Homosexuality and the Bible

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

I am in the middle of a study to discover exactly what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. This is what I've discovered so far:
The Bible does not teach anything about homosexuality. Homosexuality, which affects a person's entire personality and outlook, is a modern concept. The Bible does mention homogenitality, which is actual sex between same-sexed persons.
The Bible discourages sex with temple prostitutes of either sex, as this is a form of idolatry.
Likewise, incest and adultery concerns do not depend on the sex of the participants (although it is only really considered adultery if at least one of the particpants is an adult male).
Rape (non-consentual sex) is a no-no whether the victim is the same sex or not.
Otherwise, the Bible only forbids homogenitality when both participants are free adult males who both like sex with women -- who are married to or plan to marry women. Even then, however, there might be an exception for soulmates/swordbrothers.
The passages that lead to the last restriction may have been traditionally misunderstood. If it is true that angels and demons can (but shouldn't) mate with humans, then it does not apply, and the Bible does not forbid homogenitality except for the same causes for which it forbids cross-sex sex


I am continuing the study, focusing on what the Bible teaches about angels. If it turns out that they do have sex with humans, then I'll post the good news. There are some who claim that "Flying Saucer abductions" are not done by aliens, but by angels/demons. :)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Gwyn ap Nudd
Rape (non-consentual sex) is a no-no whether the victim is the same sex or not.





Uhh, which Bible did you get this out of ?


P.S. Please share with us if you discover exactly what the Bible teaches about anything...

[LW]

Originally posted by Gwyn ap Nudd
Otherwise, the Bible only forbids homogenitality when both participants are free adult males who both like sex with women -- who are married to or plan to marry women. Even then, however, there might be an exception for soulmates/swordbrothers.


I'm sorry but I just can't understand how that "adult males who both like sex with women" bit comes into play with Lev. 18, Lev.22, 1.Cor 6:9, and 1. Tim 1:10.

Especially those New Testament places seem to be quite explicit in condemning all all-male sexual relations as sin.

[Skeptical Greg]

P.S. ( again)

Once you have the Bible all nice and interpreted in a way that you are comfortable with, let us know how you do with getting others to go along with you...

If all else fails, you can always add a little ( or a lot ) of your own stuff..

[Scot C. Trypal]

Yes, please share.

True, there’s ways to interpret out of the OT stuff, particularly for lesbians (During the time of Christ I understand their greatest “punishment� was being forbidden from marrying a Rabbi). But, unless you’re just going to ignore early Christian leaders, such as Paul, and focus only on the Gospels, I don’t think the Bible can be made into a gay rights book.

Or is that it? Disregard it as obsolete, as most do with Paul’s views on women.

Come to think of it, Paul probably isn’t the best example as his objections to Homosexuality do seem to be about some sort of paganism, making “God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.� Anyway, what are you thinking and what passages are you looking at?

[username]

no matter what you come up with those who use the bible to justify their bigotry will simply point out the prohibition against lying with a man like a woman (forget the verse).

Therein lies the whole problem with the bible. My opinion based upon past studies is that the reason there is so much doctrinal variation among sects is that the bible teaches different things in different places.

Consider in the NT all the confusion Jesus caused when he told the pharisees what parts of the OT meant. I mean I read those OT passages and don't see how Jesus could have understood those passages the way he did in some cases.

Does the bible teach predestination or free will faith? In my opinion it teaches both depending on what part you read.

Same with many other doctrines.

Trying to make something diffinitive out of it is a lost cause if you ask me.

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Diogenes-

This is based on several passages conflated.

For example the story of the attempted homogenital gang-rape in Sodom (Gen 19), and the actual cross-sex gang-rape in Gibeah from the remarkably similar story in Judges 19.

There are examples of individual relationships that seem to violate this dictum, (eg Abraham and Hagar) but that is because victim was not the person who had the power to grant or refuse consent: a slave's owner or a virgin's father or other next of kin would be.

LW-

1.Cor 6:9, and 1. Tim 1:10 use the never-before-encountered word arsenokoitos, "man-lying," which is almost certainly a literal translation of a rabbinical abreviation of the leviticus phrase, and therefore refers to the levitical prohibition, which was concerned with ritual purity.

Scot-

It is Paul, in Romans, who suggests that hetero men indulging in homogenitality is a punishment for idolatry, not necessarily a unique sin in itself.

The idea that (hetero/bi) men lusting for (hetero/bi)men is a sin comes from the usual interpretation of Jude 7. But Jude, who quotes from the pseudegryphal books of I Enoch and Jubilees, seems to be referring to Sodom lusting after the "strange" flesh of beings they knew to be angels and not men, rather than lusting after them because they are male.

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by Gwyn ap Nudd
...For example the story of the attempted homogenital gang-rape in Sodom (Gen 19), and the actual cross-sex gang-rape in Gibeah from the remarkably similar story in Judges 19.


An alternative explanation of this story is that it is about the responsibility one has toward one's guests. Homosexuality aside, it is better to let the mob rape your daughters than to let your guests come to harm.

Reinforcement of this interpretation is found throughout the Bible and the Koran. (Lv 19:34, for example)

[Kopji]

While I would agree with your assertion that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality, a challenge before you is to come up with anything it says exactly so.

Many (otherwise) skeptical people can and do find meaning in the Bible. It can come from appreciating it as an inspirational work containing beauty and ugliness, points and counterpoints, lesser and greater truths and even 'untruths' somehow blending together into a coherent understanding of the nature of (a) god, or what (a) god would want of us.

To pursue a study of the Bible as you describe is to say "it says exactly this or that". Like insisting we love a certain painting or artist for a certain reason. Not only that, all other renderings are false when compared to this one standard.

So a dilemma: Why should we encourage this kind of Biblical study at all? No matter how liberally the Bible is interpreted, at the core it persists in attracting extremists who would meld us to their own shape.

[Zep]

I thought Leviticus was pretty clear about the point:

Lv 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Doesn't leave a lot of room for negotiation or acceptance there...

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Zep
I thought Leviticus was pretty clear about the point:

Lv 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Doesn't leave a lot of room for negotiation or acceptance there...

Ah. The key word is "lieth".

You can have all the gay sex you want, provided you do it standing up. Or doggy style, I guess. As long as nobody's reclining, it's okay.

[Loon]

Originally posted by Zep
I thought Leviticus was pretty clear about the point:

Lv 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Doesn't leave a lot of room for negotiation or acceptance there...

Actually, It means that men can't lie with mankind (meaning all men) like he does with one woman- it would break the bed. But this was a case of biblical exaggeration. What it's really prohibiting is a man having sex with more than one other man at a time.

However, those two guys can sleep with as many women as they can fit in the room.

[Zep]

I WAS going to say "That doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room", but knowing you guys, that would have been an open invitation to ride the Punderosa far and wide.

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

P.S. Please share with us if you discover exactly what the Bible teaches about anything...

Trying to make something diffinitive out of it is a lost cause if you ask me.
While I would agree with your assertion that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality, a challenge before you is to come up with anything it says exactly so.

While there may be some debate over my use of the word exactly, I am using established procedures to attempt to determine the best understanding, based on the way the original languages and the various words, phrases and concepts and how the would have been understood in the original time and place.

Once you have the Bible all nice and interpreted in a way that you are comfortable with, let us know how you do with getting others to go along with you...
No matter how liberally the Bible is interpreted, at the core it persists in attracting extremists who would meld us to their own shape.
no matter what you come up with those who use the bible to justify their bigotry will simply point out the prohibition against lying with a man like a woman (forget the verse).
Case in point:
I thought Leviticus was pretty clear about the point:

Lv 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Doesn't leave a lot of room for negotiation or acceptance there...

I realize that there are those who will continue to believe as they will despite all evidence. And that many of them will "prove" their point by quoting isolated passages of english translations without regard for the message the original author intended.

But I am not doing this study to confront them. I am doing it for my own understanding. I'm posting here only because I thought some of you might become curious enough to investigate on your own and others might challenge me to dig even deeper. (Not in a pissing contest way, or "OK, I dare you to explain this..." but with your own insights.

To address the Levitcus verses: Lev 18-20 compares common religious practices (including fertility rites) of the surrounding nations (particularly mentioning Egypt and Canaan) to what is expected of the Israelites. In the other cultures, incest and adultery taboos were sometimes relaxed when the sex act was done in honor of the gods, or by their representatives (priests and kings). Leviticus says that to honor Adonai, it is, instead, necessary to adhere all the more strictly to the various sexual taboos.

Originally posted by Gwyn ap Nudd
...For example the story of the attempted homogenital gang-rape in Sodom (Gen 19), and the actual cross-sex gang-rape in Gibeah from the remarkably similar story in Judges 19.


An alternative explanation of this story is that it is about the responsibility one has toward one's guests. Homosexuality aside, it is better to let the mob rape your daughters than to let your guests come to harm.

Reinforcement of this interpretation is found throughout the Bible and the Koran. (Lv 19:34, for example)

I don't consider it alternative to my interpretation, but supplemental. My mentioning Sodom and Gibeah in this context focussed on the question of whether they spoke to the question of homogenitality. It was enough to show that they do not. In oanother study where I would seek to determine what it is they do teach, I would be looking at the hospitality laws and customs.

But this is the sort of thing I mean when I said I was hoping that someone would challenge me. Thank you.



Ah. The key word is "lieth".

You can have all the gay sex you want, provided you do it standing up. Or doggy style, I guess. As long as nobody's reclining, it's okay.

In studying some other exegses of this verse, I found one that claimed, apparently in all seriousness, that it referred to the woman's actual bed. That as long as you did not bring the other man home to your wife's bed, it doesn't matter where else you were.

[Templar]

Hi

I'm an atheist - I used to be a Christian, spent two years in Bible College, read three different Bibles and read tons of material that only a fellow Bible nerd would've ever heard of.

Having said that; the Bible categorically, specifically and clearly condemns homosexuality. There is no question. No wiggle room. No other way to read the passages. Your studies are apparently from a politically correct movement that cares nothing about facts or evidence and are simply trying to prove their current crusade with massive, towering piles of misinformation.

To address the Levitcus verses: Lev 18-20 compares common religious practices (including fertility rites) of the surrounding nations

READ the passages. Chapter 20: 10-21 specifically addresses universal sexual malpractices including adultery, homosexuality and bestiality. There is NO Hebrew scholar that would interpret these passages any differently!

