Homosexuality and the Bible

Great Debates
1

To follow the teachings of the Bible do you have to believe that homosexuality is a sin? I know a person could just reject the verses that are negative towards homosexuality, but I think this leads to path where you can reject anything in the Bible.

I ask because, I have been looking at the religion I grew up in more closely lately and this is one issue I can’t get over. I can’t see how an entire group of people are sinful because of a way of life that in and of itself does not hurt anyone. While not a homosexual myself, I have know people who are. They don’t seem any different, so I can’t find them sinful because of who they are.

So do have to believe homosexuality is a sin to follow the teaching of the Bible?

Sorry I don’t have the verses that call homosexuality a sin. If nobody else has, I will post them tomorrow.

2

Check SAB: www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

More specifically: www.http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay.htm

3

You might find it worthwhile to read What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality by . . . bother, can’t find my copy. Amazon says it’s by Daniel A. Helminiak. There are also a number of other works of exegesis on the subject, and on the subject of Biblical statements about sexuality in general. (Countryman’s Dirt, Greed, and Sex is also one I found an interesting read; he attempts to explain the Purity Laws.)

Even if you aren’t familiar with the original languages of the texts, you can still make a study of the culture and read the works of scholars who are familiar with the language and decide whether or not you believe their interpretations. That’s what I would do (and what I do do, though I’m not Christian).

4

It seems, from a quick glance at some of the highlights, that they relate it to a loss of work and fornication, i.e. that its bad because its wasteful. May (socially) liberal Christians I know write it off as the product of difficult times because of this.

5

It is possible to intepret the verses which seem to condemn homosexuality as really only condemning certain practices, such as pederasty, promiscuity and adulterous homosexual activities.

The concept of homosexuality as an orientation didn’t really exist in the ancient world, it was all just considered behavior. The terms which are used for homosexuals tend to be derisive terms for passive partners. Paul uses a word, arsenokoites, in Greek which means literally, “one who sleeps with males” but which was primarily used to designate pederasts or married men who had sex with young men (often prostitutes) on the side. It was a widespread (and oft condemned) practice in ancient Greek culture (the culture which Paul was addressing) for a man to be married and have a family, but to also have a “boy” on the side. This was probably the practice that Paul was excoriating.

I’ve read some Jewish commentary (sorry, no cite) which says that ancient Jews did not particularly take notice of or condemn men who lived together as couples, so long as they were reasonably discrete and monogomous. They only had a problem when it was either adulterous or predatory (both of which were condemned when practiced by heteros as well).

Of course, some Christians are going to read Pau’s words as a stright condemnation of all homosexuality, but it isn’t necessary to read it that way. When considered in its historical and sociological context, Paul was ripping the practices described above and probably not homosexuality, per se as we would define it now.

If one also brings a belief in a fair and compassionate God to the table, it becomes easy to interpret the Bible as making statements about sexual responsibility rather than orientation.

6

Wow, have you come to the right place.

Here is a good place to start. The site is religioustolerance.org, and I find that they tend to provide a perspective that, while critical of discrimination, gives religious perspectives respect as well. They have a breakdown of biblical passages referring to homosexuality.

That referred me to a sermon by Bennett Sims, the former Episcopal bishop of Atlanta.

To give you my own perspective on the subject, the Bible is a reflection of the values and beliefs of a culture and a way of life that’s been gone for thousands of years. Adopting the whole book as a way of living your life in the present culture will get you jailed or institutionalized. Sacrificing animals, killing witches, stoning people, owning slaves… all these are frowned on these days. Nobody ever accepts the whole Bible as their rulebook for life, because it’s completely impractical to do so. No matter what they tell you, everybody is ignoring something the Bible says, because it no longer makes any sense.

That said, it’s a moral question. Which Biblical rules will you follow? Not all of them are bad; there are some that are unquestionably good. I’m afraid that after that, it becomes a personal question between you and your deity; do you really believe that he’d make people gay, and then send them to hell for it?

Thank you for asking these questions. I know it’s a hard thing to come to grips with, and I appreciate the fact that you find it’s worth the effort to inquire about.

7

Hoo-boy!

Major Kong, you might want to do a search on GD threads. This topic has been hashed over many times with no clear answer in sight.

The best I can tell you, and FYI, I’m not Christian, but I have tried to follow the debates, is that ultimately, it comes down to who’s interpretation of the Bible you believe is most accurate. Both sides have very good arguments for and against their respective positions.

