Christianity and homosexuality - please explain

Great Debates
81

Raindog,

Are you ever going to respond to anything with actual scholarship instead of cherry-picked translations?

Did you know that arsenokoitai was never translated as homosexuals until the twentith century?

Do you realize that the NT is translated into other languages besides English and that many non-English translations translate arsenokoitai as “child molestors?” (New Jerusalem Bible- French, German and Dutch, for instance).

The simple truth is that no one knows for sure what arsenokoitai meant. Any scholar or translator who says otherwise is not telling the truth. I can tell you for a fact what the etymological roots are, how koites was used in compounds, how arsenokoites is contextualized in other uses, and the cultural context that Paul was speaking in.

I can tell you that no concept existed for a homosexul orientation so the word could have only referred to a specific act, not a sexual orientation or class of people. I can tell you that koites indicated the active, aggressive, penetrating partner in a sexual act, never the passive and that rsenokoitai could not have then referred to both partners in a sexual act. I can tell you that arsenokoites is never associated with any sort of loving or caring sexual act but is used derisively like “fucker” or perhaps even indicates violence. In the Apology of Aristides it is used to describe the rape of Ganymedes by Zeus.

There is at least one instance where the word is used to describe behavior between men and their wives (probably indicating anal sex), so how do you reconcile that with a definition of homosexuality?

Why don’t you provide an example of arsenokoites being used as a general term for homosexuals anywhere in extant classical Greek? Why don’t you make an arguement from evidence and context rather than weak appeals to the authority of bad translations? Why don’t you at least try to post something about why those translators chose those renderings instead of just saying, well they must know more than you.

You seem to get a kick out of deriding my college Greek as if you think you’re proving something. I only posted that because you asked me what my background was. I specifically told you that I am not an expert and that I’m not even fluent. I have only a modest foundation in Greek, some of which has been pursued independently of college. If I had tried to hold that up as some sort of qualitative proof of authority you might have a point but I saw it more as a disclaimer- “I have only a couple of years of formal training and I am not an expert but…”

In any case, I still know more than you do, and you have yet to offer any other scholarship to rebut the interpretations for malakoi and arsenokoitai which have been offered to you in this thread. Citing “pro-gay bias” is nothing more than simple ad hominem and well poisoning, not rebuttal of scholarship. You obviously have an anti-gay bias (despite your protests to the contrary), so I guess we’re equal.

Why can’t a loving God accept homosexuals (who were, after all, made homosexual by God)?

82

“The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love heterosexuals. It’s just that they need more supervision.”

  • Lynn Lavner
83

I will address it. I think it is probably worth it’s own thread. You must cut me just a little slack however. My hands are kind of full already in this thread, and it would appear that I’m philisophically outnumbered… :rolleyes:

84

I had a co-worker several years ago who informed me that it was against biblical principles for inter-racial couples to date or marry. This caused some mild curiosity and consternation as I was married to an African American woman (I am Irish) and had (have) inter-racial children. When I asked him for a cite he provided me the scripture about not becoming “unevenly yoked.” (He didn’t remember the actual verse; 2 Cor 6:14) I showed him the full text that included the words with unbelievers. He was undeterred, remembering that the early Israelites were told to not take foreign wives, and even Solomon taking a foreign wife against counsel. (700 of them actually…)

I quickly saw the futility in pressing on with this man, and it had me thinking of the more global question; which is a variation of Mangetout’s challenge above. Namely, can objective truth be known? (in this discussion, biblical texts and their interpretations) Is it “all” interpretation as **Mangetout **suggests? Does objective truth exist as to the issue of God’s view of homosexuality, as expressed in the bible?

If it is not present, or present and unknowable by us, we are wasting our time in this thread and the many others that posit an opinion on God’s POV. This nihilistic approach repudiates existing moral structures and makes no distinctions between different beliefs. And so, my co-worker is (was) right to worship in the fashion he did, with beliefs that represented his (and apparently his pastor and congregant’s) interpretation of those scriptures.

I’m not of that persuasion, and found him to be misguided, and just plain wrong. It might be right about now, that Mangetout, perhaps, or others might sieze on that, saying I felt “my personal interpretation vastly superior” to this co-worker. The truth be told, I did in fact feel that my interpretation was superior, as to that specific issue. But I think that many, probably most, here at SDMB would agree with me that he was misguided and not a little racist.