You need to drop these ridiculous studies by PC conmen and just read a recent translation of the Bible. Or better yet, don't - I wasted my time on this book - no reason you should!

[Terry]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey

You can have all the gay sex you want, provided you do it standing up. Or doggy style, I guess. As long as nobody's reclining, it's okay.

I think it means as long as you do different things with da ladies and da gents, you're good to go. So if you're a guy, I guess there are seven possibilities (not to be too explicit). Just choose which gender you wanna do each of the two that are the same for both genders of partner, and stick to that decision.

--Terry.

[username]

Originally posted by Templar

READ the passages. Chapter 20: 10-21 specifically addresses universal sexual malpractices including adultery, homosexuality and bestiality. There is NO Hebrew scholar that would interpret these passages any differently!

You need to drop these ridiculous studies by PC conmen and just read a recent translation of the Bible. Or better yet, don't - I wasted my time on this book - no reason you should!

I concur. There are several passages from the OT to the new where there are strong and clear condemnations of homosexuality.

I think at this point I have heard just about every conceivable attempt to explain those passages as meaning something else, but they all fail the common sense test. The alternate explanations don't even make sense within the context of the passage. The case of Lot is the weakest example of God's dislike for same sex couplings, but the others are pretty strong.

I also concur that reading the bible for the purpose of learning most anything is a waste of time. It is your time to use as you see fit though.

I also am an atheist who spent the forst 20 something years of life worshipping a nonexistent being that if it did exist wouldn't be worthy of worship.

[Kopji]

LOL We're a sorry lot, a bunch of atheists discussing the Bible. :D

There are at least six different views that Christians have about homosexuality.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm


Galatians 1:

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


I am inclined to agree that the Bible is more consistent about what it say about homosexuals than many other things. It still fails the 'just so' test though. If there is a different interpretation, there is a sect somewhere that believes it.

Galatians above is a simple passage that makes my point. The bible 'clearly' says all kinds of things about women too. Yet here we have an idea that is in stark contrast. And if things like male and female fall into insignificance compared to being one in Christ, what basis does anyone have for proclaiming sexual orientation is all that important?

Even without doing a Google search I'd bet there is a wide spectrum of belief on this single topic.

A polite way to put it, is to say that the Bible (or any other scripture for that matter) is a record of humanity's attempt to communicate an understanding of something they call 'God'.


I used to have a geometry teacher that loved to give a test that was a page full of complicated equations. Most of the class would groan and pound through it for most of an hour. But a few would laugh, get up, turn their paper in and leave early. It turns out that buried in the middle was a "zero times", which made everything that followed equal zero. The Bible seems a little like that to me. Look long enough and you will find something that is a negation of something else.

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Having said that; the Bible categorically, specifically and clearly condemns homosexuality.

There are several passages from the OT to the new where there are strong and clear condemnations of homosexuality.

No, The Bible does not condemn homosexuality. At worst, it condemns certain homogenital acts, between "real men."

Middle Eastern culture recognized what the Greeks called "the third sex." (http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/cardiff.htm) (See also Matt 19:12) They were not seen as "whole men" and the same word was used of them as was used of those other less than complete men, whose genitals were damaged. In Hebrew, the word was saris, in English saris is usually translated "eunuch."

There are no prohibitions against sex with a "eunuch" or between "eunuchs." And such sex was common enough, and those who engaged in it were sophist enough*, that the law would have had to have been clearly spelled out if it were forbidden.

* "I did not have sex with that man. Fellatio is not sex, and besides, he is a eunuch, not a man at all. " --Billamus Clintonius

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Gwyn ap Nudd

Rape (non-consentual sex) is a no-no whether the victim is the same sex or not.

Only if the victim is jewish.

[Templar]

No, The Bible does not condemn homosexuality. At worst, it condemns certain homogenital acts, between "real men."

Homogenital? Did you just make that word up?

DICTIONARY: No entry found for homogenital.

Now the English word, Homosexuality...
DICTIONARY: Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

Is overtly and obviously condemned. I don't know why you're ignoring the straight, obvious and correct read of the verse in Leviticus. If you can ignore this verse than why not just ignore the whole damned Bible? Why listen to PC conmen pushing an agenda - check the original Jewish commentaries on the Torah.

The FACT is that the Bible DOES condemn homosexuality. Either accept it or just don't believe the Bible - simple as that.

I recommend... don't believe the Bible!

Rape?

If a Jewish man rapes a Jewish woman - he isn't killed; he is forced to marry the girl he raped! Oh, the girl doesn't really have a choice in the matter... "Mr and Mrs Savage-rapist!"
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Jewish men are allowed to "forcibly marry" foreign virgins.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14

Ouch!

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Homogenital? Did you just make that word up?

Now the English word, Homosexuality...Is overtly and obviously condemned.

I do not wish to argue over the word "homogenital," a proper and common English word for this type of discusuuion. If you are more comfortable calling them "homosexual acts" instead, that's fine.

But I won't let you get away with the slight-of-hand substituting of a homosexual person with a homogenital/homosexual act. It is only certain acts that the Bible condemns. It never condemns a person for being what we would today call "gay."

Sun-eunuchs were often the greates coutiers and held the highest offices -- they were the most trusted and revered persons in the kingdom after the royals and the priesthood. The Bible mentions no less than eleven eunuchs by name, all of which championed the cause of a man or woman of God before the king.

The Bible never condemns a sun-eunuch because of what he is. It does forbid man-made eunuchs from certain temple offices and even from attending certain rites, but never sun-eunuchs.

Rape?

If a Jewish man rapes a Jewish woman - he isn't killed; he is forced to marry the girl he raped! Oh, the girl doesn't really have a choice in the matter... "Mr and Mrs Savage-rapist!"
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Jewish men are allowed to "forcibly marry" foreign virgins.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14


Only if the victim is jewish.

I have to thank you both. After I wrote a response to this, I found that my response pointed out a weakness in my main argument. This means I will have to re-think my reasoning on the whole issue. While I don't expect that my final conclusions will change that much, just the path used to reach them, I have to allow for the strong chance that they might. After all it is dishonest to argue to a predetermined conclusion, rather than to wherever the evidence leads.

My initial response to your posts was that the principles of rape and non-consentual sex were well established, even if specific examples were not held to be rape, or in other specific examples it was not the victim who held the right to grant or withhold the consent.

I realized that it is possible to say exactly the same thing with regard to expanding the levitical prohibitions to all homosexual acts. So, on what principle did I agree with the expansion of the one and disagree with the expansion of the other?

It is a question that deserves a well thought out answer.

[Templar]

So do we agree that homosexuality as an act is condemned in the Bible?

We can also agree that (as many rabbis state) - being gay is not condemned in the Torah as long as one does not act on these urges.

Thanks.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Templar
So do we agree that homosexuality as an act is condemned in the Bible?

We can also agree that (as many rabbis state) - being gay is not condemned in the Torah as long as one does not act on these urges.

Thanks. Sorta like, it's O.K. to be a psychopath as long as you don't act on your urges..


On the Christian side of the house, what about Jesus' teaching, that thinking about it, is the same as doing it?

[Templar]

Sorta like, it's O.K. to be a psychopath as long as you don't act on your urges..

Coincidentally, that's my problem.

On the Christian side of the house, what about Jesus' teaching, that thinking about it, is the same as doing it?

I believe that Matt 5-7 (Sermon on the Mount) was Jesus telling everyone that no matter how closely they followed the law - they were still failing and needed him.

If we believe this is true (I don't) than looking with lust at a man or a woman would pretty much be the same evil. Adultery and Homosexual sex are both punishable by death.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Originally posted by Templar
So do we agree that homosexuality as an act is condemned in the Bible?

We can also agree that (as many rabbis state) - being gay is not condemned in the Torah as long as one does not act on these urges.

Thanks.

It is odd though that the Jewish sacred books treat lesbianism very differently. It goes without mention in the OT, and in the Talmud it merely says “women who practice lewdness with one another are disqualified from marrying a priest.� I’m sure those ancient lesbians were heartbroken :rolleyes:, but at least they didn’t have to go through what the Talmud describes for gay men:


The place of stoning was twice the man’s height. One of the witnesses pushed him by the hips, [so that] he was overturned on his heart. He was then turned on his back. If that caused his death, [the witness] had fulfilled [his duty] but if not, the second witness took the stone and threw it on his chest. If he died thereby [the witness] had done [his duty], but if not , [the criminal] was stoned by all Israel.

[Peskanov]

The Bible does not teach anything about homosexuality. Homosexuality, which affects a person's entire personality and outlook, is a modern concept. The Bible does mention homogenitality, which is actual sex between same-sexed persons.

The bible condems travestism, men dressing/behaving like women.
How do you interpret that?

IMHO the bible seems to be against any sexual behaviour not targeted at reproduction, and also has a clear lifestyle defined for men set around the family concept, at least in the OT.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Peskanov
The bible condems travestism, men dressing/behaving like women.
How do you interpret that?

IMHO the bible seems to be against any sexual behaviour not targeted at reproduction, and also has a clear lifestyle defined for men set around the family concept, at least in the OT.

Which would suggest that at the time of writing, enough people were practicing homosexuality to make it appear worthwhile to spend time condemning it.

I mean, there's no point in denouncing something that nobody's doing anyway...

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Gwyn ap Nudd
I am in the middle of a study to discover exactly what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. This is what I've discovered so far:
The Bible does not teach anything about homosexuality. Homosexuality, which affects a person's entire personality and outlook, is a modern concept. The Bible does mention
homogenitality, which is actual sex between same-sexed persons.

1 Samuel 18:1-4. Yeah, like they were just friends.


The Bible discourages sex with temple prostitutes of either sex, as this is a form of idolatry.
Yeah, God seems to have something against prostitutes in general.


Likewise, incest and adultery concerns do not depend on the sex of the participants (although it is only really considered adultery if at least one of the particpants is an adult male).
God blesses the marriage between Abraham and Sarah, even though they are siblings. It appears to me that incest is OK if god says so.


Rape (non-consentual sex) is a no-no whether the victim is the same sex or not.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 places very strict rules against rapists, and occasionally their victims. I'm not aware of any passages that specify rules on same sex rape, and deuteronomy 22:23-24 does specify a woman.


Otherwise, the Bible only forbids homogenitality when both participants are free adult males who both like sex with women -- who are married to or plan to marry women. Even then, however, there might be an exception for soulmates/swordbrothers.
In the Old Testament, the regular rules frequently don't apply to God's favorites. Romans 1:26 may refer to lesbians, and if so is the only passage I'm aware of that does so. I also think that Leviticus 20:13 doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room, and the bit about "as he lieth with a woman" is only descriptive.


