Often disregarded in this debate is- is there any organization with the authority to interpret these ancient documents, to tell us what they meant then & what they mean to us today? Jewish & Christian believers says yes, that organization is the either the historic Rabbinical Councils that codified the Talmuds & their successors who still study & strive to interpret OR the historic Councils of the Christian Church (Catholic, Orthodox &/or Reformational) & their successors the Bishops &/or denominational leaders. Until the past few decades, the consensus on homosexuality by both Rabbinic & Christian authorities has been the same- complete opposition to the practice of gay sex. Any challenge to such long-standing traditions within those religions needs to be considered carefully & such traditions overturned only in the face of overwhelming refutation. That said I will admit that I think in the past century, the long-standing Orthodox Rabbinic & Christian oppositions to contraception were rightly challenged, I consider myself a conservative Christian yet I do not hold to Eternal Torment in Hell (tho I add in my defense that there has been a longstanding historic undercurrent in Christian thought of Wider Hope/Annihilationist/ Universalist thought).
Now that I’m thinking about it (and thanks for the information Lamia and Diogenes!), when did the attitude clearly change (I say clearly because I suspect that there might be an overlap in attitudes)?
Re. Paul & pederasty
My Romans lecturer, who is gay, taught that there was a perfectly good Greek word for pederasty, and Paul doesn’t use it. So why should he refer to it so obliquely?
It’s not really that oblique- at least it wouldn’t have been at the time. Arsenokoitai is Paul’s own compound but compounds with koites were as common as dirt, just like “____fucker” compounds are common in English. Like I said above, “koites” in compounds only referred to the active (penetrating) partner in sexual acts, so it would not apply to passive partners in those acts and therefore cannot be a blanket condemnation of all homosexual acts.
Moreover, there were several words for homosexual acts and those who engaged in them that Paul did not use either. He made up his own word, “male-bedder” which I think, given Paul’s cultural and historical context as well as hints from uses of the word subsequent to Paul, could be most accurately rendered as something like “boy-fucker” in its connotation.
Can you please tell me what this post adds to this thread? The OP, as far as I can tell in good faith and with a good heart, posed a question seeking information and debate on a subject that he (?) admittedly lacked information on. In other words, he is trying to have his ignorance fought.
We have had interesting posts concerning the translation from Greek, and generally a respectful and congenial tone. I (and I suspect others) are learning new things. What is it that you are trying to do?
:dubious: ;j If you say so, mate… as usual the Greek thing falls down because I haven’t a clue about it. I must remember to actually take that course.
What about:
Leviticus 20
13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
and
Kings 14:
24: And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.
and
Kings 15
12: And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.
There are a couple more, but you get the idea.
I’ll admit that the translators of the KJV were probably not the most liberally minded people when it came to homosexuality, but they seemed to have found a lot of places to translate things in an anti-homosexual way, the combined weight of which seems to support a homophobic reading of the whole book, even if some doubt can be cast on the translation of one or another verse.
Also, it should be noted that “Queen James”, under whose auspices the King James Bible was created was a widly rumored during his reign to be a homosexual. which makes me think the translators would not have gone to far out of their way to give their translation a homophobic flavor that wasnt supported by the text.
Of course, its a long book with a lot of archaic rules and prejudices, and I doubt that even the most pious follows every rule put forth in the Bible. How many ministers go out of their way to seperate their wives and daughters from the male members of the family when they’re menstrating as proscribed in Leviticus, after all. So I’d say Christians who ignore the anti-homosexuality prescriptions are hardly in slim company when it comes to ignoring inconvientiant parts of the bible.
Small point of order on this point: It is my understanding that there is a difference between Old Testament ceremonial law (like not eating shellfish, and all of the rules covering menstruation, clothing and animal sacrifice) and moral law (like the 10 Commandments and so forth). It is my further understanding that Christ “fulfilled” the covenant of the ceremonial laws, but that the moral laws still hold sway.
There were tons of words that Paul could have used to refer to male/male sexuality. Among these: “Paiderastes, pallakos, kinaidos, arrenomanes, and paidophthoros.” I find it terribly strange that Paul does not say much more on the subject of male/male sexuality considering how rampant it was in many parts of the world back then. It would have been so easy to speak out against such people using terms that everyone would have understood back then, but he never did.
Aresenokoitai might either mean men who fuck or men who fuck men. This has been debated for some time. Although Diogenes the Cynic believes it refers to male (boy) prostitutes who serviced men, there is evidence to suggest that it refers to male prostitutes in general.