You can listen to both sides and weigh their arguments but ultimately, it’s going to come down to what you believe in your heart to be true. Good luck.

8

I dunno,
it seems to me that the bible is pretty clear in some passages about homosexuality being “wrong” or whatever.

I think is was in Deuteronomy moses said “a man should not lie with another man as he does a woman, that is detestable” right along with rules about not sleeping with your mother or with animals.
I know I’ve read other passages that are even clearer than that.

I think it comes down to a question of belief in the bible as relevant, and as the word of god vs. the word of the people who wrote it.

9

No one reads the whole Bible as the absolute truth of God. Many people claim they do, but gloss over large sections of Deuteronomy and Leviticus under the statement that “Jesus released us from those sections by his death”. Dietary laws? Jesus saved us from that. Stoning a disobedient child? Jesus saved us from that. People also ignore the parts of Paul where he tells women to shut up in church, never lead a congregations, and exorts slaves to be obedient to their masters.

10

I’d also recommend “Homosexuality and the Bible” by Walter Wink. Always an interesting read.

Esprix

11

The Bible condemns and approves many things that have no practical application in modern society, for this there is no dispute. The bulk of your question Major, is answered in large part by Freyr. It all depends on what you, personally believe to be true, or if you follow a certian sect of Christianity, and the rules or dogma they set forth.

[soapbox]
I will beat this drum again for the benefit of those who haven’t yet read it. The Bible is a book of man. Written, produced, marketed, and distributed, by man. Many of the Gospels were written years after the death of the Son of God, so Jesus’ name was being plastered on things he might not necessarily have approved of. Years of zig-zag church doctrine have led followers through a believers maze of what to do, when to do it, what to eat, when to eat it, and how much of your earnings you should set aside to tithe. It’s all shit. All of it. Faith/Idealism are good, religion is bad.

Anything that promises eternal life for fifteen percent of your weekly wage is suspect at best, and a fraud at worst.

They ask, “What Would Jesus Do” and I’ve got an answer. Nothing. He’d do nothing. He wouldn’t go on TV, he wouldn’t beg for money, he wouldn’t live in huge mansions and dine at large tables or preach in huge churches while his followers, or believers were lost, starved or lacked shelter.
[/soapbox]

End result Major, believe what is necessary in your heart to believe, so that it may be glad, and live without hatred, predjudice and malice. Use the free will given to you by your creator to choose a path that will harm no one, and allow you to remain faithful to your God.

—What Would Scooby Doo?

12

Well, now, the first question we have to ask is, “What do you mean by ‘the teachings of the Bible’?” Being a book, it in and of itself teaches nothing; what you do with it depends on what degree of authority and certitude you place in its origins.

For some evangelical Christians, there is a belief that the book itself is without error (at least in the original autographs) and that therefore all parts of it are to be given total credence. Precisely what leads them to this conclusion is left vague – the logic is that “it’s God’s Word, and He can preserve it from all error; therefore He must have done so.” It’s interesting to note that Scripture does not claim this of itself. Some Orthodox Jews also believe this of Torah alone, as I understand it.

The rest of us, whether or not we believe in the inspiration of the Bible in any sense, apply to one degree or another the findings of Biblical scholarship, which is a subdiscipline of paleology, the study of ancient manuscripts and what may be learned from them generally.

If one is free of the idolatry surrounding Bible-as-divinely-dictated-and-therefore-agent-of-God, even if one has the utmost respect for it as the record of His doings with humankind, with human authors guided by His Spirit to the extent they would listen to Him, then some obvious conclusions come to light:

  1. The Bible is clearly the work of a number of authors, of differing styles and interests, with their own pet peeves and idees fixes, carrying an underlying message but with a remarkable amount of accretions overlying that message.

  2. There is an inherent contradiction between an earlier legislated moral code and a later set of ethical principles replacing them.

  3. The key point to the latter code lies in total, radical commitment to the love of God as its primary issue, and beyond that in love of all other persons as of one’s own self as the second most important principle. This is illustrated with story after story, and commands to avoid thinking of oneself as better or more righteous than others, to avoid sitting in judgment over others, to give unto others without thought of reward, to treat every other person as though they were God Himself in human form. Details if needed can be found in the Gospels.

Now, in my experience the most common human trait is to try to reduce this sort of thoroughgoing and overwhelming responsibility to an easily-kept set of rules, and then try to find loopholes. That process, the churches over the years have done most efficiently.