The passages that lead to the last restriction may have been traditionally misunderstood. If it is true that angels and demons can (but shouldn't) mate with humans, then it does not apply, and the Bible does not forbid homogenitality except for the same causes for which it forbids cross-sex sex

Could you explain the bit about angels and demons to me? I'm not sure I get that.

As above, I don't think Leviticus 20:13 leaves a lot of wiggle room. Acts of homogentitality are to be punished by death, regardless of the circumstances.


I am continuing the study, focusing on what the Bible teaches about angels. If it turns out that they do have sex with humans, then I'll post the good news. There are some who claim that "Flying Saucer abductions" are not done by aliens, but by angels/demons. :)
:)

Forgive me if I seem a little bit hidebound, I'm taking this all from a KJV, and the Bible isn't my area of familiarity. The bit about a third sex intrigues me, though.

[0rz]

I hope it's okay I post this, written by Ananel of Gaia Online.

We should cover a few things first:
1) I am Christian. No matter what you think of my views below, I am a firm believer in the salvation of Christ and have been for almost all of my life.
2) I believe in the original inerrancy of Holy Scripture. In other words, God divinely inspired the apostles and prophets in the writing of the Bible, His chosen words written through their hand. I don't feel, however, that this also means that X translation is divinely inspired. What was promised was the original Word of God. We have since kept it as well as possible, though imperfections do occur.
3) I can, though with some difficulty, read Greek and Hebrew. Much of my commentary will use words from the original language, so be prepared for this.

Now, let me summarize this argument, because the argument itself will take pages of material even at its most basic. I will post the details of the argument in future postings if necessary, assuming that I am permitted to continue to do so.

A) The Ceremonial Law of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy no longer applies. Because of what is written in the book of Galatians and Paul's writings in the second chapter of Colossians, we have clear declarations that the ceremonial law is now in the field of Christian liberty. Paul uses a variety of examples to declare this and lists several portions of the law, following with the declaration that all of it was nailed to the Cross and has been removed. This belief is backed up further by the book of Romans and the speeches at the council of Jerusalem in Acts (Chapter 15), along with selected sayings by Christ concerning ceremonial practice. If we decide to pick and choose portions of the ceremonial law to continue in observance as God's will without clear relation of those parts to the commandments of God referenced in Romans, James and Revelations, then we place ourselves in danger of the ban of Galatians 1:8.

If this is the case, and most of you will find that your pastors will agree with this, unless you are members of the Seventh-day Adventist or similar denominations, then we have a big problem in the debate of homosexual sex as a sin. The problem is simple: The two clearest declarations of homosexual sex as a sin in the Bible are found in chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus. If the ceremonial law no longer applies, then neither do these.

B) Sodom and Gomorrah do not pertain to homosexual sex, and the same can be said of the related story in Judges. The sins of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are clearly huge. Have you ever seen a city in your lives where the whole male population tried to batter down doors so that they could gang rape guests to the city? I apologize for being so blunt and almost crude, but the point is not a pleasant one, and neither is the story. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were sinful beyond our understanding. These were foul places where such extreme forms of rape were accepted and where the closest thing to a righteous man offers up his daughters to their lusts. Further, the issue also comes up that this is a story more about the complete lack of hospitality and the brutality of the citizens. It is reading too far into the text to say that this passage says anything about homosexual sex. It is speaking of extreme cases that do not apply to homosexual sex.

(Note: Ezekiel 16 is the passage which refers to the sins of Sodom/Gomorrah)

C) The argument of creation (God created them Adam and Eve, so they are meant to be complimentary) suffers from a massive weakness. In chapter three of Genesis, we are told why a man leaves his father and mother to become one flesh with the woman that he loves. We are told similar things in chapter five of Paul's letter to the Ephesians. However, neither passage declares that this must be the only thing. Paul also speaks elsewhere of the joys of celibacy. This indicates that marriage is not required. Without proof that homosexual sex is considered a sin, there is no reason to automatically assume that 'Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve' is actually said in Scripture. The passages only say why heterosexual marriages occur, not that they must be the only ones.

In fact, an important point must be made. Scripture speaks clearly about the need to save sex for marriage. If the Bible has not declared homosexual sex or marriage as sinful, then we have done a vast disservice in refusing homosexual couples the right to marriage. We are, in effect, trying to force them into sinful relationships out-of-wedlock.

D) There are three passages that may speak on homosexual sex in the New Testament. Two are lists of sins, found in chapter six of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians and chapter one of his first letter to Timothy. The third, and most important, passage is found in the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans.

1) The two lists are poorly translated in the cases of homosexuality. Three words are found in these passages that are used to relate to homosexual sex: Pornia, Arsenokoitas and Malakoi. Pornia means pervert. That's all it really means. It refers to sexual perversion, but makes no statement as to what that perversion is. It is far too general to relate to homosexual sex. Malakoi refers to softness or effeminacy, with implications of perversion. The term is used to refer to a man who is too passionate and emotional, and who acts upon these. It relates to the Grecian concepts of gender identity. The man was not to be emotional in this fashion. If one stretches the meaning of the word, examples are found where Malakoi may refer to the 'bottom' partner of pederasty. This is a relationship wherein a teenage boy traded sexual favors with an older man in return for guidance and training. It was common within Greek society and accepted in Roman society. Arsenokoitas is a compound word derived from the Greek words for man and bed. While this sounds like a clear reference to homosexuality to our modern ears, there is a problem. The word does not appear at any point prior to Paul's letters. To our knowledge, he created the term himself. Its usage in all other cases I am aware of either represents something akin to an aggressive sexual predator or, more commonly, the 'top' partner in pederasty. At most these verses could possibly have listed pederasty as a crime, but not homosexual sex alone. You cannot read into the text the fact that, because something condemned includes another thing, that other thing is automatically condemned as well. For example, a person who breaks the commandment about not bearing false testimony against one's neighbor must communicate to do so. Communication is not condemned, is it? The condemnation of pederasty cannot be clearly related, even in consideration of Jewish morals that Paul is familiar with, to a condemnation of homosexual sex. Look at http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html for further details on the specifics of Arsenokoites and Malakoi.

2) Romans 1:18-32 is the key to the argument. However, there are a series of problems with the classic interpretation of the passage.

One, we rarely take verses 26-27 in context with the rest of the passage. The lusts spoken of are the result of godlessness and the refusal of the gospel of God. The godless ones are described as being given over to their passions. This loss of control is key and important to the Greeks and Romans Paul is writing to, and was considered a very bad thing. It is important to realize that the passage is not centered on homosexual relations, no matter how you interpret it.

Two, the relationships are referred to as being unnatural. The term pushin is the Greek word for natural and refers, in general, to that which is according either to socially accepted morals or to one's innate nature. The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexual relationships to be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural to the Romans would specifically have been something where a citizen was 'on bottom.' Such a position degrades the citizen's status and was considered to be a horrible thing.

Three, the shameful lusts that are spoken of are not specifically described. Unlike Leviticus, where they are listed, the passage assumes that its audience knows what is being spoken of. While Paul is a born and trained Jew, familiar with the ceremonial law, he is preaching to newly converted Christians in Rome and Greece. These people, though somewhat familiar with Jewish beliefs, could not have been considered familiar enough to assume that 'shameful lusts' meant what is said in Leviticus. Paul is not a man to leave explanations unclear. When necessary, he goes into great detail and repetition to make his point absolutely clear and understood. Therefore, by context it seems he is speaking to the Roman's understanding of shameful, the subjugation of a citizen for example. Further, pathos (lusts) does not necessitate a sexual connotation.

Four, the fact that we have women doing things with women instead of men and that we have men doing things with men instead of women is clear from what Paul says in verses 26-27. However, Paul does not at any point say what is being done. He lacks the clarity of Leviticus. Any number of things could be occurring, and without a clear indication that the text is specifically speaking of homosexual sex acts on any level we are familiar with today we cannot claim that Romans 1 clearly declares that the ceremonial law still applies in this case.

My arguments are quite basic. This is only an overview of them. I have far more detailed descriptions of the issues involved and will happily offer them. This argument is also not new. You can find websites offering similar interpretations themselves. I came to these conclusions, however, through prayer and consideration with friends, not a website. These positions, also, are hardly universally accepted. There is strong evidence in both directions with regards Romans 1. Some churches still make the claim that parts of the ceremonial law remain intact. There are strong arguments both for and against this.

My single greatest point is this: Can you honestly declare something a sin when you cannot clearly show without serious contention that the Bible declares it to be a sin? When we look at the Ten Commandments, we know basically what they say and don't argue over them. Christ further explains them during his life, giving us more information about what they mean. We know these things to be sins, and there is little debate. Homosexual sex is found in the ceremonial laws and what few verses speak of it outside of that set of laws are hotly contested. How can we clearly state, based upon these facts, that homosexuality is indeed a sin?

No. I don't think it's wrong, and I'll be happy to stand on Scripture to that effect.

[Peskanov]

2) Romans 1:18-32 is the key to the argument. However, there are a series of problems with the classic interpretation of the passage.
...
...

This one has to be the poorest argument I have ever read. Calling it an argument it's an exageration, let's say "excuse", it's more appropiate.
I'm goint to post the text so everybody can read it:
Romans 1:

1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

[username]

Originally posted by Peskanov
This one has to be the poorest argument I have ever read. Calling it an argument it's an exageration, let's say "excuse", it's more appropiate.
I'm goint to post the text so everybody can read it:
Romans 1:

I agree, Romans is *clearly* discussing same gender sex.

The arguments against that understanding are extremely weak.

If more people would just accept that the bible says what it says there would be a lot less Christians.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Originally posted by username
I agree, Romans is *clearly* discussing same gender sex.

The arguments against that understanding are extremely weak.

If more people would just accept that the bible says what it says there would be a lot less Christians.

While I’d want to take liberal interpreters to task for whitewashing this passage, I’d not want to ignore how the other end misuses it as well.

