours,” (Luke 6:20). These do not mean the same thing. “Harmonizing” them negates the valid and importance difference between material poverty and spiritual poverty. If you don’t believe Jesus was interested in people’s material poverty, I suggest you go back and read the gospels and the Hebrew prophets. John, when did Jesus cleanse the temple, at the beginning of his ministry or at the end, or did he do it twice? (Most scholars do not believe he did it twice.) The differences between the gospel accounts teach us important things about the priorities and convictions of the synoptic writers.

4. Sodom: You seem to acknowledge that the man-on-man sex element from Jewish culture really is there. Once we know our history better, we realize a parallel, similar man-on-man sex element from Roman/gentile culture is also present in the lightning and the eagles. Luke is known as “the Gospel to the Gentiles.” From there the scale tips on how to render verse 34 (based on context), and the women grinding just falls into place." SOURCE: 40 Responses to Gays & Lesbians in Luke

 

[Kulindahr]

You're stuck enough on this there's no point trying to show you any evidence. The interpretation is wishful thinking. He deliberately ignores the Jewish context in order to force on it another. He deliberately ignores the tone of the Sodom account, which would warn Jewish listeners that two men together are NOT having sex. He ignores the fact that two women grinding together was a common sight not just in Palestine but across the Roman Empire.

So his case boils down to claiming that Luke took the actual situation Jesus was in and deliberately added connotations that would not have ever occurred to those listening to Jesus -- in other words, he's claiming that Luke is not actually an objective reporter of Jesus' life. So his thesis destroys itself: if Luke is doing what he is claiming, then Luke's words about Jesus cannot be trusted, and thus nothing in the account has anything to do with Jesus anyway.


BTW, one of his points relies on prejudice. Just because some cultures have issues with two men being in one bed does not mean that the two men have to be gay. It's ironic that to try to weasel some approval for homosexuality into the text he makes use of one of the very fonts of homophobia.

 

[TX-Beau]

There is more substance here than just opinion. Goetz has presented his thesis and is defending it through peer review. He writes in a rebuttal,

"You left out two other pieces of evidence. The four pieces of evidence together do establish a theme. 1) Sodom has strong man-on-man sex content. 2) Two men in one bed has made straight men feel uncomfortable for centuries, with it’s man-on-man sex connotations. 3) Two women grinding together, well, that has strong female sexual content. and 4) Together, Zeus and Ganymede are the ultimate Greco-Roman symbol of male romantic relationships.

I don’t think students of the synoptic gospels have been able to determine which was written first, Matthew or Luke, so I can’s say for sure whether Matthew wrote in reply to Luke or vice versa. But I am sure of the associations of Sodom, two men in one bed, female grinding, and Zeus and Ganymede." SOURCE: 40 Responses to Gays & Lesbians in Luke

Also, I am not understanding what is so funny about lesbians "scissoring" as you put it. It is ubiquitous that gays and lesbians as well as heterosexuals engage is sexual activities.

Oh come on. It's pretty damn OBVIOUS that your link is proceeding from premise TO evidence. When you look for proof of your premise in the bible you will always find it. Funny how that works.

Baptists condemn us all using exactly the same reasoning, slavers used the same reasoning. Many many many many many many many people in the history of Christendom have done the same thing.

Now I would certainly approve of Christians all coming to that conclusion, but the fact is that is not even accepted "scholarship" among people who aren't even Christians.

 

[Jacquemar]

Oh come on. It's pretty damn OBVIOUS that your link is proceeding from premise TO evidence. When you look for proof of your premise in the bible you will always find it. Funny how that works.

Baptists condemn us all using exactly the same reasoning, slavers used the same reasoning. Many many many many many many many people in the history of Christendom have done the same thing.

Now I would certainly approve of Christians all coming to that conclusion, but the fact is that is not even accepted "scholarship" among people who aren't even Christians.

Are there any other reputable scholars out there arguing for this??

 

[kallipolis]

Oh come on. It's pretty damn OBVIOUS that your link is proceeding from premise TO evidence. When you look for proof of your premise in the bible you will always find it

He deliberately ignores the Jewish context in order to force on it another. He deliberately ignores the tone of the Sodom account, which would warn Jewish listeners that two men together are NOT having sex.

Noteworthy, and telling.....

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh come on. It's pretty damn OBVIOUS that your link is proceeding from premise TO evidence. When you look for proof of your premise in the bible you will always find it. Funny how that works.

Baptists condemn us all using exactly the same reasoning, slavers used the same reasoning. Many many many many many many many people in the history of Christendom have done the same thing.

Now I would certainly approve of Christians all coming to that conclusion, but the fact is that is not even accepted "scholarship" among people who aren't even Christians.

It's embarrassing when people do this. It was embarrassing when it was done with the David & Jonathan story about swapping clothes, even before scholarship discovered that there was an ancient custom behind that and it wasn't just some impulse. But this is even worse, because as I pointed out, to support the thesis one has to assert that Luke is purposely introducing meaning that Jesus couldn't possibly have intended.


BTW, the Baptists have a somewhat better foundation for their position that this does, but the slavery issue is a good one -- if this interpretation is legitimate, then so is the one condemning all blacks to being chattel. It's also a good one because the shift is indicative of how deep principles overrule culture-bound regulations, which is a principle that overturns the Old Testament statements about same-sex activity regardless of what they meant back then: because they are in the image of God, people can't be owned, so all are elevated out of the possibility of that degraded position, so because we're in the image of God, gays are elevated out of the position of being treated abominably.