Christians and Jews Who Sanction Homosexual Sex

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well, exchemist said: " Exactly. In the whole bible there seems to be only a couple of sentences about homosexuality and that is in the OT and concerns male homosexuality only. Christ said nothing about it at all.

I said: Then you might want to take a look at the New Testament. (I've given three examples for each of the following four passages)

.

Yes. Those passages are indeed in the New Testament. Christ didn't say them, though. So again, what's your point?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

NCV
Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit God’s kingdom. Do not be fooled. Those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob—these people will not inherit God’s kingdom.(1 Corinthians 6:10)

TLB
Don’t you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexuals—will have no share in his Kingdom. Neither will thieves or greedy people, drunkards, slanderers, or robbers. (1 Corinthians 6:10)


The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, men who practise homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine. (1 Timothy. 1:9-10)

ERV
10 It is for those who commit sexual sins, homosexuals, those who sell slaves, those who tell lies, those who don’t tell the truth under oath, and those who are against the true teaching of God. (1 Timothy. 1:10)

NOG
Laws are intended for people involved in sexual sins, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for those who lie when they take an oath, and for whatever else is against accurate teachings. (1 Timothy. 1:10)

ESVUK
the sexually immoral, men who practise homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, (1 Timothy. 1:10)

.
​

As has been pointed out to you earlier, many highly credible scholars dispute "homosexuality" as an accurate translation. The exact concept those passages are referring to is debatable, but it is absolutely certain that whatever it was, there was no contemporary concept directly analogous to modern homosexuality, so whatever they are refering to is unlikely to be that.

 

[SomeRandom]

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

NCV
Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit God’s kingdom. Do not be fooled. Those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob—these people will not inherit God’s kingdom.(1 Corinthians 6:10)

TLB
Don’t you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexuals—will have no share in his Kingdom. Neither will thieves or greedy people, drunkards, slanderers, or robbers. (1 Corinthians 6:10)


The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, men who practise homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine. (1 Timothy. 1:9-10)

ERV
10 It is for those who commit sexual sins, homosexuals, those who sell slaves, those who tell lies, those who don’t tell the truth under oath, and those who are against the true teaching of God. (1 Timothy. 1:10)

NOG
Laws are intended for people involved in sexual sins, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for those who lie when they take an oath, and for whatever else is against accurate teachings. (1 Timothy. 1:10)

ESVUK
the sexually immoral, men who practise homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, (1 Timothy. 1:10)

.
​

You know, I've always kind of questioned the translation of the term "homosexual" in the Bible. The word and concept didn't exist when the Bible was written, and since English is an intense language, I've always found even the best of translations to be.......wonky. Not just from Arabic but other languages like Greek or even French. I mean, last I checked, there is debate over the translation of the word Hell in the Bible for crying out loud. Hell! Like wtf?

 

[Skwim]

Yes. Those passages are indeed in the New Testament. Christ didn't say them, though. So again, what's your point?

Think it could be that exchemist said: " In the whole bible there seems to be only a couple of sentences about homosexuality and that is in the OT and concerns male homosexuality only. ? OF COURSE IT COULD. That Jesus did or did not mention homosexuality is irrelevant to exchemist's statement I responded to.

.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I meant the standard translation to English.

which is "the standard translation"?

Every translation I've ever read of Leviticus has rendered that passage as a prohibition on same-sex sexual relations. Do you think the community of Biblical scholars are all incompetent? That seems to be your implication.

false dichotomy. You can be the most competent translator in a field and still make mistakes if there are cultural concepts that don't become known until after your work. Darwin didn't know about genetics, and Mendel didn't know about DNA. That doesn't make them incompetent.

If you think I even mentioned the KJV in this thread (before right now, anyway), then you've been jumping to some unjustified - and incorrect - conclusions.

you were the one talking about "the standard translation" without specifying which one you were talking about. IMPE, when people talk like that, they mean the KJV.

What do you think the "right" understanding of Leviticus 18:22 is? What do you think the correct translation is?

An ancient author saw fit to use that verse to express some sort of meaning; if you don't think that intended meaning was "God says men shouldn't have sex with men," then tell us what you think the intended meaning was and how you arrived at that conclusion.

I don't know, nor claim to know, exactly what the author meant. I've read widely on what he MAY have meant, and there are some extremely compelling arguments out there that it was about some form of temple prostitution, or otherwise heterosexual men having sex with one another, rather than pertaining to homosexuals, per se.