Contrary to the way modern conservative Christians use this passage, the sin focused on here is not really same gender sex; it seems to be a sort of paganism:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

The curse for that is, among other things:

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Yes, I’d agree, Paul, and thus the Bible as a whole, sees same sex sex as “unseemly� and “vile�. But it should still be noted that what is described here does not apply to most every situation involving a gay person. Many now-a-days were devout Christian kids at the time they realized their orientation, far from the proud pagans described above. They never felt “lust� or anything resembling attraction to the opposite sex, ever, and therefore there was never anything for God to “give them up� to, or reason to do so. I mean, how many men would leave the “the natural use of the woman�, if it wasn’t “natural� for them to do so? I doubt I know any, and would agree with Paul that it’d take a God-sent miracle to turn most men gay :).

I’m not saying this passage doesn’t pose homosexuality, even without acts, as vile. To me, Rom 1 just comes off as one straight man’s attempt, like so many others, to explain where homosexuality, among other things, comes from. Paul’s answer: God turns straight people gay, as a punishment.

What’s not odd, though, is the relatively little attention Romans 2 gets. Following just after that quote:

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

All those pious folks doesting the same things…. :)

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

AAARRRGGGHHH!!!!!

I spent two hours answering the posts that have appeared here since I left to contemplate last week. I was about half-way through them. Then I accidently wiped them all out.

I am going to post a number of shorter posts instead, so that it does not happen again.

First, I did arrive at an answer to the problem for which I went "up on the mountainside": Why do I accept expanding the definition of rape to include actions that the Bible does not, and reffuse to similarly expand the definition of "unnatural sexual acts"?

The answer is that when Jesus expanded or did away with a portion of the Law, it was always on the side of compassion. And it is compassionate to allow the law to cover slaves and prisoners, and to allow a woman more say in who can invade her body. But it is not compassionate to persecute, jail, and even murder people for actions that had been legal and which victimize no one else.

So do we agree that homosexuality as an act is condemned in the Bible?

We can also agree that (as many rabbis state) - being gay is not condemned in the Torah as long as one does not act on these urges.

I agree that being gay is not condemned in the Bible. Certain actions are forbidden, but it is not certain at what level.

In a theocratic society such as ancient Israel, some distinctions are blurred. It is not always immediately clear whether a commandment describes a moral obligation, or one of religious sanctity or even one of ritual purity. ("It's God's word -- just do it.") But there are, if one looks for them, ways to make these distinctions, and verses that suggest that one should be aware of them.
On the Christian side of the house, what about Jesus' teaching, that thinking about it, is the same as doing it?
Actually "coveting" wishing for something (or someone) that the only way to obtain is to deprive another person of his property or rights (including what today's laws call "alienation of affection") is also forbidden in the OT, and specifically in the Ten Commandments.

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

It is odd though that the Jewish sacred books treat lesbianism very differently. It goes without mention in the OT, and in the Talmud it merely says “women who practice lewdness with one another are disqualified from marrying a priest.� I’m sure those ancient lesbians were heartbroken :rolleyes:, but at least they didn’t have to go through what the Talmud describes for gay men:

Considering that the woman would be married off anyway, marriage to a priest would be a lot less onerous on a lesbian. Every month there would be two or three days he could not even approach her tent (or her chambers) for fear of being contaminated by her menses. There would be numerous other occassions when he needs to keep particularly pure, or she turns out to be particularly unclean. With a little imagination, she would be able to avoid his prescence indefinitely after the marriage festival was over.


The bible condems travestism, men dressing/behaving like women.
How do you interpret that?
Assuming that you are referring to Deut 22:5, I treat it exactly like the sexual prohibitions in Leviticus 18-20
Which would suggest that at the time of writing, enough people were practicing homosexuality to make it appear worthwhile to spend time condemning it.

I mean, there's no point in denouncing something that nobody's doing anyway...
No one has claimed that the forbidden actions never occured. The questions were: 1) Are all of the practices that are on the list of "unnatural acts" today always on the list? and 2) At what level are they forbidden?

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon

1 Samuel 18:1-4. Yeah, like they were just friends.
Ah yes, Jonathan and David. That is why I left open the possibility of an axception for soulmates/swordbrothers in my first post, as you quote later.

I don't go into too much detail, since an incorrect interpretation of the relevant Law may force a researcher to accept a given conclusion about their relationship despite the clear language of Davids praises.
Yeah, God seems to have something against prostitutes in general.
Not against prostitutes in general, but against cult prostitutes who seduced the Israelites away from His worship, and married women whose "side job" is adultery. It is not clear that He condemns divorced women and widows (see Rahab and Tamar, for example) .
God blesses the marriage between Abraham and Sarah, even though they are siblings. It appears to me that incest is OK if god says so.
In Leviticus, the focus is not on consanguinity, but on functional relationships within the family and tribe (and possibly on protecting the merchandise, since virgin brides bring a higher price than non-virgins.) Since Abraham and Sarah left behind their birth tribe in Ur and their birth family (except for Lot) in Haran, this would not have been an issue.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 places very strict rules against rapists, and occasionally their victims. I'm not aware of any passages that specify rules on same sex rape, and deuteronomy 22:23-24 does specify a woman.
While my primary text was, as yours, Deut 22, I also looked at specific examples of rape and attempted rape, and its consequences, such as Gen 19, Gen 34, Judges 19-20, and 2 Sam 10/1 Chron 19.
In the Old Testament, the regular rules frequently don't apply to God's favorites. Romans 1:26 may refer to lesbians, and if so is the only passage I'm aware of that does so. I also think that Leviticus 20:13 doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room, and the bit about "as he lieth with a woman" is only descriptive.
1)They don't always apply as severely, and are ocassionally overlooked.

2)It is only because of the parallel that it seems to refer to lesbian sex. All we know for certain is that the unnaturalness of the women's lusts, whatever they are, is as bad as that of the mens' lusts, of which homogenitality is one one example.

3)I agree that there is not very much "wiggle room" in the action that is forbidden. What is not clear (despite the death penalty threat) is the level on whic it is forbidden. (See my point about the blurred distinctions in a theocracy.)
Could you explain the bit about angels and demons to me? I'm not sure I get that.
That refers to the letters of Jude and 2 Peter. The men of Sodom "going after strange flesh" in Jude, usually read as homogenitality, is more likely, given a number of quotes in these two related letters from the non-canonical books of I Enoch and Jubilees, a reference to the then prevalent idea that the men of Sodom knew that Lot's visitors were angels and wanted them for that reason, and not because they were male. In fact, in those books it was the women of Sodom who were condemned for the unnatural lust for angelic flesh, just as the antideluvian "daughters of men" seduced the angelic "Sons of God" in Gen 6.
Forgive me if I seem a little bit hidebound, I'm taking this all from a KJV, and the Bible isn't my area of familiarity. The bit about a third sex intrigues me, though.
That was a Greek theory that was echoed, if not in as full detail, throughout the ancient world. Basically, the legend is that mankind was originally created with a double soul. and that a punishment from the gods split them up. Most souls split into a hearty, passionate male half and a weaker, cooler female half. This is why men seek women.

But some of the souls split far too evenly. They are neither strong or "passionate" enough to be true men, though they were "hot" enough that their bodies developed as male. In seeking their other halves, the wanted neither men, who were too hot to complete them, nor women, who were too cold. They sought out other in-betweeners, such as themselves.

The theory explains the urges we call homosexuality. It also explains that they are not real men, so that taboos concerning relating to other men would not apply to them.

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Originally posted by 0rz
written by Ananel of Gaia Online.
We should cover a few things first:
1) I am Christian. No matter what you think of my views below, I am a firm believer in the salvation of Christ and have been for almost all of my life.
2) I believe in the original inerrancy of Holy Scripture. In other words, God divinely inspired the apostles and prophets in the writing of the Bible, His chosen words written through their hand. I don't feel, however, that this also means that X translation is divinely inspired. What was promised was the original Word of God. We have since kept it as well as possible, though imperfections do occur.
3) I can, though with some difficulty, read Greek and Hebrew. Much of my commentary will use words from the original language, so be prepared for this.

Now, let me summarize this argument, because the argument itself will take pages of material even at its most basic. I will post the details of the argument in future postings if necessary, assuming that I am permitted to continue to do so.

A) The Ceremonial Law of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy no longer applies. Because of what is written in the book of Galatians and Paul's writings in the second chapter of Colossians, we have clear declarations that the ceremonial law is now in the field of Christian liberty. Paul uses a variety of examples to declare this and lists several portions of the law, following with the declaration that all of it was nailed to the Cross and has been removed. This belief is backed up further by the book of Romans and the speeches at the council of Jerusalem in Acts (Chapter 15), along with selected sayings by Christ concerning ceremonial practice. If we decide to pick and choose portions of the ceremonial law to continue in observance as God's will without clear relation of those parts to the commandments of God referenced in Romans, James and Revelations, then we place ourselves in danger of the ban of Galatians 1:8.

If this is the case, and most of you will find that your pastors will agree with this, unless you are members of the Seventh-day Adventist or similar denominations, then we have a big problem in the debate of homosexual sex as a sin. The problem is simple: The two clearest declarations of homosexual sex as a sin in the Bible are found in chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus. If the ceremonial law no longer applies, then neither do these.

B) Sodom and Gomorrah do not pertain to homosexual sex, and the same can be said of the related story in Judges. The sins of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are clearly huge. Have you ever seen a city in your lives where the whole male population tried to batter down doors so that they could gang rape guests to the city? I apologize for being so blunt and almost crude, but the point is not a pleasant one, and neither is the story. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were sinful beyond our understanding. These were foul places where such extreme forms of rape were accepted and where the closest thing to a righteous man offers up his daughters to their lusts. Further, the issue also comes up that this is a story more about the complete lack of hospitality and the brutality of the citizens. It is reading too far into the text to say that this passage says anything about homosexual sex. It is speaking of extreme cases that do not apply to homosexual sex.

(Note: Ezekiel 16 is the passage which refers to the sins of Sodom/Gomorrah)

C) The argument of creation (God created them Adam and Eve, so they are meant to be complimentary) suffers from a massive weakness. In chapter three of Genesis, we are told why a man leaves his father and mother to become one flesh with the woman that he loves. We are told similar things in chapter five of Paul's letter to the Ephesians. However, neither passage declares that this must be the only thing. Paul also speaks elsewhere of the joys of celibacy. This indicates that marriage is not required. Without proof that homosexual sex is considered a sin, there is no reason to automatically assume that 'Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve' is actually said in Scripture. The passages only say why heterosexual marriages occur, not that they must be the only ones.

In fact, an important point must be made. Scripture speaks clearly about the need to save sex for marriage. If the Bible has not declared homosexual sex or marriage as sinful, then we have done a vast disservice in refusing homosexual couples the right to marriage. We are, in effect, trying to force them into sinful relationships out-of-wedlock.