“Everybody needs somebody else to look down on.” - Kris Kristofferson

Okay, now let’s look at the question. Is “homosexuality” a sin? Well, it’s a word with a bunch of definitions. Animals generally are incapable of sin (I have my suspicions about cats, but that’s neither here nor there! ;)) so two animals having gay sex are excluded. Two other definitions are self-identification and orientation; they go hand in hand but there are good reasons to distinguish between them. Orientation is, by virtually unanimous testimony of gay people, not a choice. Even honest “ex-gays” admit to being tempted to gay sex – they’re “still gay” in an orientation sense. Identification is a bit slipperier, but I can see no reason why classifying yourself on the basis of your predominant sexual attraction ought to be considered sinful.

That leaves gay sex acts themselves. I want to hold off for a minute on discussing that.

Rock bottom conclusion: if you’re not subject to any gay desires yourself, whether or not homosexuality is a sin is frankly none of your business. Even if it is, it’s not your sin to worry about, and you’re prohibited from judging others. If you are gay, then your job is the same as a straight person’s – love God and love your fellow man to the utmost of your abilities.

Okay. Now let’s look at sex acts generally.

Well, first, if you’ve made a mutual commitment with someone else to a lifelong monogamous relationship, then any sex acts outside that relationship are sinful, by definition, as a breaking of that commitment. And humans are so constructed that they – generally and incompletely – seek to enter into and preserve such a relationship.

Now, to live the best possible life, to love to the fullest, means not settling for less than perfection – and so to a small extent any sex outside such a relationship is sin to a minor degree. Do not hear in that comment the ridiculous call for complete chastity of body and mind until marriage – it’s merely saying that anything short of an ideal is ipso facto falling short of a goal, which is the literal meaning of the word sin.

Can a gay person enter into such a relationship? There is no doubt in my mind that he or she can, and I’ve been blessed to know a few couples who have. With social pressures and the resultant psychological baggage, it’s probably a bit harder for them to form a good marriage than it is for a straight couple, but the potential is there.

And what about singles? The best answer is in the traditional moral-theology definition of lust – which is not sexual desire, but the perversion of that desire for exclusively personal gratification. The seeking out of personal gratification at the expense of another, be that other man, woman, boy, girl, corpse, sheep, or whatever, is the objectification of the other into a sex object, a sex toy for your pleasure, and it’s a sin.

But the seeking out of another for mutual pleasure need not be purely for lust, but the slaking of the desire of both parties. This will ideally be in the context of a relationship that can grow and become permanent, but the world is not so constructed as to always permit one to achieve the ideal.

And what about the Bible Law? Well, take a good look at what Paul has to say – we are free from the Law – not to sin but to show love and grow in grace. Or Jesus – The entire Law and Prophets are summed up in the two commandments: Love God with all that is in you, and love your neighbor as yourself.

The history of all religions seems to be the warfare of God on those who would encrust the new, full, loving, and vibrant life that He offers with a set of law codes, and then claim that He will be angry if you break them.

So, yeah, if you “follow the teachings of the Bible,” homosexuality is indeed a sin – but if you follow the teachings of the God whom the Bible witnesses to, it very well may not be.

What definitely is, is condemning your gay brothers and sisters on the basis of the Bible as a legalistic code – especially if you’ve found your very own loopholes to cover what you know damn well are your own sins.

13

According to Zeu, anal intercourse between two men is all right in the Old Testament.

Susma Rio Sep

14

Major Kong:

I’d say so. If by “follow” you mean “take the Bible as the guiding authority”, I can’t see how you would subsequently pick and choose what parts to accept, having already acknowledged its authority.

Well, that pre-supposes two things: 1) That homosexuals are validly considered a distinct “group” to a greater degree than other people who share similar likings, and 2) That other than homosexuality, the Bible only declares sinful those acts that hurt others. Neither of those are true.

You might want to read this thread for a good discussion of this topic.

Priam:

Orthodox Jews (like myself and several others on this board) do.

15

cmkeller, how bad is homosexuality compared to other sins? How does it rank on a “sin scale” in Judaism?

I’ve noticed Jews don’t seem to use the “hellfire and damnation” bit to keep their members obediant…

This may be a bit off topic, but… what keeps you guys in line?