Futhering the confusion, the Patrologia Graeca, collected works of Greek Christians said
Which makes some believe it refers to anal intercourse or to women pegging their husbands.
There were plenty of early Christians or Christians throughout the ages who argued for same-sex love. Some same-sex marriages were even performed in churches and blessed by priests. There were many things that were debated by early Christians and some were taken up by the majority and others were cast aside. Those that were taken up by the majority became the law, fortunately, or unfortunately.
Since most early Christians thought that the time of Jesus was soon to be at hand, sex in general was considered negative. Hence sayings such as “better to marry than to burn.” As Christianity became more and more developed, it decided to keep the stricter sexual laws. You’ll note however, that Christianity was most intolerate of homosexuality when it was intolerate of Jews, pagans, witch craft, usury and thousands of other things that most Christians wouldn’t bat an eyelash at today.
Usury was heavily condemed in the bible and was illegal throughout most of Christian history, but not even the fundies bother yelling at the banks or credit card companies today. Everyone picks of the bible what they believe. Even those who think that they fallow every word and command really don’t - just want they agree with. Otherwise they wouldn’t be doing a lot of things that they do.
I have no idea why, other than prejudice, that you would assume my tone was anything but respectful and congenial. And I don’t know why, other than a wreckless disregard for decorum, that you would attack me ad hominem in this forum. But I assure you, if you will listen to my assurance, that my answer was honest, heartfelt, and utterly to the point. The Greek is far less relevant than the Hebrew, and I had in fact begun a long post citing Strongs and the 117 occurances in 112 verses of the term for “abomination” with the intention of explaining not only what that meant in the context of both Leviticus passages dealing with homosexuality and the consumption of shrimp, but also what Jesus said and did about it as recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, chapters 15 and 7 respectively, when He taught the Pharisees exactly what God meant about ritual adominations. Upon review, I determined that some unscrupulously agendized person might accuse me of deliberate obfuscation and irrelevant blabbering in an attempt to over-complicate something that is sublimely simple, namely, that not one person in history has ever perfectly obeyed the Law and that not one person in history has every failed to partake in abominations in the presence of Perfect Holiness — the point being, of course, that isolating homosexuals as a group who cannot be Christian because they are in violation of God’s law is to isolate equally every person who ever lived. That particular conclusion is reachable in a much simpler way by Jesus’ instruction that whoever believes he is morally pure sufficient to God’s standards should cast the first stone. I would appreciate your taking your personal agenda against me to the appropriate forum where I will ignore it.
This is addressed in a couple of ways by pro-gay Christians. First of all, it is argued by many that this is a reference to those who frequented Canaanite male temple prostitutes and not a blanket condemnation of homosexuality. This is a debatable defense, and it’s no slam dunk for the liberals, but a case can be made- and when it comes to religious belief making a case is all that’s required, not proving a case.
Another, and probably more helpful argument is that it’s part of Mosaic law which according to Christian doctrine was superceded by the crucifixion. That means that this prohibition, like kosher laws and any number of other archaic, antiquated rules and proscriptions is no longer binding on Christians.
What do these verses have to do with homosexuality? “Sodomites” just means people from Sodom, it doesn’t mean homosexual. Sodom was punished for inhospitalty to angels, btw, not for being fabulous.
There really aren’t that many verses whic refer to homosexuality, in fact we’ve pretty much covered them all in this thread. I would also argue that not one verse can be proven to be an unambiguous condemnation of all homosexual behavior.
What makes you think the translators would want to call any attention at all to rumors about James? What makes you think that James himself would want to appear soft on homosexuality. Closeted homosexuals quite often project a homophobic facade. It’s a defense mechanism.
There is also still my earlier point that not all Christians think the Bible is the unerring word of God.
Libertarian, from where I sit the way that your post read was a quick snipe that was implying that the OP was aiming to cast the first stone, so to speak. From that perspective, I could not see how your post was adding anything to a discussion that was rather informative.
I am not sure where you are getting the notion of prejudice, and will also not that I did not attack you ad hominem (as in an attack appealing to personal considerations or rather than logic or reason). I directly pointed out that the tone of your post did not strike me as congenial and respectful and asked for clarification. This is not without context, as I am others have noticed some changes in the tone and content of your posts of late. I should hope that you see the difference.
I guess that I would suggest that if you feel that I have disregarded the decorum or rules of Great Debates or that I have personally attacked you that you feel free to report my post to a Moderator for a ruling. I am just not seeing it, but if the consensus is that this is the case, I will apologize without hesitation or reservation. You can also always feel free to open a Pit thread.