D) There are three passages that may speak on homosexual sex in the New Testament. Two are lists of sins, found in chapter six of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians and chapter one of his first letter to Timothy. The third, and most important, passage is found in the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans.

1) The two lists are poorly translated in the cases of homosexuality. Three words are found in these passages that are used to relate to homosexual sex: Pornia, Arsenokoitas and Malakoi. Pornia means pervert. That's all it really means. It refers to sexual perversion, but makes no statement as to what that perversion is. It is far too general to relate to homosexual sex. Malakoi refers to softness or effeminacy, with implications of perversion. The term is used to refer to a man who is too passionate and emotional, and who acts upon these. It relates to the Grecian concepts of gender identity. The man was not to be emotional in this fashion. If one stretches the meaning of the word, examples are found where Malakoi may refer to the 'bottom' partner of pederasty. This is a relationship wherein a teenage boy traded sexual favors with an older man in return for guidance and training. It was common within Greek society and accepted in Roman society. Arsenokoitas is a compound word derived from the Greek words for man and bed. While this sounds like a clear reference to homosexuality to our modern ears, there is a problem. The word does not appear at any point prior to Paul's letters. To our knowledge, he created the term himself. Its usage in all other cases I am aware of either represents something akin to an aggressive sexual predator or, more commonly, the 'top' partner in pederasty. At most these verses could possibly have listed pederasty as a crime, but not homosexual sex alone. You cannot read into the text the fact that, because something condemned includes another thing, that other thing is automatically condemned as well. For example, a person who breaks the commandment about not bearing false testimony against one's neighbor must communicate to do so. Communication is not condemned, is it? The condemnation of pederasty cannot be clearly related, even in consideration of Jewish morals that Paul is familiar with, to a condemnation of homosexual sex. Look at http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html for further details on the specifics of Arsenokoites and Malakoi.

2) Romans 1:18-32 is the key to the argument. However, there are a series of problems with the classic interpretation of the passage.

One, we rarely take verses 26-27 in context with the rest of the passage. The lusts spoken of are the result of godlessness and the refusal of the gospel of God. The godless ones are described as being given over to their passions. This loss of control is key and important to the Greeks and Romans Paul is writing to, and was considered a very bad thing. It is important to realize that the passage is not centered on homosexual relations, no matter how you interpret it.

Two, the relationships are referred to as being unnatural. The term pushin is the Greek word for natural and refers, in general, to that which is according either to socially accepted morals or to one's innate nature. The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexual relationships to be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural to the Romans would specifically have been something where a citizen was 'on bottom.' Such a position degrades the citizen's status and was considered to be a horrible thing.

Three, the shameful lusts that are spoken of are not specifically described. Unlike Leviticus, where they are listed, the passage assumes that its audience knows what is being spoken of. While Paul is a born and trained Jew, familiar with the ceremonial law, he is preaching to newly converted Christians in Rome and Greece. These people, though somewhat familiar with Jewish beliefs, could not have been considered familiar enough to assume that 'shameful lusts' meant what is said in Leviticus. Paul is not a man to leave explanations unclear. When necessary, he goes into great detail and repetition to make his point absolutely clear and understood. Therefore, by context it seems he is speaking to the Roman's understanding of shameful, the subjugation of a citizen for example. Further, pathos (lusts) does not necessitate a sexual connotation.

Four, the fact that we have women doing things with women instead of men and that we have men doing things with men instead of women is clear from what Paul says in verses 26-27. However, Paul does not at any point say what is being done. He lacks the clarity of Leviticus. Any number of things could be occurring, and without a clear indication that the text is specifically speaking of homosexual sex acts on any level we are familiar with today we cannot claim that Romans 1 clearly declares that the ceremonial law still applies in this case.

My arguments are quite basic. This is only an overview of them. I have far more detailed descriptions of the issues involved and will happily offer them. This argument is also not new. You can find websites offering similar interpretations themselves. I came to these conclusions, however, through prayer and consideration with friends, not a website. These positions, also, are hardly universally accepted. There is strong evidence in both directions with regards Romans 1. Some churches still make the claim that parts of the ceremonial law remain intact. There are strong arguments both for and against this.

My single greatest point is this: Can you honestly declare something a sin when you cannot clearly show without serious contention that the Bible declares it to be a sin? When we look at the Ten Commandments, we know basically what they say and don't argue over them. Christ further explains them during his life, giving us more information about what they mean. We know these things to be sins, and there is little debate. Homosexual sex is found in the ceremonial laws and what few verses speak of it outside of that set of laws are hotly contested. How can we clearly state, based upon these facts, that homosexuality is indeed a sin?

No. I don't think it's wrong, and I'll be happy to stand on Scripture to that effect.

This person's studies have led him/her to very similar conclusions as my studies have led me. I only have a couple of comments to make.

First, pornia does not mean "pervert" it is the same word (in the masculine) as the word correctly translated prostitute or "whore," and it usually referred to male temple prostitutes (the OT Hebrew refers to them as "dogs," as do the languages of the nations in which they served.

Second, arsenokoitos was, as the poster stated, unknown before the letters of Paul. Even when it appears in later writings, they show Paul's influence: it occurs only in Christian writing, and usually only in sin lists, as it does in the two letters of Paul. The best theory is that Paul is quoting a "sin list" he learned as a young Pharisee, translating it into Greek:

1) Rabbis would often abreviate an oft-cited verse by contracting the two or three most important words in the verse. It is reasonable that they would abreviate Lev 18:22 as "zakar-miskab" ("man-lying-with" or "man-in-bed-with").

2) The Septuagint translates Lev 18:22 into Greek as "Kai meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gynaikos bdelygma gar estin"

So Paul does seem to be referring to the Levitical prohibition. That does not necessarily mean he is reinforcing the ban.

The point of both letters is that the grace of God frees us from being caught up in trap of accounting for and balancing out our sins.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Gwyn ap Nudd
I am in the middle of a study to discover exactly what the Bible teaches about homosexuality.
Why?

And I don't mean that sarcastically. I mean it as a straightforward, what-it-asks-is-what-I-want-to-know question.

If you want to learn about homosexuality, why study the bible? No one I know would cite it as an athoritative text.

If you want to learn about morality, why limit yourself to the bible? Wouldn't a more rounded reading list be more enlightening?

If you want to study ancient cultures, again why not a broader survey of the literature?

And so forth....

In summary, you seem to be a well spoken, intelligent person looking for answers. Why limit yourself to just one "book" from just one era about one subject?

[Ossai]

Gwyn ap Nudd
The answer is that when Jesus expanded or did away with a portion of the Law, it was always on the side of compassion. And it is compassionate to allow the law to cover slaves and prisoners, and to allow a woman more say in who can invade her body. But it is not compassionate to persecute, jail, and even murder people for actions that had been legal and which victimize no one else.

Where did Jesus change the law?

Mathew.5:18-19
"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

Luke.16:17
"It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

Oops…guess he didn’t.

First, I did arrive at an answer to the problem for which I went "up on the mountainside": Why do I accept expanding the definition of rape to include actions that the Bible does not, and reffuse to similarly expand the definition of "unnatural sexual acts"? So far that is all interpretation by you and conviently saying what you apparently want to hear.

Ossai

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

SezMe:

That is a fair question and it deserves an honest answer.

If you want to learn about homosexuality, why study the bible? No one I know would cite it as an athoritative text.

No, the bible is not an authoritative text on the science of homosexuality, but it is an authoritative text on the teachings of the Bible.

If you want to learn about morality, why limit yourself to the bible? Wouldn't a more rounded reading list be more enlightening?

Not necessarily morality "in general," if there is or can be such a thing*, but Biblical morality. I am comparing what the Bible says about itself and its teachings to what the people for whom and by whom it was written would have understood of the world and the issues involved.

If you want to study ancient cultures, again why not a broader survey of the literature?

As I said, it is broader. But there is only so much that a study of Greek philosophy can say about the Bible, and the Hindu vedas and Taoist literature have even less to say, so I'm limited to little more than the areas of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Golden Crescent and the time frame between the Bronze age and the First century CE.

But why the focus on the Bible in the first place? Because Jesus believed in it. Because of that I feel I need to understand it, and on its own terms.

Granted, this speaks more strongly for the OT than the NT, so I do give more thought to non-canonical NT books, especially the gnostic gospels. And if I feel the evidence is strong enough, I would be willing to consider some of them in "my" canon. Likewise I might be willing to drop some currently cononical NT books.

But I would have to be convinced that the "new" books are consistant with the rest of the Bible, and its message, and that the dropped books aren't. Currently I am tempted to drop the letters of Jude and Second Peter because they apparently subscribe to the belief that angels have physical bodies and can interbreed with humans, producing giant offspring. If ever I become convinced that that is the proper understanding of those letters, I probably will drop them. But not without a lot of thought and, yes, prayer. After all just because it seems ridiculous to me does not prove it to be false.

*One can have a personal morality. There can be a shared morality within a community or a culture, but I'm not convinced that there can be "Morality" existing in vacuo.

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Originally posted by Ossai
Gwyn ap Nudd


Where did Jesus change the law?

Mathew.5:18-19
"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

Luke.16:17
"It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

Oops…guess he didn’t.

So far that is all interpretation by you and conviently saying what you apparently want to hear.

Ossai

But what about when Jesus condoned Sabbath-breaking? Matthew 12/Mark 2-3/Luke6/Luke13-14/John 5/John 7/John 9

And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. -- Mark 2:27-28

Or when He spared the life of the adulteress? (John 8)

Or when he expanded the law of divorce to protect women:"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." --Matt 19:3-9


Jesus did not change the Law in the sense of repealing it. He expanded its protection to those who were without, and when the demands of ritual purity and even religious sanctity (but never moral uprightness) were a hardship, he sanctioned easing its strictures.

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal


Yes, I’d agree, Paul, and thus the Bible as a whole, sees same sex sex as “unseemly� and “vile�. But it should still be noted that what is described here does not apply to most every situation involving a gay person. Many now-a-days were devout Christian kids at the time they realized their orientation, far from the proud pagans described above. They never felt “lust� or anything resembling attraction to the opposite sex, ever, and therefore there was never anything for God to “give them up� to, or reason to do so. I mean, how many men would leave the “the natural use of the woman�, if it wasn’t “natural� for them to do so? I doubt I know any, and would agree with Paul that it’d take a God-sent miracle to turn most men gay :).

