I’m not gay and I’m not Christian, so as an outsider looking in, I have to admit that I’m a little confused by the whole controversy. If I understand correctly, the Bible teaches that the practice of homosexuality is a grave and serious sin, so what’s the debate? Why do some people assert that there’s no incompatibility?
Please understand that I’m not being sarcastic or snarky here, I genuinely don’t understand how someone can claim to be both a happily practicing homosexual and and a practicing Christian. Am I missing something? Please enlighten me…
All Christians pick and choose what they treat as “gospel” (pun intended). The gay ones ignore the anti-gay stuff, like most other Christians ignore the stuff in the same chapter (Leviticus?) about not wearing clothes weaved from more than one fiber.
There is also much debate about exactly what the Bible was describing in those passages that are interpreted (by some) as condemning homosexuality; specifically, that the concept of a loving homosexual relationship is something alien to the worldview of the bible writers.
And also; it’s all interpretation - when someone says “no, I don’t interpret the Bible, I take it absolutely as read”, what they really mean is simply that they consider their personal interpretation vastly superior to those of everyone else. Often their interpretation will in fact be every bit as laughably arbitrary and self-serving as any other you could find.
As Mangetout said, it’s extremely debatable whether the passages in the New Testament actually condemn homosexuality. A good case can be made that they refer to pederasty or male prostitution or both.
Another thing to keep in mind, though, is that not all Christians think the Bible is the infallible word of God. many Christians see the Bible as a human compilation of books filled with ordinary human error. In this case many simply dismiss some of Paul’s declarations as his own personal (and culturally biased) opinions, not a fiat from on high.
Actually the bible’s take about masturbation is much less clear than about homosexuality. It’s not obvious at all that Onan’s story should be interpreted as condemning masturbation. Actually, I personnally find this interpretation a little weird.
Diogenes the Cynic said:
[qoute] As Mangetout said, it’s extremely debatable whether the passages in the New Testament actually condemn homosexuality. A good case can be made that they refer to pederasty or male prostitution or both.
[/quote]
This is of course an incendiary topic nowadays; with many (most?) people on either side of the issue with very strong feelings. (and no doubt sincere) A person who feels that homosexual behavior is against God’s standards is often said to be engaged in “hate speech.” And it is true that some who profess to be Christian lose sight of what it means to be Christian when attacking homosexuals. Nonetheless, I’m hard pressed to see the “good case” you’re referring to. Here’s some quotes from the NT:
Romans 1:26,27
" That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error."
I Cor 6:9,10
“Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.”
This is in fact true; many people prefer to take their faith ala carte. For a person who rejects parts of the bible for this reason, there is simply no adequate answer. In the end, we are held accountable by God for our life course and that is a decision that is between us personally and God.
This is of course an incendiary topic nowadays; with many (most?) people on either side of the issue with very strong feelings. (and no doubt sincere) A person who feels that homosexual behavior is against God’s standards is often said to be engaged in “hate speech.” And it is true that some who profess to be Christian lose sight of what it means to be Christian when attacking homosexuals. Nonetheless, I’m hard pressed to see the “good case” you’re referring to. Here’s some quotes from the NT:
This really amounts to a descriptive account animal lust rather than a per se condemnantion of lesbianism but it’s not one of the passages I was referring to.
There you go, but it’s a mistranslation. The Greek word incorrectly translated as “men kept for unnatural purposes” is simply [symbol]malakoi[/symbol] (malakoi) which literally means “soft ones.” This is often mistranslated as “effeminate” as well as ludicrous constructions like the above but the adjective “soft” as applied in Greek idiom did not carry a connotation of effeminacy or homosexuality. It was commonly used to indicate those who were morally “soft” or weak and in fact it was often used as a reference to womanizers. Any interpretation of malakoi as referring to homosexuals is flat out wrong and is rooted in cultural or theological bias.
The word translated as “men who lie with men” is [symbol]arsenokoitai[/symbol] (arsenokoitai). This is a word which is found nowhere in Greek literature before its use in Corinthians and it was probably coined by Paul himself. Arsenokoitai is a compound of two words, arsenos, which means “male,” and koites, which means “bed.” Koites was used in compounds quite often in a derisive manner to refer to sexual practices. Literally it means something like “bedder” in those compounds and it will be prefixed with whatever the subject is having sex with. For instance it could be used with “mother,” or “chicken,” or “whore” or whatever the subject was being painted as “bedding.” The “bedding” part carried a more forceful, rude and coarse verbal tone than it might appear and some Greek scholars say that it was practically the same as “fucker.”