It doesn't really affect me, because I don't have sex with men, nor am I homosexual. All I've said in this thread and elsewhere is that the meaning of the "clobber passages" is debatable, and that, like much of the Bible, a context free cold reading of a culturally removed translation MAY not be the correct one.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Think it could be that exchemist said: " In the whole bible there seems to be only a couple of sentences about homosexuality and that is in the OT and concerns male homosexuality only. ? OF COURSE IT COULD. That Jesus did or did not mention homosexuality is irrelevant to exchemist's statement I responded to.

.

cool selective edit. Exchemist explicitly said "Christ did not mention it at all".

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

If you really do disagree with parts of the Bible, why not get rid of those parts?

If you don't do this, you still bear your share of responsibility when other Christians take these parts seriously.

There is no "THE BIBLE" to so edit. There are a range of translations and iterations across languagues and cultures. You're free to make your OWN version, if you so wish, with whatever aditions, removals and scholarship you so wish. There's no "central Bible authority" declaring any given version "the real one".

 

[Skwim]

As has been pointed out to you earlier, many highly credible scholars dispute "homosexuality" as an accurate translation. The exact concept those passages are referring to is debatable, but it is absolutely certain that whatever it was, there was no contemporary concept directly analogous to modern homosexuality, so whatever they are refering to is unlikely to be that.

I can't care what your unnamed, so-called "highly credible scholars dispute." I'm only concerned with what today's Bibles are telling their Christian readers. And almost all of today's Bibles are telling their readers that homosexual relations---or words to that effect---are wrong; from being an abomination to being worthy of a death sentence.

.

 

[Skwim]

cool selective edit. Exchemist explicitly said "Christ did not mention it at all".

Now you're catching on. What Jesus did or did not say wasn't important to the issue I was addressing. Give yourself a gold star.

Have a good day.
.

 

[Skwim]

The word [homosexual] and concept didn't exist when the Bible was written,

Which Bible is that? There are hundreds of versions.

And what do think "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman," means in (Leviticus 20:13 King James Version, 1611)---that "they shall surely be put to death"? That they're telling lies to each other?

.

 

[SomeRandom]

Which Bible is that? There are hundreds of versions.

And what do think "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman," means in (Leviticus 20:13 King James Version, 1611)---that "they shall surely be put to death"? That they're telling lies to each other?

.

Well which Bible are you using? I'm not a Christian, I only know what society and random Christian movies have taught me. Also that one time Dreamworks decided to go all Moses.

As for the verse, I have heard like 100 different explanations of that one through the years. Everything from explaining away anal sex in heterosexual relationships to sleeping with eunuchs or otherwise men who acted like women to lying with a woman on her period. (No, really.) Usually of the variety that a woman should not be on top during the act, since she is taking the "man's role." There are some surprisingly creative loopholes to that one verse, which I find kind of fascinating.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I can't care what your unnamed, so-called "highly credible scholars dispute." I'm only concerned with what today's Bibles are telling their Christian readers. And almost all of today's Bibles are telling their readers that homosexual relations---or words to that effect---are wrong; from being an abomination to being worthy of a death sentence.

.

Only to absolute literalist sola scriptura Christians, which most Christians aren't. And even then, it depends on the translation. If you are actually interested, I'd be happy to link you to some of the information from "nameless scholars". But I rather expect you're more interested in bashing your strawman version of Christianity with your strawman version of Bible scholarship, so I won't waste both of our time unless you ask.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Which Bible is that? There are hundreds of versions.

And what do think "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman," means in (Leviticus 20:13 King James Version, 1611)---that "they shall surely be put to death"? That they're telling lies to each other?

.

The KJV wasn't the Bible as it was written. It's just one translation among many, that only holds its revered position among some as an accident of history. The translation is almost devoid of cultural context, and straight word for word. You may as well run a 2000 year old nuanced document with a great deal of assumed knowedge through Google Translate.and expect an accurate impression

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

which is "the standard translation"?

I’m talking about the consensus of scholarly opinion.

The people who actually study the Bible seriously in order to develop translations all render the passage as a condemnation of male-male sexual activity. The only people who don’t do this are liberal Christians who don’t want their God or their Bible to be anti-gay.

false dichotomy. You can be the most competent translator in a field and still make mistakes if there are cultural concepts that don't become known until after your work.

So while they aren’t all incompetent, you think they are all incorrect?

One of these days, you’ll have to tell me about all the study and research you engaged in to accomplish this feat. What other things is Biblical scholarship completely wrong about?

Darwin didn't know about genetics, and Mendel didn't know about DNA. That doesn't make them incompetent.

