But the ancient Hebrews might have thought that people who engage in homosexual activity deserved to die. Leviticus says that a lot of other stuff is punishable by death that I don’t think should be, like worshiping idols and working on the sabbath. But there’s no reason to think a desert tribe living 3000 years ago would have the same values as I do, living now. So, you can say that Leviticus says homosxual activity is illegal and punishable by death without believing that in our society, homosexual activity should be illegal or punishable by death.
A good, recently published book on the topic is Robert Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Gagnon is a professor at Pitsburgh Seminary, IIRC.
He addresses everything we’ve discussed in this thread, including:
o the Lot/Sodom story
o interpretation and application of the Levitical Law
o the various Pauline references and translation and interpretation of terms
o the Creation story and Adam/Eve as a model of the sexual norm
o Jesus’ teachings about marriage and sexuality
o some other stuff I can’t remember off the top of my head
It’s the kind of book that would give Diogenes the Cynic a conniption because it’s a scholarly examination of the Greek and Hebrew text that support the idea that the Bible is consistent throughout in condemning homosexual activity.
I do agree with DoC that it’s easier to come up with a biblical argument in favor of polygamy. I think there are better arguments against polygamy, to be sure. But it’s much more arguable, biblically, than homosexual sex is.
In case you don’t want to plow through the 500+ pages of Gagnon’s book as linked above, here is a short essay from him that touches on many of the same topics. If you have issues with the points he makes here, you’ll have to get a hold of the book to see his full argument. “Four Myths of Pro-Homosex Propoganda: A Response to Tex Sample’s ‘What Do Bible, Tradition Say About Gay Marriage?’”
Can someone tell me exactly why it should matter what the Bible says about homosexuality? Most people don’t care what it said about slavery, women’s place in society nor cheeseburgers. Why should we give a whit what it says about homosexuality?
I don’t CARE what your myth says about me. All I care about is what the Constitution of the nation I live in says.
The problem is, the majority of people really don’t believe in seperation of church and state. They think, “My religion says it’s bad, so it should be against the law.” And that’s it for them.
The concept that there are people in the country that neither want to follow their religious rules nor should be forced to follow their religious rules is way too complex for their minds to understand.
It’s a perfect example of simple-mindedness.
Gagnon is hardly a credible “scholar.” He’s an agenda driven bigot and nothing more. His “credentials” are only in theology which is not an empirical science but simply massive absorbtion of doctrine.
Frankly, anyone who spends as much time writing anti-gay religious screeds as this guy does has got to be a closet case.
Anyway, Gagnon’s stuff is all just religious. It does not represent any sort of objective scholarship. He spins interpretations to fit a preordained conclusion. He can safely be dismissed out of hand. He has nothing to add to any discussion of this issue.
Nice ad hominem attack there, Diogenes. Avoid the subject much?
Let’s see, you call him (1) “hardly credible,” (2) “only” a theologian, (3) agenda driven, (4) a bigot, (5) anti-gay (6) a closet case (7) unobjective, and (8) dishonest.
I think he would grant (2) but you haven’t provided any evidence for the rest. Way to resort to personal attacks on people you disagree with instead of reasoned arguments.
I don’t have a link or cite, but, I’m sure I’ve read a Roman Catholic book on human sexuality that forwards the same interpretation as DtC does. (Not all Catholic Bible scholars are in agreement with this issue). If I can provide a cite, I sure as hell can challenge everyone who disagrees with DtC to provide arguments against the book’s thesis without having to lift a finger (much like some of you are asking DtC to do) None of us are Bible scholars here (I presume). So I call unfair.
Dispite tweaking him in my first post, I really didn’t present Gagnon’s book as a challenge to Diogenes. The OP asked where the Bible spoke against homosexuality; I provided a resource that answers the question written by a professor of New Testament (not, by the way, a professor of Theology). I wasn’t claiming that he settles the issue; I wasn’t claiming we should toss out the US Constitution; hell, I didn’t even say I agreed with all his conclusions. But I also think that dismissing his work as ‘not serious’ and calling him ‘bigoted’ without responding to any of his specific claims is pretty pathetic. It’s not like he’s a engineering professor who wrote a book denying the haulocaust; he’s a NT professor who has written a thorough bibilcal hermeneutic on human sexuality. Here’s his website – maybe Diogenes will want to attack his haircut next.
