Also for Mines Mystique and anyone who cares to comment… Consider the two often cited verses from Leviticus:
Now consider verses nearby to these:
Leviticus specifically lists both male and female sexual acts in the later verses. Isn’t it strange that only males (and only “active” ones at that) are mentioned in the passages cited against homosexuality? I’m sure that I can’t be the first to notice this. What is the biblical argument against lesbianism?
Poor editing on my part. Please ignore the parenthetic active ones comment.
Immediate answer - Romans 1:26.
The whole passage (Romans 1:21-32) is open to the same objection as the better-known one from 1 Corinthians referenced above; it refers to lust and general sinfulness, to excessive sexual desire and indulgence, not to orientation and/or responsible use of sexuality.
Incidentally, transvestisism (both genders) is prohibited by Deuteronomy 22:5, to complete the set. 
Thanks Tevildo.
For those who cite Leviticus as biblical proscription of homosexuality, what do you make of the omission of female homosexuality?
[SUB]I really should be packing now. Arrg![/SUB]
Just to help out Mines Mystique, I am another evangelical Christian that also believes that God did not intend his people to live in homosexual relationships. My opinion is what the bible says first in the commonly quoted passages:
Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13
I think we have to be careful in basing moral arguments from the law. I would actually disagree with Mines Mystique in his distinction of the three types of Levitical law, simply because there is nothing in the text of Leviticus itself, or in the wider bible, that tells you which is which. While it may be usefully categorised in such a way there is no evidence that the original authors intended it to be read in such a way.
The point of the law is not to provide a moral code for people to live by in order to be right with God. The point of the law is and always was to reveal sin (Romans 3). We also have to bear in mind Paul’s warning in Galatians that if you insist on one part of the law (in his case, circumcision), then you are bound by all of it, and Christ is of no effect for you. To insist on the law is to give up on salvation through Jesus.
So Leviticus in of itself is IMHO not enough to consider homosexuality a sin. However that in no way means that homosexuality is therfore OK. The point is not that Leviticus says that homosexuality is OK, the point is that you can’t prove that homosexuality is a sin based on the Law alone. In fact there are many things (murder, adultary, ect) that are prohibited in the Law and prohibitied in the NT. “It’s in the law!” is not a valid argument either way.
However what is really significant about its inclusion in the law is that it shows a background for how the NT writers would have considered homosexuality. Since the Israelites considered homosexuality a sin, then unless stated otherwise then the NT writers could be assumed to consider homosexuality a sin. And certainly in talking about the Law and Jesus, homosexuality is IMHO conspicuously absent. While food laws and circumcision are talked about a lot, there is nothing really said that relaxes the sexual elements of the OT Law. If anything the general sexual standards of the Law seem to be upheld in the NT.
Genesis 19
Again I think this is not a terribly clear passage either way. Ezekiel does tell us that the sin of Sodom is inhospitality. However Jude 7 tells us that the sin of Sodom was “sexual immorality and the persuit of unnatural desires”. I think that Sodom can best be described as a melting-pot of sinfulness, one element of which may be homosexuality. Unfortunately it seems impossible to single out just one thing that was wrong with Sodom.
Romans 1
To me this is the clearest passage against homosexuality. The overall logic of this passage is that since all of humanity has rejected God, God rejects humanity leaving them to their own perversions and sinful natures. Out of this rejection of God comes homosexuality (amoung a long list of other things in verses 29-31, so heterosexual people are included as well).
I have seen the arguments that claim that what Paul really meant was “temple prostitution” or “pedastry”, and not homosexuality, but I find those arguments terribly unconvincing. Firstly they make little sense in the overall flow of Paul’s argument. One of the major themes of Romans (as is with a lot of the NT) is the unity of Jews and Gentiles in Christ. Paul develps this by first showing in chapters 1-3 that all humanity, Jew and Gentile, are sinful. The arguments that suggest that Paul is talking about only a small subset of sexual activity typically ignore this. Secondly there is nothing inherent in the text that tells you that Paul intends to limit what he is describing in such a way. Most of these theories are based not on the bible itself, but on extra-biblical material, and therefore IMHO represent a very spurious hermenutical method.
1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1
Diogenies the Cynic is right here in that there is no “knock-down” argument as to what exactly arsenokoitai means. However I would suggest that homosexuality is certainly within the range of possible interpretations.