If anyone believes that my co-worker was wrong, this implies that you believe there is indeed a"right." (read: truth) The implication of this belief is profound. It means that all of us at some point, if we have any convictions or strongly held beliefs, will be in a position where we feel that we are in a position of holding the truth. (vis a vis another view) This doesn’t change even if we remain silent.

In this thread, I have taken the position that the bible condemns homosexuality. That has earned me a chorus of detractors, who quite obviously feel I am “wrong.” It is apparent then, that, there is a belief that there is “right” or “truth” to be found in the scriptures as it realtes to this topic at least. So, any one of us will, and should, find ourselves in a position where we feel that we have the “truth.” This should be celebrated, as a manifestation of our convictions.

It’s only the nihilist, who believes that truth is unknowable, or who rejects all qualitative distinctions in faith, that should make comments like this. It’s only if you have no position of your own, that you should deride the postion of another with comments like “You just think your personal interpretation is vastly superior.” The fact is that Paul and many others have stood in the face of withering opposition and maintained their convictions. There is no doubt that they felt that their interpretations were superior.

I offer this because in these forums I have seen many times variations of the same comment. It is almost derisive in nature, and the irony to me anyway, is that in every instance the person levying the charge was guilty of the crime alleged.

The funny thing is that it’s hardly a crime. I have no doubt that Diogenes feels that he (it is he, right?) is in the superior position, as he should. If we are sincere, and respectful, we will pursue it until “truth” is found. If we can’t find it, or find it and can’t agree on it, ultimately God will be the arbiter of our sincerity and life course.

I think it is a sad man who has no convictions, or the constitution to stand up for them, who doesn’t feel that his interpretation is superior.

85

Is it something to be celebrated when someone has strong convictions that cause them to metaphorically trample all over someone else? (I’m not accusing you, the raindog of doing this, but it isn’t unheard of behaviour in fundamentalists.

I’ve never actually considered myself a nihilist, but OK, you’ve said a lot of things about how depressing it would be if objective truth could not be known and you’ve said or implied that you think it can be known; my question to you is ‘how can it be known?’ (without making any unfounded assumptions).

86

Mangetout said:

Certainly it is offensive, and not something I would find honorable. I’ve seen it here at SDMB, and frankly in equal measure from fundamentalists and those with opposing viewpoints. A person may feel like they have a superior position, but it’s another thing to act like you’re superior because of it. Christ was never in an inferior position in his whole life, and was one of the kindest and humble men who walked the earth.

Good question. I think so. Jesus said that there would be those who would proclaim of all the powerful works they did in his name and he would confess he never knew them, and send them away. (Matt 7) That suggests to me that there would be those who both had the “truth” and those who didn’t. It also suggests that God isn’t giving daily updates as to the course you’re on. Jesus spoke of a cramped road leading off to life and a broad and spacious road leading to death. It would seem clear that God is willing to allow you to walk in “untruth” for your whole life without coming to get you. On the other hand, there’s ample evidence to support that he’s quite willing to give directions if we’ll humble ourselves and ask for direction.
In the end, it’s proably a fundamental part of the search for truth that one develop faith. My own experience is that the amount of truth is in direct proportion to: 1) the amount of humility one displays in the search; the willingness to follow the directions you’re given even if you don’t understand or agree with them; 2) the amount of intellectual and spiritual honesty one displays, the willingness to take an honest assesment of one’s life and have the willingness and courage to make changes; and, 3) The amount of spiritual hunger or desire you possess. Jesus spoke of those being happy who were aware of their spiritual need. it seems to me that if you’re content doing your own thing, you’re not likely to have the motivation to search for truth. (Which is not to say that onlt the miserable search for truth!)
That’s my take, right or wrong. If there is truth, and if it can be known, then one day it will be.

87

And the way God gives us a glimpse of the truth is with our God-given intelect and innate morality. It’s not hard to figure out which path in life will cause more undue harm to others, nor to figure out when we are treating others as we would not wish to be treated.
I’ve fallen short of that, as we all have at times, but of the many sins I’ve commited I can’t for the life of me figure out who is being harmed by the fact that I have sex with the man I love.

