What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

Great Debates
21

I tried to respond to this several times over the past few days, but crashed before I could post my responses.

Discussing this in a GQ context, let’s say that:

  1. There is no condemnation of “homosexuality” in the Bible, for the very good reason that it’s a concept that postdates all Biblical writings, in the sense of its being a sexual orientation. Using the term to reference solely sexual acts is IMO a solecistic if common misappropriation of a word. A hustler who has sex with men for pay but who is principally attracted to women is not homosexual; a virgin man with religious scruples preventing him from having sex with the men he is attracted to, is.

  2. Except for the Romans 1 passage, the prohibitory passages all make reference to acts, not attitude or orientation.

  3. It’s important to note two antithetical points and hold them in the proper tension: A. The near-unanimous traditional understanding of the passages holds that the acts themselves are sinful, and, with Romans 1, are indicative of a carnal, sinful disposition. B. Every single passage can very reasonably be construed as addressing something other than a consensual, committed loving sexual relationship. Exegesis of all of them has been done in Great Debates several times over the past few years.

For example, Leviticus prohibits carnal knowledge of man by man, not necessarily because God has a major hangup with it, but as part and parcel of common Canaanite sexual practices prohibited to the Children of Israel. There is quite a bit of evidence that same-sex intercourse as a part of Ba’alist fertility rites is what was being addressed. The passages in First Corinthians can easily be read as condemning the boy prostitution industry for which Corinth was notorious. The Romans passage, one of the strongest condemnations and the only one addressing internal thought and feeling as opposed to overt acts, may well have referenced either a recrudescence of fertility rites in cosmopolitan Rome or the behavior of the Roman elite, who were known to have turned from “normal” heterosexual sex to same-sex practices in an ennui-laden quest for new kicks. And so on.

With regard to the “sin of Sodom,” it’s significant to note that the story alludes to the gang rape of angels disguised as handsome young men, that it was after God informed Abraham that He was condemning Sodom for abominable behavior of unspecified sorts, and that Ezekiel 16:49-50 specifies that selfish, uncaring attitude and luxury were the abomination for which Sodom was condemned. This is borne out by passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah alluding to Sodom and by Jesus’s condemnation of the Lake Cities, which He parallels to Sodom, not because they were notorious for homosexual practice, but because they refused to repent when their selfish luxury and refusal to care for the poor were condemned by His disciples.

One needs also to note that the modern legal use of fornication, adultery, and sodomy does not define the Biblical sins. A couple committed in as close to marriage as they are legally permitted to engage in, does not commit fornication when they engage in sex; it is the “one night stand” and gratification of lust in casual sex that fornication defines, not the legal-oriented use of “sex outside marriage.”

Within a context in which sex is the procreative and unitive bond in heterosexual marriage, as most Christian moral theologians tend to view it, homosexual activity is ipso facto sinful. But many modern theologians do not take that perspective, and it must be said that that perspective is based on interpretation of the Scriptural passages, not necessarily what they meant in the original context, even though that is the traditional interpretation.

(Please note that this is an effort at a balanced GQ explanation of the answer to the OP, not a polemic setting forth my personal views with justification for them, as I would put in GD.)

22

Polycarp:

“Quite a bit of evidence”? Poppycock. The passages condemning homosexuality are part of a long list of sexual sins, with only one idolatrous practice thrown into the mix. Unless you’re willing to indicate that various forms of incest, plus adultery, bestiality and menstrual sex, are all forbidden only in the context of idolatry (incidentally, it’s Moloch, not Baal that’s mentioned in those passages), it’s absurd to single out homosexuality as being forbidden only that way.

Moreover, this re-interpretation of Leviticus runs counter to EVERY known interpretation that preceded it. Are you trying to say that there’s some evidence that modern scholars know the original intent better than those who were closer to the source?

And please, let’s not ignore that the moderns who say that have a specific gay-rights agenda. Can you find me a single Biblical interpretation - even those from more liberal religious movements, such as Reform Judaism (or whatever the Christian equivalent would be) - that supports the “homosexuality-as-idolatry” thesis which pre-dates the modern gay-rights movement?

The best you can say is that if you try real hard, you can come up with such an interpretation. To claim there’s “quite a bit of evidence” for it is more than a stretch, it’s a falsehood.

23

With due respect,cm, you’re arguing a sectarian religious interpretation, not giving an objective, factual answer, and you’re asking debate questions. This is GQ not GD.

