Where do I go from here?

[cool_name123]

Alright, So I posted this in a different sub forum before realizing there was an entire area specifically dedicated to this topic... So I'm re-posting it here (with some edits as I noticed I made some late night connections that I didn't go into enough detail on in my other post).



So I've found through numberous discussions about this topic that they all tend to break down at the same point. I'll take you through what have become my 4 primary points when discussing this (obviously I diverge when needed, but these four are the points I always try to flesh out the most because I think they are the most important to understanding the issue). I won't go into crazy detail as I'm more concerned with why the discussion breaks down where it does as opposed to rehashing this point yet again (though I'm not entirely opposed that's what people want (yet again) or if you think I need to go into further detail somewhere to better answer my question).

1) The bible appears to be far more concerned with a Love Ethic than it does a Sexual Ethic. The bible is full of sexual mores, but these are more practices of the time than they are rules by which we must live. The sexual practices accepted and looked down on are constantly evolving throughout scripture right up to today (I'm fairly sure that the majority of Conservative Christians would not be cool with the idea of Levirate Marriage). I mean it seems to enforce a Love Ethic right down to how Jesus engages with Scripture and makes a point of constantly stressing the importance of the character of ones being as opposed to the strict rules they think everyone should follow (The Pharisees anyone?). Whether or not they agree with this point isn't super important as it's more meant to give a little context and insight into how I read the bible.

2) Regardless of where you personally stand on the issue, how the church has traditionally approached the issue is very detrimental to everyone involved and we need to change how we approach this issue. I'm more so just trying to garner a little sympathy with this quote because the church has historically not led the best example of a body under a being that claims to love unconditionally.

3) This is where the argument tends to take a more theological/exegetical turn and more often than not that leads to Paul... And more importantly Romans 1:26-27... I have two issues with this text and the second is where most of my debates tend to be cut short.
a) Romans 1 cannot be understood (in my opinion) without Romans 2... It is a one-two punch, a common literary strategy used by speakers and preachers even today... One of drawing the audience in, feeding them lines they already agree with and then throwing them a curve ball to make them second guess those firm beliefs they had mere moments ago. Romans 1 basically goes, 'look at all these bad things and bad people, we would never do that, shame on them... etc' Followed by Romans 2 which basically goes 'But wait a second, What did Jesus tell us to do? Oh that's Right... Not To Judge!' Which I like to imagine is met by a 'Oh Paul, You clever rascal... You got me! I'll try and be more aware of that in the future' from the reader.
b) but even more importantly than that, is the language Paul uses... Because inevitably I get the 'But he still alluded to it being bad' Yes, but even if you take that route of twisting Paul's intent it still doesn't matter because what he is talking about is very likely not what we know as Homosexuality. What we know as homosexuality would have been quite foreign to Paul, that is same sex loving relationships between two consenting adults. What Paul is talking about here is likely temple supported male prostitution (I mean he even used the term 'ἀκαθα�σία' not two chapters earlier hearkening back to the Septuagint/Old Testament speaking out against shrine prostitution putting the image square in the readers mind).

And in his other mentions of the topic, like those in Timothy or Corinthians, The word Paul uses here (ἀ�σενοκοίτης) is a fairly uncommon word in the Greek language that we can only really guess at the true meaning of (some people even think Paul just straight up made up his own word here, it's that uncommon guys)... The general consensus is that what Paul is referring to are acts of Pederasty or once again shrine prostitution... Again not the same sex consensual adult relationships we've seen develop more recently (in fact the term homosexual didn't even exist in the bible until I think 1949 with the RSV Translation. But given that there are other more common Greek words for same sex (ίδιου φ�λου), more encompassing terms, and given that how sex was talked about back then was generally framed in specific acts not all encompassing terms, why do we assume that the moment he decides to be quite specific with his wording (to the point of potentially making up his own word) that he is condemning an entire orientation as opposed to a particular act?

And if the argument from there becomes that they did not use language that way back then, then is it not a reasonable assumption that what we have now come to know as 'homosexuality' is not a concept that Paul would have been familiar with as if he had one would expect him to use similar language? (This paragraph here is a new addition to the argument, I haven't really fleshed this one out yet, feel free to help me develop that one too as I'm basically trying to guess at where the discussion would go from there if it didn't always end).