He has a PHD in theology and he teaches at a Bible college.
Which specific argument of Gagnon’s would you like me to destroy? It’s disingenuous to link to a long, dense essay and then demand that I debunk the entire thing line by line?
What argument in particular do you think is strong?
From reading your link, I see a lot of arguments from assertion, arguments from absence, from ignorance, etc. For instance, He claims that Genesis speaks of animals in pairs of male and female, therefore only male and female is “natural.” This is belied by the fact that homosexuality is commonplace among animals, especially mammals and birds. He makes erroneous arguments about physioplogical incompatiblity. He makes a circular argument that Paul must have been condemning homosexuality specifically, rather than sexual excess in general, because homosexuality is an “abomination.” He also shows a lack of understanding of Greek in those passages, or at least a very selective way of interpreting it.
Should I go on? I’d prefer that you single out something of Gagnon’s which you feel is especially persuasive and I’ll address it specifically. I do no have the time or inclination to deconstruct the entire essay. Please be more specific.
I’m neither anxious to read Gagnon’s work nor to jump on a bandwagon decrying him – but I will observe that Trinity Theological Seminary was founded less than 20 years ago, in the extremely conservative Diocese of Pittsburgh, intentionally to provide an alternative to the “far too liberal” Episcopal seminaries in existence at the time. So I can easily believe he is motivated by an agenda (as would no doubt also be true of a writer like Spong who takes the opposite view).
To me the question for anyone who is not himself or herself gay boils down to, what exactly did Jesus say we were supposed to do in interacting with those who are? And the proportion of Christians who actually follow what He said seems pretty slender to me, compared to the number who claim that He saved them.
I think there are pretty good grounds for saying that the Bible condemns the gratification of lust by homosexual – or any other – means. But distinguish lust from sexual desire – the latter is God’s gift, a part of humanity as He created it; the latter is its perversion for exclusively selfish goals. There is a logical conclusion to that approach, but I seem to get blasted from both sides when I advance it.
He has a Bachelor’s degree from Dartmouth, a Master’s degree from Harvard and a PhD from Princeton. He teaches at an accredited graduate-level Theological Seminary affiliated with the Presbyterian Church USA. He’s not some crackpot from Bob Jones University.
[quote=DtC]
It’s disingenuous to link to a long, dense essay and then demand that I debunk the entire thing line by line?
[quote]
You’re right, it would be. I didn’t demand that you do so – you’re the one who attacked his qualifications, so I asked you for justification. I didn’t bring him up to refute your arguments, I brought it up to address the OP’s question. I responded to your post because I think you are being disingenuous yourself to dismiss the man’s qualifications so easily.
Well, I agree with you, but I think there are also pretty good grounds for saying the bible condemns certain kinds of sexual actions, not taking into account the motive behind them, such as adultery by women, rape of a married woman, certain kinds of incest, bestiality, and homosexual sex between two men. Now, whether this condemnation is right or wrong is a different question, and whether or not because the ancient Hebrews made these actions illegal means we should, is an even different question.
Wrong school, Poly. While Trinity Theological Seminary can be appropriately categorized as a young upstart, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary is over 300 years old (founded in 1794); is Presbyterian, not Episcopal; and, Prof. Gagnon aside, is generally not considered a conservative institution.
Of course, making it two hundred years old, not three. :smack:
Oops! I misread your reference as being to “our” (Episcopal) school. Thanks for the clarification.
It’s still a bible college. The purpose of a seminary is to indoctrinate, not educate. They have no scholarly objectivity.
Romans 1:26-32
Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus reveived in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them ober to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, muder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, engenious parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
It seems clear that homosexuality is not acceptable in God’s eyes. How can that be misinterpreted and refuted otherwise?
-JHC
Romans 1:26-32
Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus reveived in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them ober to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, muder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, engenious parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
It seems clear that homosexuality is not acceptable in God’s eyes. How can that be misinterpreted or refuted otherwise?
-JHC
'Cause consensual sex with another man isn’t a “shameful thing,” ergo that passage isn’t about homosexuality at all! 
Yeah, I have the theological and biblical knowledge of a chipmunk with PKU. But how often has that stopped anyone from interpretting the Bible? 