So in this analogy, you’re like the Watson, Crick & Franklin of biblical studies and ancient Hebrew?

you were the one talking about "the standard translation" without specifying which one you were talking about. IMPE, when people talk like that, they mean the KJV.

I was talking about the “standard” translation of this one passage, not of the whole Bible. There is no standard translation of the whole Bible... and there can’t be overall: some metaphors don’t translate between languages, idioms become obsolete, the meter of a poem or song can’t be preserved when you translate the words, etc. Even with a perfect knowledge of the original source material, every translation will reflect judgements about whether the final product should have more of an emphasis on the literal words or on the intended meaning behind those words.

But with the list of commands in Leviticus 18, the translation is a lot simpler: the euphemism of “lie with” for “have sex with” still works in modern English, and there aren’t any other obstacles to easy translation in the passage: it’s just a straightforward, businesslike list of commands, not an exchange of witty puns in ancient Hebrew or a song.

I don't know, nor claim to know, exactly what the author meant. I've read widely on what he MAY have meant, and there are some extremely compelling arguments out there that it was about some form of temple prostitution, or otherwise heterosexual men having sex with one another, rather than pertaining to homosexuals, per se.

If someone gives a blanket condemnation of sex between men because they want to combat temple prostitution, then they’ve still given a blanket condemnation of sex between men.

It doesn't really affect me, because I don't have sex with men, nor am I homosexual. All I've said in this thread and elsewhere is that the meaning of the "clobber passages" is debatable, and that, like much of the Bible, a context free cold reading of a culturally removed translation MAY not be the correct one.

It's not "context-free" or "culturally-removed" to note that these passages really are the products of societies that disapproved of homosexuality and saw women as "lesser" or even as property, and that the passages reflect those values.

If any interpretation is "context-free," it's yours.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no "THE BIBLE" to so edit. There are a range of translations and iterations across languagues and cultures.

And none of them even have footnotes from liberal Christians to warn others that they disagree with those parts.

You're free to make your OWN version, if you so wish, with whatever aditions, removals and scholarship you so wish.

I'm fine with my current approach: not holding out the Bible as any sort of authority or as a source of truth or moral teachings.

There's no "central Bible authority" declaring any given version "the real one".

I know; so there's nothing stopping you - or any other Christian who disagrees with parts of the Bible - to remove those parts or at least put an asterisk on them.

You know the red-letter Bibles that put Jesus's words in a different colour? Maybe you could put the passages you reject in a different colour.

But until you proclaim - by whatever method - your rejection of those passages just as loudly as you proclaim your support for the Bible, you are endorsing what you claim to oppose.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I’m talking about the consensus of scholarly opinion.

The people who actually study the Bible seriously in order to develop translations all render the passage as a condemnation of male-male sexual activity. The only people who don’t do this are liberal Christians who don’t want their God or their Bible to be anti-gay.


So while they aren’t all incompetent, you think they are all incorrect?

One of these days, you’ll have to tell me about all the study and research you engaged in to accomplish this feat. What other things is Biblical scholarship completely wrong about?


So in this analogy, you’re like the Watson, Crick & Franklin of biblical studies and ancient Hebrew?


I was talking about the “standard” translation of this one passage, not of the whole Bible. There is no standard translation of the whole Bible... and there can’t be overall: some metaphors don’t translate between languages, idioms become obsolete, the meter of a poem or song can’t be preserved when you translate the words, etc. Even with a perfect knowledge of the original source material, every translation will reflect judgements about whether the final product should have more of an emphasis on the literal words or on the intended meaning behind those words.

But with the list of commands in Leviticus 18, the translation is a lot simpler: the euphemism of “lie with” for “have sex with” still works in modern English, and there aren’t any other obstacles to easy translation in the passage: it’s just a straightforward, businesslike list of commands, not an exchange of witty puns in ancient Hebrew or a song.


If someone gives a blanket condemnation of sex between men because they want to combat temple prostitution, then they’ve still given a blanket condemnation of sex between men.


It's not "context-free" or "culturally-removed" to note that these passages really are the products of societies that disapproved of homosexuality and saw women as "lesser" or even as property, and that the passages reflect those values.

If any interpretation is "context-free," it's yours.

You're misconstruing everything I said. For starters, "I" don't have a trahslation of this verse. All "I" have done us point out that it's meaning is debated. As for the idea of a "consensus of scholarly opinion", you should well know that truth is not determined by plebiscite. There is all sorts of traditional baggage that goes along with any Bible translation. The "consensus of scholarship " USED to say slavery was OK, women are inferior to men, and holy wars are a good thing. Consensuses can and do change. But even if they didn't, no one group has a lock on "THE" standard Biblical translation, that's why there's 50,000 odd denominations of Christianity. I know you're not a Christian, so I understand if you've had the wrong impression from popular culture, but Bible scholarship is not analogous to the scientific method. There is no "standard" translation or understanding.