One thing that helps understanding what Paul may be saying is that one of the ways the Greeks viewed sexual relationships was in a penetrator/penetrated way. The Greeks saw the penetrator as the powerful one, and the penetrated as the inferior. To penetrate someone was different to being penetrated. This is one of the reasons that women were viewed as less than men, since they were inherently the penetrated. Anyway in pairing arsenokoitai with malakoi Paul may have been wanting to refer to both the penetrated and penetrating partners in a homosexual relationship, thereby including homosexuality (well at least male homosexuality) in his list of the things that are not coherent with the kingdom of God.
Is this the only way to interpret what Paul is saying? No. Is it a reasonable way to interpret it? I think it is.
But focussing the argument on these passages I think is unhelpful, as there is an underlying assumption that if the bible does not specifically prohibit something, then it must be OK. In considering what is moral and immoral, I think though you have to look at what the bible affirms as well as what it denies. And when you look at what the bible says sexual relationships SHOULD be, homosexuality seems to be expressly excluded. For instance:
Genesis 2
Here it is quite clear that God is intentionally placing together two people of opposite gender, and that the two here are becoming one. The same thing is not said anywhere in reference to homosexuality. Indeed the language seems to imply that there is a necessary complimentarity between men and women that cannot be found in a homosexual relationship. While it is trite, the old addage “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve or Madam and Eve” still is true.
What is also interesting about this is that Jesus actually affirms this passage in Matthew 19:1-12 as being normative for sexual relationships. We do have to be careful because Jesus is really talking in the context of divorce, not of homosexuality. However it seems that Jesus sees the complementarity between men and women as the basis for their sexual union.
What is also interesting about this passage is that Jesus says that there will be many “eunuchs”, meaning non-sexual people. What this seems to be implying is that the choice for the Christian is between a heterosexual relationship or celebacy. Jesus does not seem to include the possiblity of homosexual relationships.
Ephesians 5:22-33
Condensed versions of this passage can be found elsewhere, so for instance in Colossians 3 or 1 Peter 3. However what is really interesting here is that marraige is not only protrayed as an exclusively heterosexual thing, but some of the underlying theology of marraige is discussed. One of things that Paul sees marraige “shadowing” is the relationship between Christ and the church. Just as Christ is the husband of the church, his bride, so man is the husband of his wife. Here again we see the necessary dinstinction between men and women in marraige. This view of marraige simply does not work in a homosexual context.
The other thing about this argument is that there is no statement saying homosexuality is a good thing. Thare are no really openly gay characters in the bible, at least in the way in which we think about homosexuality. There have been insinuations about Jonathan and David, but their relationship is never described in a sexual way. In any case since both were married with children and David loved women so much he committed adultery with one (Bathsheeba), at best they could only be described as bisexual, but even that IMHO is very unlikely.
Joey Jo Jo.
I don’t want to speak for Mines, but I can give you my view.
I think that when someone because a Christian they recieve the Holy Spirit which begins transforming the person into the likeness of Christ. Part of this is that their morality and actions should begin to line up with Christ’s morality and actions. So if someone continues unrepentedly in a sin, that calls into question whether or not they actually have the Holy Spirit, and therefore if they actually have been saved. I don’t think you can say for certain that someone’s actions definitively reveal their relationship with God. However I think there are things that are in character and things that are out of character of a realationship with God.
I think also it is worth pointing out that the emphasis is on “unrepentant”. Christians are not perfect. Christians still sin and still want to sin. The difference is that when Christians sin they repent and at least try (whether successfully or unsuccessfully) to live a life more in keeping with God. So I think that it is possible (though certainly not advisable) for someone to occaisonally sleep with people of their gender and still be a Christian, so long as they genuinely repent of their actions and seem to be making some progress in not doing it again. Where I would call someone’s faith into question is when they are doing something that they either know is wrong, or at least should know is wrong, yet don’t care.
I also don’t think you can say that homosexual people are necessarily beyond salvation because they are not straight. Being homosexual (in that you deisire to sleep with people of the same sex) is not in of itself sinful. I, as a heterosexual, desire to sleep with women that I am not married to, and I don’t think that is any better than wanting to sleep with people of the same gender. What matters is not so much what you naturally feel lead to do, what matters is what you actually do. Everyone desires to do all sorts of evil things, that does not exclude them from salvation. A celebate homosexual can be just as much a Christian as a heterosexual.