24

The New Testament letters were not written in classical Greek; they were written in Koine.

See DrDeth’s detailed presentation of the ten different ways in which you have been proven wrong.

So all those folks with Ph.D.s and D.Div.s who have committed their lives and careers to acquiring a detailed knowledge of Greek and Hebrew are wrong, just because someone on the Internet says so. :rolleyes:

Regards,
Shodan

25

DtC, I am arguing an assertion by Polycarp that there’s “quite a bit of evidence” to suggest that the revisionist interpretation that he has offered was in fact the original intent of the Biblical passages in question. I suppose it might be more of a GD (and I have indeed engaged in threads on the subject over there) than a GQ, but that no more constrains me from refuting his incorrect statement than it does you from arguing the translation of that Greek word from Corinthians.

And of course it’s a “sectarian religious” view. It’s the Bible we’re talking about. And discussing interpretations - not translations, which could be views as a more objective debate - of.

26

Koine is a outgrowth of Classical Greek. There is very little difference and I have formally studied both Attic and Koine. I chose the designation “classical” so as not to limit the choices only to Koine but to expand it to other Classical dialects as well. Koine has a simpler, more limited vocabulary. I was trying to be magnanimous and offer more territory in which to search for those attestations. They don’t exist anywhere in either the Classical OR the Hellenistic period.

I have not been proven wrong. You are reading a very specific, narrow and culturally biased interpretation inot the passage. I already said that I was not arguing with translation of the Romans passage but the interpretation of it.

In the case of arsenokoiai and malakoi, they are wrong. This kind of appeal to authority is extremely pathetic and unconvincing. Show me the attestations, dude. Show me the REASON that those words should be translated as “homosexual.” Don’t just quote biased translations.

27

It is indeed, which is why we tend to reject it coming from you.

You are attempting to set yourself up as an authority, based (IIRC) on the asserted fact that you have an undergraduate degree from North Dakota. Based on that, you are asserting that your translation is correct, whereas every other translator for the last five hundred years is wrong.

Besides, you have it backwards. It is up to you to show that the obvious meaning of (for instance) the passages DrDeth has quoted is not the obvious one.
Or, if you can’t do that, have a go at addressing cmkeller’s point:

Regards,
Shodan

28

Um. This does a poor job of explaining why the angels’ genial host reacted in horror and said “No! Don’t do anything so disgusting! Here, have my virgin daughters instead.”

29

I have never read a Jewish scholar who held that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. I’ve discussed homosexuality with Orthodox Jews who present long arguments (with cites) that it’s an abomination. When they calm down, I ask them what sin Sodom was destroyed for. Without exception, they tell me ‘They were not kind to strangers’.

30

Chaim and Diogenes: As I explicitly said in my post, I tried to address the traditional and the modern interpretations of those passages which were inquired about. I’d stress that GQ is not the place to debate those interpretations, and I gave full credence to the traditional understanding that the Leviticus 18 catalog of sexual sins was indeed that. Whether you understand 18:1 as covering merely the first item or the full list is a matter of interpretation. And I’d point out that the issue of the morality of gay sex came to the fore publicly as a result of the gay rights movement, but is hardly purely special pleading for it … unless you consider that fair and decent treatment for gay people is “special pleading.”

I said there is quite a bit of evidence because much of my reading on this reiterates what little is known of Canaanite and other Middle East cultural customs.

Whatever the actual answer to the questions may be (and participants in this thread are quite divided on the issue), the proper answer to the OP of this GQ is: “These are the verses generally cited in the traditional understanding. Each of them may or may not be actually relevant to what gay people today desire.” If we want to pursue the issue of which interpretations are right, we should be in GD, because those answers are emphatically debatable.

31

This is a lie. I have never once tried to cite my undergraduate degree as any sort of basis for accepting my argument. I have argued my case with lingusitic and historical evidence, never with “I have a degree.” If someone asks me (as they sometimes do) what my education is, I tell them but I never try to claim that my BA, in itself, proves anything. I show my work. I show how the words break down, I enumerate the attestations in Hellenistic Greek. I ask to see a single attestation supporting the definition you want and none are ever offered because they simply don’t exist. If arsenokoites meant “homosexual” then why are there at least two instances of the word being used to describe heterosexual sex, one of those referring to marital sex?