So Paul’s word literally means “male-bedder” but it is not one of the Greek words commonly used to refer to homosexuals. Subsequent uses of the word in extant Greek literature usually include it in lists of vices or crimes without providing a definition or context so that makes it harder to determine exactly what it meant, but the few places that do provide context always associate it with the patronization of male prostitution, particularly young male prostitutes who were commonplace in the culture that Paul was speaking to. Greek culture was rife with pederasty and boy prostitutes and that’s almost certainly what Paul is condemning. There is no use of the word arsenokoites anywhere in Greek literature to refer to adult, consensual, non-mercenary homosexuality. I repeat, the only times the word is given context in any usage subsequent to Paul it is used in conjunction with male prostitution. I should add that the suffix koites is always used for the active partner in a sexual act, never the passive. Always for the “top” rather than the “bottom,” so to speak. This means that arsenokoites would indicate the John rather than the prostitute.
Or not. I really don’t think that a caring God is going to care about how literally people interpret some book. If it mattered he would have provided some evidence to that effect. He didn’t. A lot of Christians are fine with sticking to “love God and love your neighbor” without getting all bound up about how servile they can be to a book written by people.
Nonetheless, the language is clear. The bible’s view of homosexuality has continuity throughout. While I appreciate your posts, and the thoroughness in which you approach them, the overall weight, context and language of the bible as regards homosexuality is clear. I do not wish to put your words in your mouth, and I won’t, but if you’re inferring that Christ or God would have endorsed homosexuality, or even taken just a benign position, can’t be suppored. Quite the contrary.
I mean no disrespect, and I would point out that I am not a scholar on the Greek or ancient Hebrew languages. I would be interested if you are, or if in fact you have cited sources that support a more accepting biblical view of homosexuality. Nonetheless, none of the bibles I have here support the explanation you’ve offered, or the literal translation or interlinear that I have here. Both from the OT and throughout Paul’s writings homosexuality is described as deviant behavior.
I believe that God is a caring God, and I think that there is clear evidence “to that effect.” There’s also clear evidence IMHO, that while he is a caring God, he expects humans to be compliant and obedient with his requirements. And of course, there is ample evidence that he is willing to bring punishment for those who are disobedient.
Raindog, this is how this argument looks to the outside observer:
Raindog: Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible - see these particular passages.
Diogenes: Well, those passages are misinterpreted - see various Greek translations that refute the common interpretation.
Raindog: Well, I’m not sure about that. But homosexuality is condemned in the Bible.
If the passages you cited don’t mean what you thought they meant, dredge up a few more or post alternate translations, don’t just repeat your assertion. I’d be interested to see them and also see if Diogenes has any response…
I wouldn’t call myself an expert or anything but I have a couple of years of college Greek under my belt as well as independent pursual of Koine (my college Greek was Attic but it’s pretty close to Koine).
Here are a couple of links I found discussing malakoi and arsenokoitai. You can also google those words and find more discussion but it tends to be pretty similar.
I would disagree that Paul makes any categorical statement about homosexuality, not only because of what I’ve already posted but also because there was no understanding of homosexuality as a fixed orientation in ancient times. There was no conceot of “gay” and “straight,” it was all just seen as behavior. Since there was no real word or concept for “gay” as an orientation there was no way to categorically condemn it. Arsenokoites could only refer to a behavior not an orientation, and the question of what specific behavior is up for debate as you can see.
I don’t want to digress into a discussion of “evidence” for God’s intentions and I shouldn’t have brought it up.
My original intention was to show how some Christians are able to reconcile their faith in the Bible with an acceptance of homosexuality. I’m not trying to persuade you that I’m right with this stuff, I’m only trying to show you that there is a reasonable debate on the meaning of those passages in Paul. I don’t expect you to buy the argument, just to understand that an argument exists.
