[boatbums]

The "Gay Christians" --- I'm not blaming you --- are using exactly the same historico-critical method to deconstruct the Pauline texts on homosexuality. This is not exactly pleasant reading, but I urge you to check it out: Gay Scriptural Cultural interpretation (LINKS) If you read the top article that comes up from the link, check out the rest of that gaychristian101.com website. As you can see, they are very enthused about Scripture.

By all means we SHOULD take into consideration the historical and cultural context of Scripture but it is not an excuse to totally disregard the truth underlying the passages. So-called "gay" Christians don't use an honest hermeneutic when they say they can justify their perversion by Scripture any more than a JW can justify teaching Jesus was "a" god and not THE God incarnate. Selective reading to prove a pet theological idea is nothing new, though. The first church councils were designed to set down enduring creedal doctrines based upon sacred Scriptures as the Divinely-inspired authority for truth.

Homosexuals do not have a valid argument for their abominable acts and are being DISHONEST with Scripture, excluding and ignoring key passages in order to rationalize what they know deep down God condemns. This is why I do not believe it is the same argument as the one we have been discussing WRT women teaching men. The basic principle behind Paul's instruction is sound and accepted.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I don't disagree with you, but I'll tell you what the Gay Christians are saying. They're saying that there are a range of gay sexual behaviors, ranging from viciously bad (forcible sodomy, servile pederasty, pagan boy prostitution) to the honorable (gay marriage.)

The former, they say, is what is condemned in both the OT and the NT; the latter is not condemned, not even mentioned.

They draw the conclusion that the gay married couple is exactly analogous to the straight married couple. As for what a married couple does by mutual consent in their marriage bed - which is "honorable in ALL and UNDEFILED" - it is between themselves and God.

We (you and I) won't be arguing about this, because I would agree with you that the gay exegetes are interpreting things without regard to underlying truths.

But they would say that the "underlying truths" are that, for gay people and straight people alike, rape, prostitution, promiscuity, seduction, fornication, etc. are are wrong; and that marriage is right. "Honorable in all and undefiled."

They'd say their grasp of the "underlying truth" is better than yours. And they would say the way the churches have come, over the centuries, to accept women preaching, teaching, and holding leadership roles -- despite St. Paul's explicit and repeated opposition to this in Scripture --- is a very good parallel to the coming acceptance of gay married couples acting "in good faith" --

We'll be running into this more, I'm sure. And they've got their Scriptural-cultural arguments absolutely down pat.