You’re also wrong that “every translator for the last 500 years” translates those words as “homosexual.” Many translations have used “perverts,” “child molestors,” “Those who practice sexual immorality” and other variations. Those selctions are subjective, and in the case of some English translations biased by cultural assumptions. If you want to appeal to those authorities, fine, but show me their work. Show me the basis for which those definitions were chosen. Show me a single example in either Classical or Hellenistic Greek in which the word can be shown unambiguously to mean “homosexual.”

I was trying to avoid a debate in GQ but here we go.

Paul is warning people away from idolotry and tells of some men and women who became hedonistic and lustful as a result of idol worship. He says that some women gave up their phusin affections for their husbands and have "par phusin sex with women. Ditto for men. Para phusin gets translated as “unnatural” but that’s not really precise. phusin means “inborn” “innate,” “natural.” Para phusin often just means, “out of character,” or unlike one’s normal self. Paul is describing the sexual behavior as a result, a consequence of idolotry just like one might blame alcohol for uncharacteristic or crazy behavior.

It is not important that you agree with this interpretation. I don’t even know that I necessarily agree that Paul did not view homosexual behavior as a per se sin. My point is only that Romans is disputed, not that I necessarily am personally convinced by the dispute (I have similar reservations about the intepretation of the Leviticus imjunction as referring to purely cultic practices).

I will, however, stand by my arguments as to 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy and I would welcome any rebuttal which is actually supported by linguistic or historical evidence and not just vacant appeals to some dated translations.

The GQ answer to this question is that there are several passages which are interpreted as condemning homosexuality by many and interpreted differently by others.

[quote]
Or, if you can’t do that, have a go at addressing cmkeller’s point:
It’s a shallow point and an irrelevant one. Historical Biblical critcism is a relatively modern phenomenon. It’s only in the last few decades that anyone has bothered to really research and analyze those passages. And the fact that gay scholars (notably Boswell) have led the way on this is hardly an indictment of the work itself unless you believe there is something inherently dishonest or untrustworthy about gay Bible scholars.

32

Polycarp:

I don’t know where you got the idea that anyone who posted to this thread considers the modern gay-rights movement to be “special pleading.” I, for one, am only arguing for not attempting to distort texts whose interpretation has been unquestioned for millennia to fit a modern sensibility. There’s every reason, in a freedom-of-religion nation, to treat homosexuals with full respect and equality. That does not in any way address the question of whether or not it’s supported in the Bible.

And no one’s disputing that…even the Bible itself, in those passages, says that those were the practices of the Canaanites. The point that I say there’s no evidence for is that it’s solely in the context of idolatry that those prohibitions are meant. To claim there’s evidence that the verses were meant in that way by their original author/authors (depending, of course, on how one ascribed the Bible’s origins) is incorrect. And I’ll stop there rather than turn this into a GD.

Diogenes:

“Crtiticism” may be a relatively recent phenomenon, but interpretation certainly isn’t. These passages have been analyzed by Biblical scholars for millennia. The thing that’s recent has been a concerted effort to interpolate a specific, modern, moral sense into the verse which was no written by any modern person.

Sorry, but I do think there’s something dishonest/untrustworthy about someone with a gay-rights agenda (regardless of his/her personal sexual orientation, don’t make it sound like I’m homophobic, that I consider him to be dishonest because he’s gay) attempting to find justification for his/her point of view in the Bible. Someone purporting to interpreting the Bible, especially if he is taking issue with a unanimous prior understanding of the Bible’s original intent, had better have darned good evidence that someone, anyone, ever thought the text meant that.

33

Indeed- you are correct- there is debate as to the exact meaning/translation/ interpretation of several verses concerning homsexual acts. But here’s the point- only *you alone *have come up with that interpretation and translation. True, some of the meanings/translations/ interpretations are very dated- but some are very recent also. The Oxford cite i used is 1993- only some 10 years old.

“Appealing to authority” is quite proper when you are using an expert in the field to come up with a fact or a translation.

Quite simply- 500 years or work by thousands of experts- some of whom quite likely taught those that taught you- and have Doctorates in that field, not just an undergrad minor- ALL, say that you are wrong. Every. Single. One. You are entirely alone in your opinion here- which you quite blithely state as fact, and quite blithely state that every other published expert int he field is wrong.