My take on the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality is that it doesn’t matter what Paul said, When Jesus says “this is the whole of the law” that means “this is the whole of the law”. If I’m wrong I’m prepared to answer for it, but I know I’m not- The God who said “Love your neighbor as yourself” is the God I love and worship. The God who passed down barbaric tribal laws calling for women to be executed if their hymen wasn’t broken on their wedding night, and for man like me to be executed as well, is a disgusting tyrant I could never love and is completely unworthy of my worship.
God gave me the sense to know good from evil, and the paper God worshipped by fundamentalist Christians is evil.

88

Interesting; the kind of trampling I’ve seen the fundies doing tends to be along the lines of “It isn’t OK for people to do X activity”, whereas the kind of trampling (if it can be called that) from the other extreme tends to be along the lines of “It isn’t OK for fundies to be imposing arbitrary rules” - there is, in my opnion, a bit of a difference.

You’ll understand, I hope, that this isn’t exactly the kind of explanation I was hoping for; if there is objective truth and it can objectively be known, then there must be an objective method of doing so; what you describe above doesn’t sound like it.

89

I’m going to first apologize for using this 4 month old thread, and then issue a disclaimer that this is for homework. However, I’m not asking anyone to do my homework, I just need some leads.

In a religion class that I’m taking, I have to deal with a hypothetical situation where my son tells me that he’s gay. Since I don’t have a problem with homosexuality, supporting my viewpoint from a Christian perspective seemed dim, but thanks to Diogenes and others, it’s not as hard as it seemed. Part of the project involves discussing the relevant verses, which I’ve pretty much got done, thanks to this thread. There are tons of websites about arsenokoitai.

Another part is to “Identify relevant Church tradition”. I’ve read some of the book reviews of books linked to in this thread, and those books seem to be stating that the Catholic church condoned homosexuality earlier in it’s history (i.e. before there was any other kind of Christian church). Where can I get some info on this without buying books?

On a slightly related note – I once read another poster on another messageboard give a plausible (sounded like it, anyway) argument that David and Jonathan (from the OT) were lovers. As I recall, it involved a story where they threw off all of their clothes and hugged (or something like that), and a discussion about this verse:

… where he argued that this was said after David married Saul’s daughter, and that it meant that David was now his son-in-law a second time, i.e. he was essentially his son-in-law previously through Jonathan, and now through his daughter. He had other arguments, too, but I can’t remember them off the top of my head (it’s been a couple years or so since I read it.) Now, I’ve never heard this theory proposed anywhere else, nor have I heard it debunked. Anybody have any thoughts on this? [By the way, this is a Christian college, and I’m probably the only non-Christian in this class. I’m thinking that there’s not much chance that I’m going to even try to use the David argument, even if it has some support. My balls aren’t that big. But I’ve been curious about this for a long time.]

Thanks.

90

If you can find it at the library, look for a book called The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre- Modern Europe, by John Boswell. Boswell was a Yale historian who argued that a medievel ritual of “Brotherhood Blessings” by the Church were actually same-sex weddings. Boswell cites a number of specific examples, and in at least a couple of cases the participants were known to be lovers (which still does not necessarily mean the blessings were weddings). As you can imagine, Boswell’s work has been hotly contested and debated. I think he makes a compelling case but it’s not an overpowering case.

If you can’t find the above example, you might try looking for Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century
[/quote]
by the same author.
[url=http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html]Here is a transcript of a speech once given by Boswell.

The David-Jonathan thing is sort of a favored pet theory of a lot of pro-gay Bible readers, and a couple of passages are rather suggestive. In addition to the verse you quoted, there is this:

and this

and this:

and this:

It never gets really dirty, though, so this is a matter of subjective interpretation. These verses may set off some pings on the the gaydar but many people will be quck to remind you that both David and Jonathan have much sex with women, so at best it may imply some bisexuality…or it may imply nothing.

91

Fixed link for the Boswell speech.

92

From the written records that we have, it’s difficult to conclude with any degree of certainty that David had a homosexual relationship with Jonathan. Regarding the kissing between David and Jonathan referred to in 1 Samuel 20:41, for example, kissing between two men as an expression of friendship and affection is common in a number of cultures today as then.