Joey Jo Jo.
While not wishing to hijack the thread, I’ll respond to this quickly. Naturally, although we disagree, I still regard your views as legitimate and worthy of respect.
The essential point I’d make is about the source of our morality - about what we “should know is wrong”. I assume that your argument, and Mines’, is that the Bible is the source of our morality - we can find out what is “wrong” and “right” merely by reading it. I would disagree with this approach, except insofar as the Bible contains some general moral principles (Matthew 22:36-40, for example). I feel that it’s far more noble to look into our hearts, our consciences - guided by our reasoning from general principles, and, as Christians, the Holy Spirit working within us - and find the answers there.
I’m not saying we should follow our desires - I recognize that may lead us into sin. I am saying that virtue, and change in our lives for the better, is more effective when it comes from within than when it’s imposed from outside. And I can’t accept, knowing (in my own, limited, fallible, human way) what I do of God’s love, that He can hate me merely because of my homosexuality. I may be wrong. But I feel it would be unjust of God to condemn me for what I am, rather than for what I’ve done.
I ask this question recognizing and respecting the validity of your view. I’d like to engage you in a thought experiment. Suppose when you spend time with Jesus in heaven, he tells you that you were wrong — that it is lawful for one man to do good to another by making him feel cherished in loving him as a man loves a woman — would you be disappointed? It comes across to me in scripture that the some people were disappointed to learn that, contrary to Levitical citations, it is lawful to do good — such as rescuing a sheep from a ditch — on the Sabbath.
I both agree and disagree
I think that Christian morality is all about “mutual love relationships”. Anything that aides loving relationships is good, and anything that destroys them is bad. Since then morality is about love, then I think you are right in that you have to take into account the heart of the person. Christianity is not just a heap of rules that you have to follow. It is really all about being in a loving relationship with God and with God’s people.
That being said I disagree that the bible only contains “some general moral principles”. While morality is all about love I think it is also true to say that there are some things that are always unloving. Adultery, for instance, is always destructive of loving relationships, and therefore always wrong. The bible mentions many of these things and I think we should pay attention when it talks about them.
Part of the problem is with the term “love”. In English, love is such a broad term that it is very unhelpful, yet it is in many ways the best world that we have. I can validly say that “I love my wife”, “I love my sister” and “I love ice-cream”, yet I mean very different things by the term “love” in each case. So in talking about “love” we have to be careful that we are talking about love in the same way that the bible would talk about love, becuase we use love in a much broader context then the bible writers would
In the case of homosexuality, while we may quite validly talk of homosexuality being about “love”, I don’t think that the bible writers would use “love” to describe that sort of relationship. One of the reasons I think this is that in the NT the original Greek uses three or more words that are commonly translated as “love”. The one most commonly used (agapae I think, although no doubt Diogenes will come and correct me) does not include in its meaning a sexual dimension. Those sort of relationships are described with a different words. Therefore just because we can apply the word “love” to something, does not necessarily mean that it is included in what the bible would call love. And the passages in the bible that either state or imply that God’s people are not intended to live in homosexual relationships would imply that these relationships are not “loving” ones, at least in the biblical concept of love.
If you define “homosexuality” as “the desire to sleep with people of the same sex”, the I fully agree that God does not condemn anyone for merely being “homosexual”. We all, gay or straight, have sinful desires because we are all every one of us sinful people. If God condemned us on that basis then no-one would be saved. What matters I think is the willingness to accept that Jesus death pays for our sins, and our willingness to give God the lordship of our lives. Part of that element of lordship is being willing to do what God says (even if we don’t actually do it because of our sinfulness, we should at least be willing to). Being unrepentant about being in homosexual relationships IMHO shows that someone is not willing to give God total lordship over their lives, and in that sense I think it may be reason to call their salvation into question.
Joey Jo Jo.
Honestly I think firstly I would be embarressed that I got it wrong, but then after that I would be sad that I tried to impose a burden on people that they did not have to bear. Really it gives me no pleasure to say that homosexuality is a sin, because it is a huge stumbling block for many in coming to Christ. I would much rather that homosexulity was OK and that more people would come to Christ. Yet as much as I want that, it just simply isn’t the truth. I can’t be intellectually honest and claim both that the bible is the word of God and that homosexuality is OK with God. That is why I maintain that homosexual acts are sinful, because it is (IMHO) the truth, and it is important for people to know what is true.
