Then this doesn’t answer the OP’s question or Really Not All That Bright’s question. The OP asked about portions of the Bible which can be interpreted specifically as forbidding homosexual acts.
John refers to himself as the deciple that Jesus loved, so some consider that Jesus was gay himself! It is a matter of how one interpets the writer.
In our society if one introduces a person as the one he loves or who loves him we think of it being gay if a man or woman is refering to a person of the same sex.
Monavis
Only if by “interpret” one means “make something up, assign ti the text, and then attempt to shift the burden of proof.”
Regards,
Shodan
I think this thread has made the dialectical transition from General Questions to Great Debates. I’ll make it real. Moved from General Questions to Great Debates.
Gfactor
General Questions Moderator
What most people miss in the interminable arguments about “what the Bible says about homosexuality” is that what appears to 21st Century readers to be clear and direct statements about X may very well, in the cultural context of the time, be speaking of something else again altogether. And nowhere is this truer than the ‘homosexuality’ passages.
By way of parallel, I can find very clear condemnation of being a Republican in the works of Edmond Burke and of Sir Edward Carter. Of course, it would be trolling to use that against members of the G.O.P., since Burke was talking about French revolutionaries, and Carter (an old-school Ulsterman) about Irish rebels. But the idea will illustrate the point: culture defines context, and context defines meaning.
If I lie with a woman differently than I lie with a man, using two totally different and exclusive positions(use your own imagination, folks), am I still sinning?
Not merely to 21st century readers - all readers from the original authors up to about thirty or forty years ago understood the unambigous condemnation which is the only context in which homosexuality is addressed in Scripture.
It took several thousand years before anyone came up with the kind of ridiculous distortions we have seen recently without being laughed out of court.
But let’s play the game one more round, shall we? Please provide another cite from the first century AD in which Jews approved of a pederast in the way they approved of the centurion under discussion.
It doesn’t have to be Scripture - any reference to Jews of the period who would have vouched for the good character of someone who was butt-fucking his servants. That way, we will have some reason to believe this interpretation of the healing story is anything other than projection.
Regards,
Shodan
I myself have no idea who is right linguistically, but perhaps the widespread condemnation of the relationship was part of the point - that Jesus did not condemn in the same way that everyone else did. Jesus also hung out with lepers and refused to countenance punishing prostitutes, something that Jews of the period would have found odd.
I’m not a Christian, but one of the more attractive aspects of the Christian mythology is the apparent willingness of Jesus, according to the legend at least, to go against or ignore the social mores of his time.
Which is not of course to say that the revisionists are right and are not projecting - just that it isn’t impossible.
Ooh, so since you’re perfectly well permitted to have sex with your wife, that means you’re entitled to go out and have sex with every woman you meet (at least those who would have you), coercing them and including nubile girls in the picture?
You know better, and so do I. What is being said, which some people (apparently including you, shodan) seem inclined to willfully blind yourself to, is what was being condemned by Scripture were vile, heinous, abominable sins, but that they did not mean monogamous loving sex between two gay people.
Romans: “Hey, these orgies are boring! No more kicks; let’s try homosexual sex!” That’s what “exchanged the natural desire…” means. Leviticus: “Well, those Canaanites are growing great crops – and they attribute it to having ‘sown their seed’ in the priests of Astarte. Maybe we ought to try that, too – it might improve our crops!” If you’re a follower of YHWH, you don’t get into fertility rites to a pagan goddess, like the Canaanites do. Corinthians: “Don’t you know that anyone who patronizes the slave boys that the panderers are selling the use of, or people who are swayed by every new idea, soft and weak in their moral commitment, won’t inherrit the Kingdom?” Genesis 18-19: “Those men of Sodom are so selfish and enamored of luxury that they won’t help the poor – they even don’t treat guests in their city, who should be extended hospitality, by humiliating them and unmanning them. Watch; I’m going to send two angels over there disguised as young men. See how they handle them.” That’s not gay sex, it’s gang rape – and anyone who cannot tell the difference between the two should be locked up where he can’t harm anyone, IMO.