All of that being said, I did find the rest of your post somewhat informative.
Dio
You are presenting as stellar and scholarly a defense as any Christian I’ve seen. Your intellectual prowess in this area is commendable and rare. I would like to point out two things, however, of which I know you are aware, but for the benefit of your adversary. The exact same term for abomination that appears in Lev 20:13 also appears in Lev 11:10, where people are prohibited from eating shellfish. “And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.” Any person invoking one but not the other is a hypocrite, and we all know what Jesus thinks of hypocrisy. The other point would be that the Law is not superceded by the crucifixion, but rather is fulfilled by it. That is to say that the Law still stands, but we are justified by Christ Whose life is the perfect interpretation of it.
Binary
I apologize, and hope that upon a review of the post in question, you will see that any tone attached to it is arbitrary. It is, to me at least, a wonderful attribute of Christianity that every time a Christian points a moral finger, it crooks back to himself.
What about us Jews? What are we, chopped liver?
Salvati, The Raindog IMO There’s no point in interpreting a translated version. The original Hebrew and Aramaic has multiple meanings and nuances that are often lost in translation. More, the syntax may differ and the Hebrew used in the Torah has no vowels.
It’s worth mentioning that every Jewish scholar I’ve ever read or spoken with agrees that the great sin of Sodom and Gamorrah was not homosexuality, but lack of generosity and hostility towards strangers.
The debate over the property interpretation of the relevant passages is great. But, it is not an attempt to weasel out of an obligation, or find an interpretation we like. Every word in the Torah is debated.
I recently watched an excellent documentary on homosexuality in the Orthodx community, Trembling Before G-d. The title on the box, DVD, and in the film is spelled with a hyphen. At some points subtitles are used when a speaker uses Hebrew or Yiddish.
I’m not going to discuss what the bible verses “really mean”, but haven’t they been read as condemning homosexual sex since pretty early in Christianity? I could be wrong, but don’t you see condemnations of it and religious laws against it as early as the 2nd and 3rd century?
Argument from Antiquity? Slavery was more or less winked at by Christianity for centuries as well. Does that make slavery morally correct in a Christian worldview?
Yes, it does, or did at least, until that belief was challenged in the 16th-19th centuries, and ultimately changed. I don’t think I’m making an argument from antiquity…I’m not saying homosexual sex is objectively morally wrong, (or slavery objectively morally right), just that Christians considered it morally wrong as early as the 2nd and 3rd centuries (and I recognize I could be wrong on that). So, if, as Dio is saying, the passages in the Christian bible don’t condemn it, how did, in 100-200 years, attitudes change so that it was condemned?
lambchops said:
As you requested, here is some further information, using Romans 1:26,27. The cites are not googled, but from copies from bibles in my possesion.
King James
“For this cause God gave them up into vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward one another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet”
New Revised Standard
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. the women exchanged natural intercourse for the unnatural, and in the same way the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."
New Jerusalem Bible
“That is why God abandoned them to degrading passions: why their women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural practices; and the men, in a similar fashion, too, are consumed with passion for each other, men doing shamefull things with men and receiving in themselves due reward for their perversion.”
New World Translation
" 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."
American Standard Version
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions, for their women changed the natural use into that is which is against nature:and likewise also the men leaving natural use of the woman burned in their lust toward one another, men with men, working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense, of their error which was due.”
Tyndale’s New Testament
“For even their women did change the natural use unto the unnatural. And likewise also the men left the natural use of the woman, and burned in their lusts one on another. And man with man wrought filthiness, and received in themselves the reward for their error, as it was according.”
New International Version
“Because of this, God gave then over to shameful lusts. Even their women exhanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural realtions with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion”
With all due respect to Diogenes, here are 3 translations from interlinear bibles, which translate the original text word for word. In these translations, both the Greek word and the corresponding English word appear side by side throught the whole bible translation:
Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible
“Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, foe even their females did change the natural use into that against nature; and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving”
Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scripitures
“Through this gave beside them the God into passions of dishonor; the and for females of them exchanged the natural use into the (one) beside nature, likewise and also the males having let go off the matural use of the female were burned out in the lust of them into one another males in males the indecency working down and the return reward which it was necessary of the error of them in them receiving )back) from.”
The Interlinear Bible
“Because of this gave up them God to passions of dishonor; the even for females of them changed the natural use to the (use) against nature; likewise and also the males having forsaken the natural use of the female, burned in the lust of them toward one another, males among males the shamefullness working out, and the reward which behoved the straying of them, in themselves receiving back.”