I can’t see why I would be disappointed to find out that homosexuality is not sinful. I guess if I was using it to justify myself, as in “I may not be perfect, but at least I am not gay” that I guess I might. But I don’t think you can make those sort of distinctions between sins. Without Jesus I would see myself in exactly the same position as anyone else (ie: stuffed). I don’t think any group of sinners is really any worse than any other in the eyes of God.
Joey Jo Jo.
But according to your interpretation, we straight ones at least have some circumstances where we’re allowed to act on our desire to, say, kiss someone, without its being sinful. But the gay people never do.
God, yes. The text of the Bible, no. How far the two are to be identified is a point on which I don’t think we’ll be able to agree - but I hope that the various positions can still show mutual respect.
And, yes, I’m sure Diogenes will be able to explain the difference between “agape” and “eros” far better than most of us.
(Sorry, postings overlapped).
I agree completely with this; I choose to reject the first horn of the dilemma, rather than the second. Your choice is different, and one you’re entitled to make. But I think this does encapsulate the main issue here.
Immediate answer - Romans 1:26.
The whole passage (Romans 1:21-32) is open to the same objection as the better-known one from 1 Corinthians referenced above; it refers to lust and general sinfulness, to excessive sexual desire and indulgence, not to orientation and/or responsible use of sexuality.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think though that it is a very good objection. The main part is
If it was just verse 26, then I would say that you may have a point. However verse 27 makes it clear that what is essentially “unnatural” is the swapping of orientation from opposite gender to same gender. It says both what is natural (opposite sex relationships with women) and what is unnatural (same sex relationships with men). And since the two verses are connected with the term “likewise”, I think that you therefore should read verse 26 in the same way.
This is the other thing tht I wanted to say. In terms of the morality of “transvestism”, I think it depends on what you mean. I think that people that are clearly men pretending to be women or vice versa is not the way that God wants his people acting. So for instance to Deuteronomy I would add 1 Corinthians 11.
However there are a small number of people that are techincally neither male or female because they have a different arrangement of chromosomes other than the male and female XX and XY. (ie: YY, XXY, XXX, ect). For these people I think they should just be allowed to pick whatever gender best fits them and stick with it. And I would support surgery for these people to become what gender they feel they are, because really it is not changing their gender so much as correcting genetic abnormalities, which I think is a fine thing for medicine to do.
Joey Jo Jo.
Isn’t that kind of medical interference what Mines Mystique calls a “perversion of the way people were created by God”?
This attitude seems to me not so much God-worship as heterosexuality-worship, or perhaps norm-worship. Based on the Genesis story (where it certainly does make sense to see a heterosexual procreative relationship as central, since it’s about the creation of humankind, and humankind couldn’t survive without heterosexuality), you’re basically operating on the assumption that all people have to fit into the “male” or “female” category, with the corresponding heterosexual desires, because you think that’s the only thing that’s “natural”.
You’re insisting on the exclusivity of these two categories to such an extent that even when God actually creates people that are “neither male or female” (and Jesus even mentions “eunuchs” by birth in Matthew 19, as you noted before), you think that they should be reconstructed to be male or female. And when God creates people with homosexual desires, you think that they should simply be repressed as “sinful” and “unnatural”.
It seems to me that what you’re endorsing here is not what God actually creates, but the rigid and limited either/or system that you’re trying to impose upon God’s creation.
Without wanting to be offensive, I think you are thinking about the problem like a Pharisee. The Pharisees were all about constructing rules surrounding what the bible said that were simply unhelpful to actually living a Godly life. The question “how close can I get to the line before I sin?” IMHO reveals a heart that is not interested in following God. The right question to ask in these matters is not “what can I get away with?”, the right question is “how can I best love God and other people”.