I’m not saying this passage doesn’t pose homosexuality, even without acts, as vile. To me, Rom 1 just comes off as one straight man’s attempt, like so many others, to explain where homosexuality, among other things, comes from. Paul’s answer: God turns straight people gay, as a punishment.

I can't find anything to seriously disagree with in that analysis. One gets the definite opinion that Paul does find homogenitality distateful. And that that opinion colors a reading of all his works. Yet, he does not come right out and say that it is sinful.

It has been suggested that Paul struggled with the idea. Some have even claimed that his "thorn in the flesh" was an unrequited and unwanted attraction to one of his fellow missionaries. There is nothing definite to support this theory, nor is there anything definite to disprove it.

It is also possible that it was what we today call homophobia that was the "thorn." Intellectually he accepted that some actions he was always taught were wrong were not necessarily sinful, but his upbringing and personal disgust broke through.

What’s not odd, though, is the relatively little attention Romans 2 gets. Following just after that quote:

All those pious folks doesting the same things…. :)

And of course, that is the main point of the letter. The Jewish-born members of the Church were playing a game of holier-than-thou with the gentile members. Paul was calling them on it.

"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. " -- Romans 3:9-12

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Gwyn ap Nudd
SezMe:

That is a fair question and it deserves an honest answer.
Thanks, Gwyn, for taking my question in the spirit it was posed.

In response to my query about exploring morality, you wrote

Not necessarily morality "in general," if there is or can be such a thing*, but Biblical morality. I am comparing what the Bible says about itself and its teachings to what the people for whom and by whom it was written would have understood of the world and the issues involved.
My bolded emphasis.

As an opening aside, I agree comletely with your *ed footnote.

Here I'd like to probe the bolded portion of your response. But first I must note that I am NOT a biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination. So if I make mistakes of fact or interpretation, correct me.

First, let's address the "by whom" question and limit ourselves to the gospels of the NT because these play such a prominent role in Christian morality. My understanding is that these were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and that the real authors are not known. But there is clear evidence of "interplay" (I cannot think of a better word, "plagerism" is too strong)
between the various versions of Jesus' life.

Do you agree?

If so, then the gospel portion of the bible can tell us little or nothing of what the authors "understood of the world" because we don't know who they are, when they lived or any context about their lives.

If not, can you provde links to sites that support the asserted authorship?

Now, let's address the "for whom" question. I should make my assumption about authorship explicit. I assume that the gospels were written between ~60-70 AD through the first century and that the authors had AT BEST third-hand information about the putative character Jesus (again, I am not trying to be sarcastic, just accurate. I am not convinced that Jesus even existed - for me, the jury is still out). Each gospel is, in my opinion, directed at a different CONTEMPORANEOUS audience over the decades they were written. If this is true, then an audience 2000 years later (you and I) may be irrelevant. Or, more precisely, the message to the audience 2000 years ago may not have import for the current day audience.

Regarding my question about the study of ancient cultures, you responsed:

As I said, it is broader. But there is only so much that a study of Greek philosophy can say about the Bible, and the Hindu vedas and Taoist literature have even less to say, so I'm limited to little more than the areas of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Golden Crescent and the time frame between the Bronze age and the First century CE.

But why the focus on the Bible in the first place? Because Jesus believed in it. Because of that I feel I need to understand it, and on its own terms.
The bolded question was going to be my next query - are you psychic :) ? 'Jes kidding.

But your answer is nonsensical. Jesus could not believe in the bible because it did not exist during his lifetime. Hell, it did not exist for hundreds of years after his death (again, if he ever lived at all). In that light, I would repeat the question.

Finally, at that point, you append:

But I would have to be convinced that the "new" books are consistant with the rest of the Bible, and its message, and that the dropped books aren't. Currently I am tempted to drop the letters of Jude and Second Peter because they apparently subscribe to the belief that angels have physical bodies and can interbreed with humans, producing giant offspring. If ever I become convinced that that is the proper understanding of those letters, I probably will drop them. But not without a lot of thought and, yes, prayer. After all just because it seems ridiculous to me does not prove it to be false.
Sounds to me like you are writing your own bible here. No sin in that; Jefferson did the same thing. But does it not negate the very purpose you began with, namely to discover what the bible itself says about homosexuality?

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Sounds to me like you are writing your own bible here. No sin in that; Jefferson did the same thing. But does it not negate the very purpose you began with, namely to discover what the bible itself says about homosexuality?

Not really. I begin with the assumption that the Bible as collected by the early church is correct and complete. And I only drop books that are clearly flawed. Not just problematical (like Jude), and especially I don't drop books just because I don't like what they say.

Adding a book is even harder. It has to agree with the rest of the Bible on all significant issues, and on at least one include an insight included but not obvious in the established canon.

Adding and dropping is to be done only with whole books. No picking and choosing verses or chapters. If a writer is inspired, the whole book is inspired. If a section is clearly not inspired, the writer was not insired.

As a practical matter, I fully expect that the canon I wind up with will be the same canon I began with, but my research will be intellectually dishonest if I turn all my conclusions to achieving that end.
The bolded question (But why the focus on the Bible in the first place?) was going to be my next query - are you psychic :)? 'Jes kidding.

But your answer is nonsensical.....In that light, I would repeat the question.
I realize that at first glance there seems to be a measure of circularity in my position: I acept the gospels becuase of the character of Jesus, but I only know the character of Jesus because I accept the gospels. But it is more of a spiral than a circle.

Instead of starting with full acceptance of both Jesus and the Bible, I start with the proposition that the gospels record the existance of a man called Jesus and that they more-or-less accurately preserve his words. Those words include certain claims for himself and for the church.

Those claims can be tested for consistancy, and some of them can be tested in other ways. If any of those claims fail, the Divinity of Jesus and inspiration of the Bible are disproven. If they hold, then the study which tested them points out new claims that can be tested.

Granted, this still leaves the central point unproven, but the continual opportunies to disprove it which fail constrain it more and more tightly.
Jesus could not believe in the bible because it did not exist during his lifetime.
You are correct to a point. The Scriptures that Jesus knew and believed in were only the books of he OT. None of the NT was yet written. Because of this, I am even less inclined to consider dropping or adding OT books from "my" canon.

But that brings us to one of His claims: "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you....These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. " (John 14:16-17, 25-26)

The early church took this claim and under the teaching of the Paraklete has collected writings it believed to be inspired. As I said earlier, this claim can be tested and disproved.
First, let's address the "by whom" question and limit ourselves to the gospels of the NT because these play such a prominent role in Christian morality. My understanding is that these were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and that the real authors are not known. But there is clear evidence of "interplay" (I cannot think of a better word, "plagerism" is too strong)
between the various versions of Jesus' life.

Do you agree?

If so, then the gospel portion of the bible can tell us little or nothing of what the authors "understood of the world" because we don't know who they are, when they lived or any context about their lives.

If not, can you provde links to sites that support the asserted authorship?

Now, let's address the "for whom" question. I should make my assumption about authorship explicit. I assume that the gospels were written between ~60-70 AD through the first century and that the authors had AT BEST third-hand information about the putative character Jesus (again, I am not trying to be sarcastic, just accurate. I am not convinced that Jesus even existed - for me, the jury is still out). Each gospel is, in my opinion, directed at a different CONTEMPORANEOUS audience over the decades they were written.
You have chosen to interpret my phrase "the people for whom and by whom it was written" as the specific authors (eg. "Luke" or Paul) and their specific correspondents (Theophilus, "Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer, And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house"). I did not intend it to be so specific.

It is true that we know nothing about "Luke" the author, who likely was not the same as Luke the physician, or "Matthew" the author, as opposed to the Matthew, who had been Levi the tax-collector. But we can say some things about the fledgling religious movement which was to become the Christian Church.

My emphasis is more on properly interpreting the context of a book than the psychology of its author and/or audience. I meant the phrase to represent the book's contemporary milieu, rather than the specific personalities involved. Context is a very important aspect of proper interpretation.

On the other hand, there is much we can discover about Paul from his letters, which often included personal details.

If this is true, then an audience 2000 years later (you and I) may be irrelevant. Or, more precisely, the message to the audience 2000 years ago may not have import for the current day audience.
Yes, that is entirely possible. But inasmuch as it is, that is another way of testing the claims. If the Bible does prove to be irrelevant, it cannot be true. But the relevence of its message cannot be properly gauged until that message is properly determined.

[jmercer]

Wow. What a thread... and here I thought the basic problem with homosexuality and the bible was the violation of God's command "Be fruitful and multiply" - which is also supposedly part of the argument against birth control, condoms and abortions. :)

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." --Genesis 1:28 (NASB)

But now that we have filled the earth and subdued it, etc. we have completed that command, havent we? Isn't that why we need to be concerned about overpopulation and environmentalism? :p

[jmercer]

From my perspective, yeah. :)

But I don't know about the Church's. ;)

[SezMe]

The quest you cited in your OP requires no small amount of logic. So let me start by focusing on that aspect of your last post.

Originally posted by Gwyn ap Nudd
Not really. I begin with the assumption that the Bible as collected by the early church is correct and complete. And I only drop books that are clearly flawed.

How can these two statements possibly be reconciled? Either you did not write what you meant or you are asserting that the bible is "correct and complete" yet contains "clearly flawed" components.

Adding a book is even harder. It has to agree with the rest of the Bible on all significant issues, and on at least one include an insight included but not obvious in the established canon..

But how is this possible. The bible is horribly internally inconsistent on significant issues so finding an external piece of writing that is consistent with the bible would seem to be logically impossible. Please explain.

Adding and dropping is to be done only with whole books. No picking and choosing verses or chapters. If a writer is inspired, the whole book is inspired. If a section is clearly not inspired, the writer was not insired.

I have two questions here. It would seem that picking only whole books to be an arbitrary selection of an authors writing. Why not keep ONLY a given author's whole works (especially if you think that author was inspired)? Or why not just chapters? Or, at the lowest level, just a word, if it truely adds to the collection you are building? See what I mean by arbitrary?

Secondly, can you specifiy your criteria for deciding whether an piece of writing is "inspired?"

I realize that at first glance there seems to be a measure of circularity in my position: I acept the gospels becuase of the character of Jesus, but I only know the character of Jesus because I accept the gospels. But it is more of a spiral than a circle.