Anyways, it is around that point above when I start getting nice and exegetical, bringing up Greek translations and things of the sort that people tend to respond with the cold shoulder and end the conversation instead of continuing the discussion beyond there. I really want to know why because the only reason my argument has developed to where it is is because people keep giving me counter points that I then have to go to research and return with how I might respond to said point through my lens of biblical understanding. Through discussion after discussion my points get fine tuned and honed in to say exactly what I want them to say... But now that I've got it to this point people just tend to disagree and that's the end of it... Nothing more to say... How do I respond to that? (which isn't actually the question I started with but another one I'd be curious to hear thoughts on none-the-less).

[Goat]

[Replying to post 1 by cool_name123]



Well, I would reformat things so there is a clearer question to debate. This is phrased a bit long winded, and no clear direction or point to discuss.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 1 by cool_name123]

Through discussion after discussion my points get fine tuned and honed in to say exactly what I want them to say... But now that I've got it to this point people just tend to disagree and that's the end of it... Nothing more to say... How do I respond to that?

I wonder why you feel the need to respond to that at all? You will never get everyone to agree with what you say/think. Sometimes people will just have to 'agree to disagree'. That's life.
Even if you're only goal is to argue/debate, you will still find people like that.
Getting hung up on it seems to be a waste of energy - at least for me.
My 2¢

[cool_name123]

[Replying to post 1 by cool_name123]



Well, I would reformat things so there is a clearer question to debate. This is phrased a bit long winded, and no clear direction or point to discuss.

I thought the direction was more or less clear (though not necessarily as a debate topic). The question being why my discussions tend to break down where they do?

I'm basically trying to figure out how to continue the conversation beyond when I've been given the cold shoulder (so to speak) and figured perhaps some insight to why I constantly get said cold shoulder could be useful.

[cool_name123]

[Replying to post 1 by cool_name123]

Through discussion after discussion my points get fine tuned and honed in to say exactly what I want them to say... But now that I've got it to this point people just tend to disagree and that's the end of it... Nothing more to say... How do I respond to that?

I wonder why you feel the need to respond to that at all? You will never get everyone to agree with what you say/think. Sometimes people will just have to 'agree to disagree'. That's life.
Even if you're only goal is to argue/debate, you will still find people like that.
Getting hung up on it seems to be a waste of energy - at least for me.
My 2¢

Maybe it's just me, but I do think this is an important issue for the church to discuss and deal with. Curse my christian morals wanting to see the church be an example of love for the world. And you don't really get there when you simply 'agree to disagree'.

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 1 by cool_name123]

Wouldn't you be better off joining in on one of the existing threads pertaining to this topic? I don't think that you're asking anything that isn't already being discussed. Or, maybe you are. Regardless, it would be nice to get some additional input from a relative newbie (with regard to this topic anyway) such as yourself.

[Wootah]

1) on this point I agree because without love sex is just a bodily function. Sex really has nothing to do with love. I love my mother after all.

2) I don't think you have evidence for your second claim. I would highly suspect you have been led to believe that and therefore think things 'have to change'.

3) I am not strong on exegetical matters sorry. But I think you have the notion of not judging wrong. Jesus is asking you to judge constantly as to what is best. It is not blind faith that I stick with Jesus but judgement. When Jesus asks us not to judge, he is asking it to not let our judgements stop us from loving others. So even if I disapprove of a thief and judge them I can still act and help them to repent. Jesus is not asking you to suspend judgement. Be wise in all things.

As others have said, threads here need a topic and a question to know how to proceed further.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 1 by cool_name123]

Through discussion after discussion my points get fine tuned and honed in to say exactly what I want them to say... But now that I've got it to this point people just tend to disagree and that's the end of it... Nothing more to say... How do I respond to that?

I wonder why you feel the need to respond to that at all? You will never get everyone to agree with what you say/think. Sometimes people will just have to 'agree to disagree'. That's life.
Even if you're only goal is to argue/debate, you will still find people like that.
Getting hung up on it seems to be a waste of energy - at least for me.
My 2¢

Maybe it's just me, but I do think this is an important issue for the church to discuss and deal with. Curse my christian morals wanting to see the church be an example of love for the world. And you don't really get there when you simply 'agree to disagree'.