Yes, there is a valid dispute as to exactly what those lines can be intepreted as. We gave TEN such different translation. And I also gave a cite from the Oxford Companion to the Bible. That books lists as sources dudes that translate this language for a living- every day- and/or teach that language. With PhD’s and Emeritus Professorships in that field- not just an undergrad minor. :rolleyes:

34

Good thing, because the interpretation is completely irrelevant to the discussion. It matters not at all if Paul is describing homosexual and lesbian sex as a consequence of idol worship, or an associated sin. Homosexual and lesbian sex is, clearly and unambiguously, condemned as sinful.

So if the OP asks, what does the Bible say about homosexuality, the GQ answer is that it only mentions it to condemn it. There are no references to homosex that either laudatory, or neutral. There is also absolutely no evidence that any of the writers who condemned homosex in the Scriptures meant to limit their condemnation to specific cultic practices, or only in classical Greek contexts, or any of the rest of it.

They all seem to have an ax to grind. And this is a poor approach to real scholarship.

But you are correct, this is now a debate. The GQ answer is presented above.

The Bible says homosexuality is wrong.

Regards,
Shodan

35

But they haven’t been analyzed critically or with any in depth knowledge of historical, cultural, mythological or literary context.

[quote]
The thing that’s recent has been a concerted effort to interpolate a specific, modern, moral sense into the verse which was no written by any modern person.[.quote]
The thing that’s different is the attempt to actually divine the intent of the authors through hard scholarly research instead of just mindlessy reiterating previous interpretations or imposing culturally biased assumptions on the text.

What should we think about people who have preexisting religious agendas, biases or prejudices? Are people with a priori religious assumptions iless capable of dishonesty than a person with a gay rights agenda.

I would also remind you that none of these scholars are asking you to take their word for anything. They publish their research and go through peer review, Challenge their work. Asserting dishonesty on the basis of a perceived agenda is simply ad hominem hand waving.

What other people thought before is beside the point. The opinions of readers subsequent to the author - especially centuries subsequent to authorship - are not reliable probative evidence as to the intent of the author. Rabbinic tradition, for instance, is not empirical evidence. It is only tradition.

36

What a staggering line of bullshit.

This really needs to move to GD.

The GQ answer is that it is not clear whether the Bible mentions homosexuality at all.

Yoiu have yet to show that any Biblical author condemned homosexuality at all.

We really need an irony smilie for statements like this.

So challenge the scholarship. Dismissing them because they’re gay is lazy and fallacious.

Cite?

37

Fortunately, as a Jew I can ignore anything Paul says.

Just going by the text, there is no evidence cheeseburgers aren’t kosher. The passage only mentions goat meat and goat milk.

From where I sit, centuries of Christian scholars were grinding axes. They were working from their belief that the Bible condemned homosexuality.

No, it doesn’t. Besides everything else, the idea of homosexuality as an orientation is a modern one.

Tra-di-tion! Tradition!

38

What do you say to the PhD’s and Greek scholars who don’t translate those words the way you wish them to?

It is not just me who challenges arsenokoitai and arsenoi. Other scholars with PhD’s have been talking about them much longer than I have.

The simple truth is that nobody knows exactly what arsenokoites meant and all translational choices are guesses.

It is a fact, not my opinion, that there are examples of arsenokoites being used for heterosexuals. It is a fact, not my opinion, that there is no known use of the word to unambiguously mean “homosexual.”

Those two facts alone render such a translation highly disputable and thus far not a single person has been able to offer a substantive, evidence based rebuttal as to why that word should be translated as such.

39

It does a fine job. Lot believed that the mob’s lustful impulses would win out over their murderous impulses.

Having taken the strangers into his home, Lot was obliged to protect them. By the standards of Lot’s day, his obligation to the strangers outweighed his interest in protecting his daughters’ health or virtue. Remember that these people did not partake of modern notions of equality - the strangers were older and male, the daughters younger and female. Lot may well have regarded his daughters as less valuable or less worthy of protection, if not simply expendable.

This isn’t a stretch. Look at the current sex trade in, say, India. It’s generally considered important to preserve the virginity of an unmarried female. Nevertheless, there’s a huge problem with the trafficking of girls into India for prostitution. Given that many of these are children between the ages of 9 and 16, it’s safe to assume that they didn’t willingly choose that trade. If a family is sufficiently desperate, the need to eat outweighs the desire to preserve an unmarried daughter’s virginity.

Lot may also have been trying to call the the mob’s bluff. By making an outlandish proposition (“Why settle for a lynching? Here, rape my daughters instead!”), he may have hoped that they would back off.

40

I think we’ve exhausted the factual portion of the question.

Off to Great Debates.

DrMatrix - GQ Moderator