For the record, I think it is perfectly possible for two men, even two gay men, to kiss without it being necessarily sinful. I, as a guy, can kiss women in a way that is not sexual, and therefore I would say that in these circumstances kissing is OK. I can also kiss women in a way that is entirely sexual, and in those circumstances I think it is not OK. I think what matters is the attitude of the heart. If you are doing something to sexually arouse yourself or someone else who you shouldn’t be doing that sort of thing with, then that is wrong. If you are doing it for another (good) reason, then that is OK. I also think that there are some things that are inherently sexual, and therefore should never be done with anyone but your (opposite gender) spouse. For instance I don’t think that it is reasonable to think that, say giving head could be non-sexual.
A rule of thumb (not an absolute law, because it varies a little bit with culture) on this sort of thing could be what you would do with your siblings. I would kiss my sister on the cheek as a greeting, so therefore that is OK to do with other women. I wouldn’t tounge kiss my sister though, so that one is out with other women. You could apply the same thing to gay men and brothers.
The other point is that just because we have a desire doesn’t mean it must have some expression. We all have many desires that have no good way that they can be expressed. So using this sort of logic you can justify adultery. All that you need to do is narrow the field from a gender to a specific person. Just because two people have a desire to do something doesn’t make expressing that desire in a particular way right. Some desires have no useful or Godly way in which they can be expressed.
Joey Jo Jo.
Ahh, but this brings us to the “homosexuality is unnatural” argument, and Bruce Bagemihl is as immediate a response to this as talk.origins is to creationism/ID.
I must admit that an uncritical reading of the Bible does lead us to the conclusion that the authors were opposed to homosexuality. My personal position is to accept this, and stop looking to the Bible, on its own, for the source of morality. My initial response to Mine was an attempt to show that it’s possible to adopt a more - normative, to use a technical expression - approach to the Bible than I do, and still not be forced to condemn homosexuality.
There is a risk, in any Christian’s life, that becoming convinced of the falsity of a particular Bible passage (again, creationism is probably a more common example) will convince us that the entire enterprise is false, that we should not only reject the parts of the Bible we know are false, but reject all of it, including the Gospel message. Many an atheist (certainly, many an SDMB atheist) has taken this path. As a Christian, I know that it’s my duty to spread the Good News, and I feel that an insistence on Biblical morality in this sort of situation is often an impediment.
NB. None of the above should be taken as a condemnation of atheism.
Maybe I should have been more clear: I mean that in your interpretation, straights are under some circumstances allowed to express sexual desire physically, but gays never are.
In other words, you are saying that all gay people are called to permanent celibacy. Bisexual people may be able to act on their heterosexual desires in certain circumstances, but exclusively gay people never can.
I think it’s necessary to be very honest and clear about a position like this. Just saying “well, we’re all sinners and all have sinful desires” or “well, we can all share in non-sexual affection equally” sounds sort of weasely to me. Because the unspoken corollary is “but I, as a straight person, will probably be able to act on some of my sexual desires in a non-sinful way, and a gay person never can”.
From a theological point of view God created the workd good, yet because of sin all sorts of problems have entered God’s creation. Now because of the general sin of humanity many people are born with many different physical problems and people are given many different desires. How do you distinguish between what is good and what is bad? Why is homosexuality a good desire to have, yet paedophillia is a bad desire (note: NOT saying the two are morally equivalent). Just because a desire exists does not make it good.
Similarly just because someone is born a particular way doesn’t make that way good. So for instance IMHO it is sad when someone is born blind, or someone is born without limbs. Would you say that we should do nothing to correct those problems too? Should we just accept them as part of the diversity of God’s world? If you would baulk at that why then must transgendered necessarily be good?
In terms of “imposing” a male/female view onto creation, Genesis 2 states clearly that people were created male and female. The male/female complementarity is built into creation, I am not imposing anything. Although the line between the two is sometimes blurred because of sin, the two are a fundamental part of humanity.
FWIW I guess it would be OK for chromosonally transgendered people to say that they are neither male or female if that is what they really want. I would guess though that the vast majority would want to identify as one or the other, if only for ease in relating to other people.
Joey Jo Jo.
I don’t claim the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of G-d. Some bits are parables. Some bits were recorded by humans acting as G-d’s instruments. Some of those instruments should have consulted editors or a thesaurus.
For the direct word of G-d, I go to G-d. He tells me that homosexuality is no sin. He tells me that love Adam and Steve have for each other is as beautiful and as holy as the love between a man and a woman.
This does seem to conflict with the Talmud. But, I believe what the Lord has said to me directly over what he reportedly said to somebody else who recorded it in a different language.