As lambchops noted, it is good to see additional information. By seeing these translations I noted several things; that there was continuity between the various versions/translations. Further, the regular versions have 2 basic objectives; first to make a translation from the original language. They further want to make a version that maximizes “readability” or simple utility for the user. They then allow themselves some liberties to acheive that goal. That explains the subtle differnces in text. The Interlinear translators however are not concerned with “readability” and as such are unemcumbered with that issue. They simply want to render the translation word for word, literally. They are not concerned with linguistic, cultural, generational, or historical nuances. The last thing I noticed is that when taking this reference with the other scriptures that reference homosexuality, whether that be Levitcus, Romans or Corinthians there is continuity throughout the bible. (I will not post the other verses as I do not wish to use the bandwidth, however the other verses (Lev/Cor) show the same continuity)
And despite** DocCathode’s** assertion that “IMO There’s no point in interpreting a translated version”, I would have to disagree here. It is true that translations have the inherent difficulty of losing nuances etc. But we’re not talking about nuances here. The OP wasn’t asking about nuances. The bible’s answer to the fundamental question is clear. The practice of homosexuality is universally shown as deviant behavior and inconsistent with Christian principles.
Libertarian said:
I would have to disagree here. If the law is not “completed” by the crucifixion, what does “fulfilled” mean? In fact, what was the purpose of the law if not a mechanism for the Israelites to prepare for the arrival of the Messiah? Paul wrote that the law was a “tutor leading to the Christ.” (Gal 3:24) he also wrote, “For Christ is the end of the Law…” (Rom 10:4) and completing the thought at Galations 3:25 he writes: “Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to the Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor” (The Law) (See also Romans 7:1-5) (Eph 2:11-16) Further the verses at Col 2:13,14 reference the Law being nailed to the cross upon Christs death.
It seems clear that we are no longer under the Mosaic Law (While Jews should probably be as they don’t recognize Jesus as the Messiah) the principles condemning homosexuality behavior were reaffirmed (among many other requirements) throughout the NT as well.
ava said:
Paul did speak out. And there is no indication that the forceful words (very forceful words actually) he used would not have been misunderstood. How rampant this was is open to conjecture, but it must hve been pervasive enough for him to make note of it more than once and in forceful unequivical language.
I see no “evidence” of this. On the contrary, Paul’s words are extremely clear for what they say. It’s worth noting that the opinions of those who assert that Paul wasn’t really saying what appears to be crystal clear and unambiguous must rely on a host of other sources rather than Paul himself. In the end , we’ree left with words being put in Paul’s mouth, or essentially saying “Paul really didn’t say this, or he really didn’y mean it.” (Or a myriad of other explantions, like he was a ‘hater’ or a repressed homosexual) I’m of the opinion that the best source of Paul’s intent is Paul.
I mean no disrespect, but I do not see “confusion” on Paul’s part whatsoever. I’m not a cynic, but maybe there are those who would like to sow confusion to legitimize a view that the bible shows no confusuion about.
I see no evidence of this, certainly not in the bible. And to the extent behavior may have existed the purpose of Paul’s writings was to admonish the flock that behavior like this was reprehensible! I do not think you can the case that this was a pervasive as you infer, and certainly not biblically. Even so, the OP deals not with the existence of homosexuality; but rather it’s legitimacy within the context of a Christian lifestyle. You may find non biblical instances of same sex marriages, but in every case the church would have identified it as aberent behavior.
I don’t believe you can find a single scripture that supports the view that “sex in general” between married couples was seen negatively. OTOH, sex between unmarried people, and between married people who were not married to each other, was always condemned. I would also like the biblical cite “better to marry than to burn.” Christianity as such didn’t need a maturation period, and was fully developed by Christ! In fact, any deviation from the time that Christ practiced his ministry going forward would have represented “development” that was a degradation of Christianity, not “developments” that would have improved on the masters work. As to homosexuality, the early church was always intolerant! Certainly from a biblical POV there was never a “tolerant” period!
Once again, a cite please. Certainly usury, or the collecting excessive interest, is against biblical principles. However, I don’t believe that usury is mentioned once in the Christian/Greek scriptures, is it? If not, how could it have been “illegal throughout most of Christian history?” Best I can tell, it was last mentioned around 600 years before Christ. Further, Christ himself gave a parable that involved making investments and the earning of interest. (Luke 19)