That's different than what you seemed to be saying originally.
You want the church to be an example of love..... You'd probably be better off picking A church and working on THAT ONE church to make it an example simply because 'the church' is too large, too segregated, too varied in its beliefs for you to get what you're looking for IMO.
While your motives seem honorable, you might want to be more realistic. I wish you lick in your quest.

[cool_name123]

2) I don't think you have evidence for your second claim. I would highly suspect you have been led to believe that and therefore think things 'have to change'.

Well that's only because my intent here was not to get into the debate on whether homosexuality is right or wrong here and more so to explore how to progress the conversation beyond where one feels the need to cut it short for whatever reason (perhaps because they feel they lack the necessary tools to engage with the material in a more exegetical sense... I don't know the reason)... Because I'd like to be able to actually discuss this point with the people beyond the point where they don't feel like continuing. Or rather I'd like people to feel comfortable discussing this issue instead of feeling so defensive that they need to cut the discussion short.

But just because you brought it up... How have I been led? By the numberous polls and surveys collected in recent years showing the shift in opinion (not opinion pieces, surveys that convey raw data collected for a huge number of actual people across many social divides)? By seeing the declining numbers of our church's? By talking with ex-church goers and youth to hear their opinions? By actually talking and being friends with people of a homosexual orientation? By hearing their stories? Not one of my gay former Christian friends are Christian any more and the Church is always the largest factor for that decision amongst all of them (And of the ones whom are still christian, they tended to have a church network that was overwhelmingly supportive of their coming out). I've even had one say that if his church was led by someone who thought more like me that there's a good chance he'd still be in the Church today. I'm sorry but people who say "I don't think you can really say that" Have either never talked to anyone who has gone through the hardships associated with a church that hates who they are (regardless of whether or not the church admits that's what's happening) or they are just shutting their eyes and plugging their ears to every bit of data we are collecting and instead of dealing with an issue that could actually cost us the next generation of believers, they just keep on their path becoming the judgmental hypocrites that the world has come to expect them to be. And I'm sorry, but that's not OK with me. No one has led me to believe anything, I come to my own conclusions by thoroughly examining the issue, Not just through study but also through social connections... It's how I come to most of my conclusions. I don't hear there's a survey and think "YES Validation" I go look at the survey and see that's it's saying what it claims to be saying. So no, I have not been 'led' to believe anything... What I believe is a process I undergo, and no one but me can take responsibility for it.

Sorry for the rant but I always find it incredibly insulting when people just assume that if people believes X that someone must have coerced them into such a belief. Maybe it's true for some, but to just make that assumption instead of asking for their rational is just insulting.

[cool_name123]

[Replying to post 1 by cool_name123]

Through discussion after discussion my points get fine tuned and honed in to say exactly what I want them to say... But now that I've got it to this point people just tend to disagree and that's the end of it... Nothing more to say... How do I respond to that?

I wonder why you feel the need to respond to that at all? You will never get everyone to agree with what you say/think. Sometimes people will just have to 'agree to disagree'. That's life.
Even if you're only goal is to argue/debate, you will still find people like that.
Getting hung up on it seems to be a waste of energy - at least for me.
My 2¢

Maybe it's just me, but I do think this is an important issue for the church to discuss and deal with. Curse my christian morals wanting to see the church be an example of love for the world. And you don't really get there when you simply 'agree to disagree'.

That's different than what you seemed to be saying originally.
You want the church to be an example of love..... You'd probably be better off picking A church and working on THAT ONE church to make it an example simply because 'the church' is too large, too segregated, too varied in its beliefs for you to get what you're looking for IMO.
While your motives seem honorable, you might want to be more realistic. I wish you lick in your quest.

I don't think it's different from what I was initially saying so much as a new addition to it (as I see nothing contrary to what I said and my initial statement). But I'm of the opinion that we are called to be one body under Christ. And maybe that does not mean a single denomination so much as a common sense of respect, but it's still something that I believe is important and hence something that comes across in the language I choose to use. Though I also recognize I'm not going to make any grand sweeping changes with this debate, so I'll take the baby steps I can get even though I would love if we could move things along much quicker.