Instead of starting with full acceptance of both Jesus and the Bible, I start with the proposition that the gospels record the existance of a man called Jesus and that they more-or-less accurately preserve his words.

Unfortunately, the gospels cannot even "more-or-less" accurately preserve his words because they contain significant disagreement between them. In addition, if you agree with my earlier post regarding the timing of the writing of the gospels, the information the authors were using was, at best third hand and probably worse than that. Knowing, as we do, the potential fluidity of oral traditon, I don't think there is much - if any - evidence that the gospels "accurately preserve his words."

Sadly, I think this transforms your spiral back into a circle. Or am I missing something?

Those words include certain claims for himself and for the church. Those claims can be tested for consistancy, and some of them can be tested in other ways. If any of those claims fail, the Divinity of Jesus and inspiration of the Bible are disproven. If they hold, then the study which tested them points out new claims that can be tested.

I find this to be quite interesting. Can you give a 2 or 3 examples of claims (in addition to the one below) that are made that can be verified. Or, rather, "tested in other ways" to more accurately quote you. Secondarily, I would not be surprised that the claims are "consistent" if, as you believe, the writing is "inspired" then it would be poor inspiration indeed that was internally inconsistent. Thus, even if the claims are consistent (a proposition I don't subscribe to) I would not glean much from that fact.

You are correct to a point. The Scriptures that Jesus knew and believed in were only the books of he OT. None of the NT was yet written. Because of this, I am even less inclined to consider dropping or adding OT books from "my" canon.

This might be a bit of a derail, but how do we know Jesus read the OT? We certainly know we have no direct writings of his so maybe he was illiterate?

You have chosen to interpret my phrase "the people for whom and by whom it was written" as the specific authors (eg. "Luke" or Paul) and their specific correspondents (Theophilus, "Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer, And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house"). I did not intend it to be so specific.

It is true that we know nothing about "Luke" the author, who likely was not the same as Luke the physician, or "Matthew" the author, as opposed to the Matthew, who had been Levi the tax-collector. But we can say some things about the fledgling religious movement which was to become the Christian Church.

It is not that Luke was "likely" not the biblical Luke, it is impossible because no contemporary of Jesus could have been alive when the gospels were written.

When I wrote "audience" I meant the general "public" that any one of the authors was writing for, not any specific correspondent. I agree with you that the gospels tell us about the early religion that has become today's Christianity. In fact, I think the gospels tell us far more about that topic than about the individual known as Jesus.

My emphasis is more on properly interpreting the context of a book than the psychology of its author and/or audience. I meant the phrase to represent the book's contemporary milieu, rather than the specific personalities involved. Context is a very important aspect of proper interpretation.

Fair enough, but in order to fully understand what the bible says about homosexuality (or any other topic, for that matter) wouldn't those aspects of the writer be important? Well, I can see where that would not be the case if the writer was truely inspired, impling that his personality was subsumed to the "inspirer" Is that what you mean?


If the Bible does prove to be irrelevant, it cannot be true. But the relevence of its message cannot be properly gauged until that message is properly determined.

Agreed! I knew we would come to a meeting of the minds. :)

[Scot C. Trypal]

Originally posted by Gwyn ap Nudd
God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." --Genesis 1:28 (NASB)

But now that we have filled the earth and subdued it, etc. we have completed that command, havent we? Isn't that why we need to be concerned about overpopulation and environmentalism? :p

Yes and “Be fruitful and multiply� has another odd problem, besides assuming it was meant for even the most crowded societies. If you’re Jewish, you’re in the clear, but the NT has a different take on sex and marriage. Paul advocates celibacy, saying, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.� Jesus, living the exemplary life, is supposedly a virgin as well. I mean, how many Catholics fault the Pope for not “multiplying� :) ?

If it’s some sex act that is supposedly the sin, fine; complain about that. But some gays raise many more children than the average human, many more than some religious figures (and may, strangely, have less sex…). It just makes no sense to attack one group for not being fruitful, while revering it in another.

[Ossai]

Gwyn ap Nudd
But what about when Jesus condoned Sabbath-breaking? Apparently I glossed over my point to easily.
Does it really matter what Jesus or the bible really say about anything. As a historical text it’s laughable and as a basis for morality it ties itself into a Gordian knot.
If you really want to study it, you should start by studying the time period and culture in which it was written.

Ossai

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Gwyn ap Nudd
Diogenes-

This is based on several passages conflated.

For example the story of the attempted homogenital gang-rape in Sodom (Gen 19), and the actual cross-sex gang-rape in Gibeah from the remarkably similar story in Judges 19.

There are examples of individual relationships that seem to violate this dictum, (eg Abraham and Hagar) but that is because victim was not the person who had the power to grant or refuse consent: a slave's owner or a virgin's father or other next of kin would be.

LW-

1.Cor 6:9, and 1. Tim 1:10 use the never-before-encountered word arsenokoitos, "man-lying," which is almost certainly a literal translation of a rabbinical abreviation of the leviticus phrase, and therefore refers to the levitical prohibition, which was concerned with ritual purity.

Scot-

It is Paul, in Romans, who suggests that hetero men indulging in homogenitality is a punishment for idolatry, not necessarily a unique sin in itself.

The idea that (hetero/bi) men lusting for (hetero/bi)men is a sin comes from the usual interpretation of Jude 7. But Jude, who quotes from the pseudegryphal books of I Enoch and Jubilees, seems to be referring to Sodom lusting after the "strange" flesh of beings they knew to be angels and not men, rather than lusting after them because they are male.

I'm getting confused. If the act is wrong, but the feelings not, then you're gonna live a very sad life one way or the other.

Most Christians acknowledge that the feelings (temptations) are not wrong in and of themselves, but it's acting on them (perhaps including indulging fantasies in lieu of actual physical acts) that is considered wrong. Is this argument attempting to shift the "line of sin" so that fantasies are now Ok, and only real, physical acts are wrong?

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Originally posted by SezMe
The quest you cited in your OP requires no small amount of logic. So let me start by focusing on that aspect of your last post.

How can these two statements possibly be reconciled? Either you did not write what you meant or you are asserting that the bible is "correct and complete" yet contains "clearly flawed" components.

My starting assumption is that the Bible (the Protestant canon) and possibly the Apocrypha (canoninal to the Catholic Church) are inspired, and therefore correct and complete. To deny the possiblity that this assumption may turn out to be false would be intellectually dishonest. The second sentence is just a statement that if I found one or two books to be flawed, I would not conclude that the whole Bible is flawed.

But how is this possible. The bible is horribly internally inconsistent on significant issues so finding an external piece of writing that is consistent with the bible would seem to be logically impossible. Please explain.

Two points. One, perhaps "reconcilable" would be a better word than "consistant." And I probably have a more inclusive definition of the condition, whichever word is used.

And two, yes, I anticipate I will most likely be unable to reconcile a new book to the existing canon without several man-lifetimes of study and prayer. I'm just allowing for the possibility that one of the non-canonical books just fits so perfectly that I can't deny it.

I have two questions here. It would seem that picking only whole books to be an arbitrary selection of an authors writing. Why not keep ONLY a given author's whole works (especially if you think that author was inspired)? Or why not just chapters? Or, at the lowest level, just a word, if it truely adds to the collection you are building? See what I mean by arbitrary?

Secondly, can you specifiy your criteria for deciding whether an piece of writing is "inspired?"

I chose whole books as the least arbitrary criteria for including or rejecting. It allows for accepting the theories that a given book is not exactly as the original authors wrote it (such as the theory that there were at least four different authors [who wrote independantly] of the Torah and at least three separate editors or "redactors" who combined those separate writings into a more-or-less coherent whole). It also allows for the obvious fact that just because an author was inspired to write one book, it does not follow that every thing he said or wrote was inspired, and for the fact that not everything attributed to a given author was actually written by him.

However it came to be written, the book is the unit that has been preserved. Choosing a smaller unit, a chapter or paragraph, for example, even when there is some evidence that it might be a later addition, is to simply edit the book on your own whim.

Unfortunately, the gospels cannot even "more-or-less" accurately preserve his words because they contain significant disagreement between them. In addition, if you agree with my earlier post regarding the timing of the writing of the gospels, the information the authors were using was, at best third hand and probably worse than that. Knowing, as we do, the potential fluidity of oral traditon, I don't think there is much - if any - evidence that the gospels "accurately preserve his words."

Sadly, I think this transforms your spiral back into a circle. Or am I missing something?

On the disagreemnt:
If you ask any lawyer or judge, if several witnesses agree too closely in their testimony, there is a great likelihood that the testimony was agreed to and rehearsed and is less convincing. Even so, the synoptic gospels do agree closely enough that Matthew and Luke are considered to have edited together Mark and a conjectured common "sayings" gospel called Q. In addition Luke is claimed to have had a third source, with many incidents similar to, but not the same as, incidents in John.

On the timing:
I believe that you have exaggerated the time frame a little. But it is a fair question, particularly when the oldest non-Christian writings with mentions of Jesus are even later than your estimates, or are suspected of being later (Christian) insertions. However the letters, especially those of Paul, were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to His life. Granted, Paul does not write much about Jesus earthly life, but what he does is reconcilable with the gospels.

In general:
There is the difference that you are starting from an agnostic position, and I am starting with the assumptions of a believer. When the accuracy of the Gospels can neither be proven nor disproven, you have no basis to accept that they may be accurate. I on the other hand, have no reason to drop the assumptions. So to you my spiral collapses into a circle. There is circumstantial evidence that tends to flatten the spiral, but it is not enough in itself to overcome the starting assumptions.

As more evidence comes in as the study continues, there might come a point where the evidence overwhelms the assumptions, or there may be a point where the assumptions are supported more than they are "attacked."

I find this to be quite interesting. Can you give a 2 or 3 examples of claims (in addition to the one below) that are made that can be verified. Or, rather, "tested in other ways" to more accurately quote you. Secondarily, I would not be surprised that the claims are "consistent" if, as you believe, the writing is "inspired" then it would be poor inspiration indeed that was internally inconsistent. Thus, even if the claims are consistent (a proposition I don't subscribe to) I would not glean much from that fact.

I'm having a little trouble responding to this. It may point to a fuzziness in my communcation skills, or a fuzziness in my logic, or it may be an artifact of our different starting assumptions. I suspect that it is a combination of all three.

But as to the consistancy not proving inspiration, you are quite right. However a lack of consistancy (which you you seem to strongly suspect) would prove that it was not inspired.