93

When I’ve had to deal with this issue, I came up with pretty much what Diogenes and Roger have already had to say. Without reading into Scripture, it’s clear that David and Jonathan had a love relationship and, following cultural norms, felt very comfortable expressing it physically in ways that would have Fred Phelps’ underwear in a wad if they lived today. Only by a strong effort to read into Scripture what it does not overtly say does one see definite sexual, as opposed to affectionate, behavior between them. But the physical acts are those that Western civilization generally would attribute to gay lovers, not to intimate friends. And neither the writer of I Samuel nor anybody involved except Saul seems to have had a problem with it, although David gets chastized for running a census, Saul for consulting a medium, and Jonathan for tasting “a drop of honey from the tip of the stick.” And Saul’s objections had to do with David’s being a threat to his royal line, not to any moral objections to David. But as noted by Diogenes, both men also begat quite a few offspring and lusted after women too, so whatever their Kinsey score, it definitely was not a full 6.

94

Thanks for the help. Neither the college library or apparently any of the public libraries in my area have any of his books except for The Kindness of Strangers: The Abandonment of Children in Western Europe from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance. I found some more info on the page about John Boswell.

95

Sorry to be keeping this old thread alive, but it pertains to my project. I can open a new thread if someone thinks it’s appropriate.

A few questions:

1.) I had never heard that King James was homosexual, but I read in this thread (or another) that he was, and the post implied that he would want to be discreet about it. However, my professor said that he was openly gay. Which is it? It seems that this would have an effect on the verbage of the relevant passages in the KJV.

2.) What did John Boswell clain that arsenokoites meant? I’m currently reading an article (http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html) by Dale B. Martin where he says that Boswell claims that it was the receiver (i.e. the boy prostitute). DtC seems to claim that it was the “john”.

3.) Hi Opal!

4.) How do you pronounce “attic” and “koine” (as in the Greek dialects)?

Thanks

96

1.) From what I’ve read, most historians do believe that although officially he condemened homosexuality, James I was gay. It was somewhat of an open secret during his reign (he was derisively called “Queen James” by some) and he had a number of extremely close male associates with whom he behaved in a physically intimate manner in public (like making out with them). How this affected the KJV, I don’t know. If anything, he would have probably made an effort not to seem to condone homosexuality.

2.) What Boswell says is that arsenokoites often occurs on vice lists along with crimes of economic exploitation. For this reason he believes that it was associated with male prostitution, and particularly with the explotation thereof.
From your linked piece:

There is at least one reference which seems to connect arsenokoites with male prostitutes catering to women, so the word is somewhat of a puzzle.

Because of the way that koites is used in other Greek compounds (in compounds pertaining to sex it is always the penetrating partner) I think that it referred to the patrons of “rent boys,” young male prostitutes. This was a practice that was common within the cultural context that Paul was ministering to. Boswell thinks it may have carried a more general connotation of sexual exploitation, and not necessarily just homosexual exploitation. He may be right but in either case, neither Boswell nor any of the others who have made much of a study of this word believe that arsenokoites was a slur against homosexuals per se, but an invective against sexual exploitation or predation.

  1. Attic is just like you would guess, like the room at the top of your house. Koine is pronounced “Koy-NAY” (with the accent on the second syllable).
97

Well, a few things to note. First our OP did a seagull here- he hasn’t been back since he posted the OP. Odd that. 5 Minutes with the Search function would have turned up a good number of threads with this very same question, with more or less the same answer. I don’t like Seagull posters, but that’s just me. :mad:

A few of my* opinions* here- no expert on the OT is in any doubt that (male) homosexuality is condemned there. Yes, there is some doubts and much arguement about what were the “sins of Sodom”- but that isn’t important. However, Christians do not have to follow the Laws in the OT, as is made clear by the fact that eating Kosher and circumcision are not required. Jesus made a “New Covenant”. It’s more complicated than that, but that’s the gist. ;j

On to the NT. Again, there is no doubt at all that Paul (as opposed to Jesus, who seems to be much more open & forgiving) strongly condemned out-of-wedlock sex. And, since Gay couples couldn’t get married back then, clearly, Gay sex was meant by Paul to be a sin. Diogenes is both right & wrong. He is correct in stating that the words used in 1 Cor 6:9,10 have been argued by many sources as to what exactly they mean, and it is quite possible that Paul was referring to Male Prostitution or something else entirely. We don’t know (and DtC does’nt know either). However, in his own way, DtC, of course, accepts one of the myriad of THEORIES on this subject and insists that he has the Facts, not even calling it his opinion. He does this a lot. “Never in doubt, but not always right”. He has no problem whatsoever in latching on to a perfectly good (but fringie) theory and stating that* theory* as complete and utter fact. :rolleyes: OTOH, DtC is a pretty good Greek scholar, and knows what he is talking about. If we could just get him to use “IMHO, theory, apparently, and it seems” :stuck_out_tongue: a bit, he’d be a great resource, but you can’t tell from his posts what are the facts and what’s theories & opinions.