16

The most interesting wrinkle I’ve found is the case of lesbians. The Bible is pretty much silent on the sexuality of women unless it is in reference to the sexual needs of men. But one passage in Paul reffers to some form of male on male sex (which Paul obviously doesn’t like) and also reffers to women who did something bad “in the same way.” Now, the interesting part here is that modern readers immediately jump from “gay men” to “lesbian women.” But, as Diog points out, the concept of sexuality wasn’t really in place back then. And that means there wasn’t really an umbrella called “homosexual” that immediately associates gay men with lesbian women. There were just particular sex acts. In light of this, the more obvious reading would then seem to be that the men were participating in some form of anal sodomy, and the women were participating “in the same way”: i.e. they were also having anal sodomy.

Of course, what does Paul know? The guy can’t even be bothered to remember which son of Abraham was which. :slight_smile:

17

Our mothers falling to their knees and screaming “How? How could he have done such a thing? Where did I go wrong? What mistake did I make that my leibschen could turn out like this? How could I ever have thought I was a good mother? I’m not fit to raise a thermostat!Oy! Vey!”

There is a hellfire and damnation aspect to Judaism. But I’ve never seen it emphasized. One prophet says ‘The soul that sinneth, it shall die’. There’s debate over whether the references to Gehenna mean hell, a garbage dump, or are comparing the garbage dump to hell.

Even an Orthodox Jew who accepts the Torah as the inerrant word of G-d, will debate what each word means. All Jewish sects debate what each commandment means.
  EG 'Thou shalt not boil a kid goat in the milk of its mother' is the basis for the practice of seperating dairy products from meat. Rabbis with chemistry degrees argue back and forth over whether or not gelatin is a meat product. But, I could kill a kid goat, roast some burgers, then throw on some cheese made from the milk of its mother and not be in violation of the *letter* of the law.  
  Everything in the Torah is debated in the same way. What is the exact spelling used (since the Torah has no vowels this is important)? What is the exact wording? Finally, what is the intent of the commandment?

My memory is not great at the moment. The following may be filled with errors. -

Depending on what branch of Judaism you follow, homosexuality may not be considered a sin at all. IIRC Orthodox groups view it much the same way Catholicism does-it’s not wrong that you’re gay, just never act on those feelings. Conservative opinions range from the above to some rare Rabbis performing same sex weddings. The Reform movement has same sex weddings and gay rabbis. I have no clue where the Reconstructionist’s stand on this.
Back To The OP-
You have to decide for yourself if the Bible is the word of G-d. For me some sections are the writing of people trying to do G-d’s will. Their perspective and flaws get in the way. But, they try to communicate the message they’ve received as accurately as they can. Some sections are the result of people trying to do G-d’s will without asking Him how they should do it. The long list of rules in Leviticus always gave me that feeling. At a time when the Jews lacked a cultural center and were in danger of assimilating into the surrounding society, a man writes a list of rules to create a cultural identity and to keep Jews seperate. Jews can no longer eat food made in a gentile’s kitchen. They can no longer drink wine made by gentiles. If you want to have dinner at a friend’s house, you can: bring your own food; have the kitchen, dining room, plates, and utensils propely cleaned(Depending on the materials this may not be possible); or you could just eat at the house of a Jewish friend.

18

Who is Zeu?

Zev Steinhardt

19

I’m not sure whether Susma is citing you(in which case it should obviously say Zev), or Deuteronomy(Deu).

20

Blalron:

It’s very high up. Ranking sins by the punishments the Bible sentences for them, there are only thirty-four sins for which one can be liable to a penalty called “Karet”, and under certain circumstances, the death penalty as well. Of the four types of death penalty the Torah assigns, the harshest is stoning, and that’s the sentence prescribed for a (male) homosexual sex act.

Well, although it’s not as heavily emphasized as in Christianity, Judaism (at least of the Orthodox sort) does believe in heaven and hell.

But the main thing is that we have historically drilled into us is a strong personal conviction in the existence of G-d as the all-powerful master of the Universe and author of the Torah based on the Sinai revealation to our forefathers (the anniversary of which we celebrate tonight, in fact), and that we have a huge debt of gratitude we owe to G-d based on his redemption of out nation from slavery in Egypt. Based on this, our forefathers accepted an obligation to obey G-d’s word to a greater degree of responsibility than is incumbent upon other nations. All Jewish ritual is, in one way or another, centered around this sense of historical indebtedness.

Chaim Mattis Keller