This might be a bit of a derail, but how do we know Jesus read the OT? We certainly know we have no direct writings of his so maybe he was illiterate?

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias .

And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord."

And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. Luke 4:16:20

Yes, I know that we only know this through the writings of "Luke." Again what to make of that fact goes to our different starting positions.

It is not that Luke was "likely" not the biblical Luke, it is [i]impossible because no contemporary of Jesus could have been alive when the gospels were written.

Actually, the timeline does (barely) allow the possibility a second hand account of a younger student of an aged apostle (Luke or Mark). I had agreed it not very likely that the books attributed to Luke were written by Paul's physician. But I do not agree that it was simply impossible.

When I wrote "audience" I meant the general "public" that any one of the authors was writing for, not any specific correspondent. I agree with you that the gospels tell us about the early religion that has become today's Christianity. In fact, I think the gospels tell us far more about that topic than about the individual known as Jesus.

There's not much to disagree with in that statement, except...

I may be reading more into it than you intended, but the phrasing of the last sentence seems a little sarcastic. By that, I mean that even though the phrase "far more than" does not disallow the possibility that there is something to learn about Jesus, the "tone" seems to express a doubt that such a something will actually be found.

Fair enough, but in order to fully understand what the bible says about homosexuality (or any other topic, for that matter) wouldn't those aspects of the writer be important? Well, I can see where that would not be the case if the writer was truely inspired, impling that his personality was subsumed to the "inspirer" Is that what you mean?

Only partially. While the inspiration does ensure that God's message rather than the individual author's opinion is what has been preserved, the author's beliefs are a part of the process.

What I meant was that we don't have a complete biography for most of the authors. For many we know nothing about them beyond their words.

But that does not mean we can't get a feel for the author. We just need to pay more attention to his words, and to understand the world and the Church as they would have been understood by someone living in that time and place. In other words, place the book in context.

Agreed! I knew we would come to a meeting of the minds. :)


:D

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Originally posted by Beerina
I'm getting confused. If the act is wrong, but the feelings not, then you're gonna live a very sad life one way or the other.

Most Christians acknowledge that the feelings (temptations) are not wrong in and of themselves, but it's acting on them (perhaps including indulging fantasies in lieu of actual physical acts) that is considered wrong. Is this argument attempting to shift the "line of sin" so that fantasies are now Ok, and only real, physical acts are wrong?

That is precisely why I began this study. What I'm finding is that there are only five or six passages that provide "sound bites" against homogenitality, and another three or four stories that can be referenced to illustrate the point.

But there are also four or five stories that can be referenced to illustrate that homogenitality may not always be condemed. And examining the "sound bites" in context eliminates all except the original religious* Levitcus passages, and Jude 7's "going after strange flesh."

*Did you know that the same word toevah ("abomination") that is used in Leviticus to describe homogenitality is used earlier in the same book to describe the eating of "unclean" animals. In other words, it is exactly the same sort of abomination to eat pork or lobster as it is to lie with a man.

[Ossai]

Gwyn ap Nudd
And two, yes, I anticipate I will most likely be unable to reconcile a new book to the existing canon without several man-lifetimes of study and prayer. I'm just allowing for the possibility that one of the non-canonical books just fits so perfectly that I can't deny it. What does prayer have to do with it?

However it came to be written, the book is the unit that has been preserved. Choosing a smaller unit, a chapter or paragraph, for example, even when there is some evidence that it might be a later addition, is to simply edit the book on your own whim. And your disagreement with that is what exactly? After all that has been done numerous times before.

Ossai

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

OK, its been a few weeks, and I am closer to the end of my study.

I can give more complete conclusions rather than just state my assumptions and a couple of partially vetted possible conclusions.

Starting with the New Testament.

Canon: I have not definitely added or eliminated any books.

I do have a problem with the Letter of Jude, and so have considered eliminating it and Second Peter, but it seemed extreme to do so over one verse that I admit that I'm not sure how to read. Instead, I decided to temporarily shelve the question of Jude's "strange flesh." In any case, one should not claim to understand God's will based on a single half-understood verse. So whether Jude is condemning seducing/being seduced by angels or homogenitality, I cannot use this one verse alone to proclaim on high.

Of all the alternative gospels, acts, letters and apocalyptics, all were composed much later than the ones which were admitted to the official canon, and have definite signs of doctrinal bias. (I know that many of you would raise the same objections to some canonical books. I, myself might have considered eliminating Hebrews, the epistles of John, and Revalations for those reasons, but they don't contribute to my study on homosexuality anyway.)

There was one that I probably would have added were it not hypothetical, however. That would have been the expanded version of Mark. That the current version of Mark is abridged seems clear by three pieces of evidence. 1) There are certain passages in Mark (sometimes just a phrase, less than a whole verse) that are not repeated in either Matthew or Luke, and whose purpose is not clear in Mark as we have it now. 2) There is one passage in both Matthew and Luke (other than the sayings from Q). Both of these are conjectural and neither adds anything new.

The third piece of evidence was a letter by Clement of Alexandria which objectively stated that a "secret version" (actually two secret versions) of Mark existed, and quotes two passages. The problem is that the single manuscript of this letter has disappeared, and no one except the original discoveror has ever seen it. So while these passages are interesting, I cannot in good conscience proclaim them to be inspired if I don't even know that they are authentic.

Doctrine: There are four New Testament passages that condemn homogenitality, or seem to.

One is the Jude verse, I've decided to shelve.

Two are "sin-lists" in Pauline (or, according to some, pseudo-Pauline) letters. In both cases the more important of two words is the invented compound arseno-koitais. (The other word in both cases does not always refer to homogenitality, and is so translated in these cases because of their proximity to arseno-koitais.) As an invented compound word (meaning man-lying), it seems a direct translation of the Hebrew mishkav-bzakur (lying with a man), which might have evolved as an abreviated way to refer to the Levitical prohibition. This seems especially likely since the LXX, in both Levitical verses, translates mishkav as arseno and bzakur as koitais.

This defers the teaching on homogenitality to the Levitical verses, and although Paul (or pseudo-Paul) may have understood those verses differently than earlier generations of Israelites, I'll defer further comment until I'm discussing those verses.

That leaves Romans 1:26-27. If verse 26, as many claim, condemns female homogenitality, it is the only passage in the entire Bible that does so. The parallel of female passions "contrary to nature" to male on male "unseemliness" is clear, but the exact nature of those unnatural passions is not.

In any case, a reading of the entire chapter shows that Paul's concern is for idolatry, and these verses on unnatural lusts seem more a consequence of, almost a punishment for, that idolatry. These verses alone do not justify a blanket condemnation of all homogenitality, particularly if there is no idolatry involved. For other types of situations, we must look elsewhere.

The Gospels: All of the insufficiently suppressed passages from the expanded Mark that are still in the canonical gospels make more sense with a "queer" reading than with an anti-homosexual one. In particular there is the miracle of the centurian's catamite (pais), recorded in Matt 8 and Luke 7. Both tried to "clean up" the story, and if we only had the one or the other, it would be possible to deny the relationship between the centurian and his boy. If we only had Matthew, we might think that the boy was the centurian's son. (Indeed, there are many who claim that John 4:46-54 is another version of this story.) If we only had Luke, we would believe that this was just another slave. But together, it is almost impossible not to see the pais clearly for exactly what he is.

The non-canonical Markan passages from the Clementine letter go even further.

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

The Hebrew Scriptures

Canon: Because the Hebrew canon was already established at the time of Jesus, and was accepted by Him, additions (other than possibly those dutero-canonical books from the LXX accepted by some denominations) and eliminations were not considered.

Doctrine: The only doctrinal passages concerning homogenitality are the Levitical prohibitions. Both concern a man "lying with a man with the lyings of a woman". Although at least one source seriously proposes that this refers to "lying together" in a woman's bed -- in other words, it just means "Don't bring your tricks home" -- most people agree that it refers to homogenitality in general, and more specifically to genital-anal penetration.

Both call this action an "abomination" (toevah). Toevah is one of almost a dozen words that are translated in at least one context as "abomination" in the AV. An examination of Hebrew usage distinguishes three levels of "abomination" or sin.

Sheqets is ritual defilement. It can happen by such things as approaching too closely to a pig, a corpse or a woman at "that" time of the month. Generally, a short period of quarentine (so you don't infect others) and a ritual cleansing suffice to purify the defiled person, although in serious cases, a minor sacrifice is required.

Zimmah is purposeful wickedness. Murder and adutery are zimmah. Most sexual perversities are zimmah.

Toevah is in between these two extremes. For the most part, it involves tolerating foreign idols, or blurring the distinction between Jew and Gentile. Secondarily it includes any action that involves the mixing or confusion of two similar but not identical things: planting two different crops in the same field, yoking an ox and an ass to the same plow, weaving linen and wool in the same garment, cross-dressing.

It seems likely that homogenitality is toevah because, like cross-dressing, it allows a confusion between male and female. One of the male partners is acting like a female and is penetrated. On the other hand, the verses at the begining and end of the chapters (Lev 18, 19, 20) indicate that the prohibited behaviors are common practice in Gentile religions, particularly Egyptian and Canaanite. So the mixing that it may be prohibiting might be idolatry and true worship -- in other words the prohibition is against temple prostitution. Or the confusion might be the Jew/Gentile one.

In Acts 10-11 and again in Acts 15, (Gentile-born) Christians are exempted from many Old Testament prohibitions. Certainly these include all of the sheqets prohibitions, but it also seems to include some toevah prohibitions as well. The question then becomes, "Does this include the prohibition against homogenitality?"

According to Acts 15:20, the only toevah prohibtions not so repealed are the contamination of idolatry, fornication*, and eating the meat of an animal that was strangled and still contains the blood, and even then the concern is the confusion of the converts, and a clear separation from their old lives.

Now is the time to look at the three New Testament verses we deferred.

In the same letter (1 Corinthians) in which he wrote "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God," Paul continues "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." He goes on to say, not once but twice, "All things are lawful to me, but not all things are expedient, " indicating that even the few toevah prohibitions left are not forbidden in the same sense that they were in the Old Testament, but rather that they should be avoided so as not to become stumbling blocks to those whose faith is not yet firm.

Likewise, the other sin list (in 1 Timothy) is followed up with "I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service, even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief; and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus."

Even in Romans, where the emphasis is on the relationship of the unnatural lusts to heathen worship, Paul repeats the promise of rescue from the consequences of commiting toevah acts: "But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where then is boasting? It is excluded By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law."