Romans is a bit more clear. Paul here was apparently condeming Gay sex in some form (and DtC is expressing the views of a good number of experts when he says that it was more a condemnation of pederasty than all homosexual sex). Anyway and either way, it is to be noted that Paul wasn’t condemning it any more strongly that he did Fornication or Drunkeness (and a bunch of other sins). I am pretty sure that Paul meant that he did not approve of Gay Sex, since it is very clear he did not approve of sex outside marriage. But still- he did not single it out for special hatred. If anything, it was just another sin- like Fornication, which of course it was a form of.

Some experts do think that Paul wanted all to remain celibate (I am not an expert, but that’s my opinion), “but that if you couldn’t aspire to the perfect state of celibacy, then OK, get married, as that’s better than commiting fornication.”. Others disagree and think that Paul only wanted Bishops and other Holy leader to be celibate. I think they are going against the plain language here, but it’s been argued endlessly by dudes who are experts on the subject, so I’ll just say that’s MY opinion, and I am not alone.

So to get back to the OP- at worst- Gay sex is a sin because it is Fornication, which Paul says is a sin. Neither is much more of a sin than drunkeness and a dozen other sins Paul railed on about. So- is sex outside marriage wrong? :eek:

At best- Jesus listed damn few things as a sin, and gay sex and fornication wasn’t amoung them. In general, it would seem that in order to make Jesus happy, you’d just have to follow the Golden Rule- and certainly that would not make a loving & commited gay relationship a sin.

98

I’ve chatted with a few experts who disagree.

Not in Judaism, there isn’t. Every teacher, scholar, or rabbi I ever discussed Sodom with agreed on the reason for its destruction-the people lacked kindness and generosity. The many Jewish folktales about Sodom and Gamorrah say the same thing. When asked if homosexuality is a sin, many of these teachers, scholars and rabbis began yelling that of course it is, and how could I ask such a question?

I thought the whole argument about being ‘circumcised of heart’ came at least decades after JC is supposed to have ascended.

There’s a story about rabbi Akiva (or is it Hillel? I can never remember). A man is going around to various rabbis and saying “I’ll convert to Judaism, if you can teach me the entire Talmud while standing on one foot.” Naturally, none of the rabbis can do this. When the man gets to Akiva (Hillel?), the rabbi assures him that he can do it. He stands on one foot and says “That which is hateful unto you, do not do unto your neighbors. That is the whole of the Talmud. The rest is merely commentary. Now, go and learn it.”

99

Thank you kindly for that affirmation. For years I’ve been pointing out that even the Old Testament (Tanakh if you prefer; I was talking to Christians) states clearly and precisely the sin of Sodom, and it describes an upscale suburb more than it does the Castro or South Beach – see Ezekiel 16:49-50 for details. And of course all these folks who are sincere Bible Believing Christians ™ are firmly convinced that I’m BSing them.

Hillel, as I heard it. And, intriguingly, the story is told in two forms – the other being that he quotes the same two commandments as Jesus did about 100 years later. – And Jesus is twice alleged to have given a pithy answer and said “That is [the whole of] the Law and the Prophets” – once with reference to the Two Great Commandments, and once with reference to the Golden Rule. The boy knew his Talmud, He did! :slight_smile:

100

I wouldn’t want to let DrDeth’s opinion about Paul in relation to Jesus pass without comment: “there is no doubt at all that Paul (as opposed to Jesus, who seems to be much more open & forgiving) strongly condemned out-of-wedlock sex”.

This seems to be quite a commonly held conception, but I don’t think the picture of Jesus as we have it through the Bible (both old and new testaments) necessarily supports it.

Any attempts to guess at Jesus’s character and indeed role as son of God are obviously difficult, but this particularly interpretation appears to me to speak more of the modern day authors who put it forward than of the man (God) himself.

This is in no way meant as a criticism of DrDeth. I only raise my doubts since the matter is of such importance.