Lambchops, I think that’s a reasonable request, and perhaps tomorrow I’ll do that. I’m going out on a limb here, but I’m guessing that Diogenes isn’t a language scholar either. My point was that the weight, context and continuity of the bible over centuries is clear on the matter of homosexuality. Even if one accepts Diogenes explanation, one would reasonably wonder how/why so many biblical scholars/translators came to the same basic translation.; namely that homosexuality (specifically) is deviant behavior. Further, when one considers the bible’s position on homosexuality within the context of the cites, it is even harder to accept the notion that God is/would be a supporter of homosexuality.
The position of “God is Love” or as Diogenes out it, “love God and love your neighbor” IMHO actually undermines the POV that homosexuality is a practice accepted by God. That explanation looks to me to be the ultimate hedging of one’s spiritual bets; if in fact homosexuality enjoys the same status as heterosexuality in God’s eyes, there is no need to add the qualifier that God is caring and presumably tolerant.
It might be cool to see the various translations side by side. I’f I can I’ll do that tomorrow. Must get to sleep.
Does a minor in Classical Languages count as scholarship? Like I said, I’m no expert. I’m not even fluent, but I do have some formal scholarship.
This is an extremely debatable point. It’s definitely not a matter of settled fact, especially as it pertains to the Pauline passages.
Cultural bias and a confusion as to the meaning of the language.
This sounds rather circular to me. You’re saying that the Bible condemns homosexality therefore all ambiguous passages in this regard must be interpreted as condemning homosexuality. You’re making an a priori assumption, using the assumption to interpret relevant passages and then using thoses interpretations to support the a priori assumption.
Moreover, the Bible is not a homogenous, singular book. It’s a compilation of books with some wildly divergent theological points and positions. Lots of books contradict other books. You have to interpret each book separately. You can’t necessarily assume that every book will conform in every theological manner to every other book. Sometimes you just get contradictions.
So what?
I don’t think I follow this. What qualifier are you referring to? And how is it “hedging bets” to say that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality in God’s eyes. It seems to me that such a position follows logically from an axiom that God is love.
I misread raindog’s quote here and thought he was saying that “God is Love” undermined a postion that God does NOT accept homosexuality.
My revised question then, is how so? How is a loving God in any way incompatible with an acceptance of homosexuality? I truly am mystified by this assertion.
Jesus, himself, once said, “Judge not, lest ye be judged…” and later said, “He who is without sin, cast the first stone.”
I’m not much on interpretation, but I believe his intent was, “There are some things we are not to decide.” However, I know many good Christians that will go looking for rocks when they feel it is the thing to do.
Okay, I was debating on whether or not I should put this in a seperate thread, but I figured since it’s slightly relevant I’d put it here:
It’s my understanding that, for the lack of a better term, ambiguious sexual behavior existed for quite some time in the ancient world. The first incidents that I could think of involve the Hopolites (sp?). My question is, what were the attitudes toward the different sexual pairings during the centuries that the bible was supposedly written (aka, pre-200 AD)?
I’ve done a bit of reading on this subject in regard to the Ancient Greeks, and they had some oddly familiar stereotypes about big butch women with short hair and prancing, foppish men who wore perfume. Such people were at best seen as funny, at worst as perverts. However, while these people always seem to be portrayed as homosexual, there wasn’t a similar negative attitude towards people who engaged in homosexual relationships but didn’t violate social gender roles. In other words, it didn’t seem to matter all that much who you had sex with, as long as you looked and acted like a traditionally feminine woman or masculine man.
But it is important to remember that the social structure of Ancient Greece, like that of many ancient cultures, pretty much required that everyone be heterosexually married. You would of course be expected to have sex now and then with your spouse for babymaking purposes, no matter how unattractive you found them.
My understanding on Greek homosexuality was that pretty much all men would be married to women but that it was a fairly common practice to keep a boy on the side. It was a rather misogynistic culture and women were just housekeepers and baby-makers. They were not considered intellectual equals to men, so it was thought that a man could only have true “romance” with another male. Some of the cliches and rituals that we associate with men courting women were carried out by older, married men courting younger, teenage boys. Once the boys became older, they got married and became the pursuers rather than the quarry.
I also know that Spartan soldiers paired up as couples and that this was encouraged because it was believed that a soldier would fight harder to protect his lover than he otherwise might.