What “unambiguous” condemnations of homosexuality exist in the Bible?
The entire concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation did not even exist 2000 years ago, so the most it could condmemn is specific acts, not “homosexuality” in general. The OT references probably referred to cultic practices, and there is nothing even that close to a clear condemnation of homosexuality in the NT.
The term sexual orientation is relatively new and IMHO a symptom not a cause, so it would be irrelevant. Jesus states if you commit the act in your heart you have committed the act.
I don’t know if that’s true of the Leviticus prohibition. I think it’s just a taboo sexual relation along with the other taboo sexual relations in Leviticus 18, and for somewhat of the same reason. You don’t have sex with your father’s wife, for instance, because it’s an insult to your father. I think the passage in Leviticus 18 has t obe seen in that light. You don’t have sex with another man because that’s an insult to him…you’re treating him like a woman, like an inferior. I don’t think that it’s that the people who came up with Leviticus 18 thought that “monogamous loving sex between two gay people” was ok. It’s that that concept was so foreign to them that they couldn’t understand it. I mean, I think if they understood it, they’d be opposed to it, but it would confuse them more than anything else…the whole concept of “gay people” would confuse them.
I think the ultimate problem is that we assume biblical values are relevant to the way we live our lives today. We care a lot about what the bible says about x or y, when really, we shouldn’t. The bible was written a long time ago, by people with a way of life really different than our own and cultural values very different than our own. And while it’s interesting in its own right, it’s not neccesarily relevant to our behavior today.
Was there much dating and wooing back then? Didn’t most families arrange marriages and both the man and woman (probably girl) just do as they were told?
When homosexual acts happened, I’d think it would have been interfering with the ‘family’s’ plans for their son (or daughter). Or with someone already married.
The concept of gay relationships probably unheard of. Only the sex acts.
Sure, but the basis for the behavior is made clear - “The healthy have no need of a physician but the sick do. I do not come for the righteous, but to call sinners to repentance”.
The only thing lacking is a single, solitary scrap of evidence that this is the case. Let’s see it.
Please show somewhere where the exception is made clear.
More to the point, please show what I asked for - some reason to believe that everyone knew the centurion was screwing his servant, and that they were all fine with it (Luke 7:4-5).
You have also made the claim that, in the cultural context of the time, condemnations of homosexuality were not understood as blanket condemnations. Please provide what I asked for - some evidence that this is the case. I will accept any cite from 1st century Jewish thinking, or pretty much any scholar of Scripture or Jewish or Christian scholarship up to AD 1900.
All we need is someone closer to the period in question who alleges what you allege - that cultic homosexuality was thought of differently from homosexuality of any other type. Let’s see where this supposed exception is made clear.
There is no such evidence, of course - always and everywhere it was unanimously understood that the Scriptural prohibitions mean exactly what they say. The idea that Scripture, or early Jewish and Christian thinking. are anything but unequivocally condemnatory of homosexuality is merely an especially determined case of special pleading.
Regards,
Shodan
It boils down to …if you believe it is wrong for you, don’t do it, but that doesn’t mean others who do not share your beliefs have to follow the biblical rules. It isn’t harming any one if a person loves another and finds a way to show it, then it is their business not yours. The Bible was written by humans and humans made the rules for those who believe it.
Because it is not for me doesn’t mean I can push guilt on someone because they believe differently than me.
That’s very nice, but it has nothing to do with the question of the title.
Regards,
Shodan
And still you fail to show where the Bible is explicity condemnatory of homosexuality.
You’ve given me a whole new and highly disturbing mental picture of Elisha. For starters, I’m now wondering about those “bears” he sent after those children who mocked him…
Fun fact: Rob Halford’s on-stage costume was modeled on the uniform Elisha was required to wear while serving as an attendant to the prophet Elijah.
No, positions are irrelivent. If you fuck another man in his vagina, you are sinning.