I reiterate I'm just telling you there are many different opinions about the "clobber passages" and homosexuality in Christianity. And Bible scholarship more generally. My PERSONAL beliefs are fairly regular Catholic, just FYI. I still acknowledge that many disagree with me. I also acknowledge that my personal religious convictions have no bearing on anyone else's, and certainly no bearing on secular matters pertaining to anyone I'm not directly involved with.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

And none of them even have footnotes from liberal Christians to warn others that they disagree with those parts.


I'm fine with my current approach: not holding out the Bible as any sort of authority or as a source of truth or moral teachings.


I know; so there's nothing stopping you - or any other Christian who disagrees with parts of the Bible - to remove those parts or at least put an asterisk on them.

You know the red-letter Bibles that put Jesus's words in a different colour? Maybe you could put the passages you reject in a different colour.

But until you proclaim - by whatever method - your rejection of those passages just as loudly as you proclaim your support for the Bible, you are endorsing what you claim to oppose.

There are, in fact, Bibles with the sort of footnotes you're demanding. I think you're falling for the same sorts of strawman Christianity skwim is. By the way, could you stop trying to make this personal please? You keep putting words in my mouth and claiming I believe and oppose things I never even mentioned.

 

[sojourner]

My "where?" was in question as to where it (the Bible---

It’s still not a question of where. It’s still a question of how. If you don’t know enough about the subject of biblical exegesis to even ask the right questions (especially after having been given the right questions to ask), there’s no point in even having the conversation. But before you continue to take blind swings at the Bible, you might want to consider a basic course in the subject. At least you’ll know what you’re arguing.

My ignoring wasn't a matter of not reading what was said, but finding that it wasn't worth addressing

Your “finding” is “blind groping” and leaping to conclusions, seeing in every shadow a presumed monster. This conclusion is confirmed by your statement above.

 

[sojourner]

The thing is, though, that the "homosexual behavior" was almost exclusively engaged in by heterosexuals, and it still is today.

Can you explain that a little further? I’m not sure I know what you mean by “almost exclusively engaged in by heterosexuals today.”

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're misconstruing everything I said. For starters, "I" don't have a trahslation of this verse.

You've just been pretty emphatic that the normal interpretation of the passage is wrong.

All "I" have done us point out that it's meaning is debated.

Not by scholars.

If you don't want to adopt an anti-gay position, that's fine: go ahead and say "yes, this passage that was the product of a homophobic and misogynistic ancient society is anti-gay, and as someone who knows better, I reject their advice for a position that's actually moral." That would be more honest than this idea you're peddling that we can't be sure that ancient Hebrew religious leaders didn't have views that are in line with those of modern liberal progressives.

As for the idea of a "consensus of scholarly opinion", you should well know that truth is not determined by plebiscite.

I didn't say it did. What I am saying is that I'll put more weight behind the opinion of the many people who have actually put serious effort into the study of ancient Hebrew and translation, especially when they all agree, over the opinion of some guy on the internet who sure seems to be engaging in motivated reasoning.

There is all sorts of traditional baggage that goes along with any Bible translation. The "consensus of scholarship " USED to say slavery was OK, women are inferior to men, and holy wars are a good thing. Consensuses can and do change.

Consensuses on value judgements are a bit different from consensuses on facts. Unlesd you have new evidence to bring to the table, I'm not going to believe that you've overturned the existing body of evidence.

But even if they didn't, no one group has a lock on "THE" standard Biblical translation, that's why there's 50,000 odd denominations of Christianity.

I know you're not a Christian, so I understand if you've had the wrong impression from popular culture, but Bible scholarship is not analogous to the scientific method. There is no "standard" translation or understanding.

Wow... you just really want to run with your misunderstanding of what I said, don't you?

I reiterate I'm just telling you there are many different opinions about the "clobber passages" and homosexuality in Christianity. And Bible scholarship more generally. My PERSONAL beliefs are fairly regular Catholic, just FYI.

I remember getting the "regular Catholic" views on homosexuality firsthand. I attended a Catholic Church for years (and refused to kneel after the anti-gay vitriol I heard in the leadup to the legalization of same-sex marriage here).

I still acknowledge that many disagree with me. I also acknowledge that my personal religious convictions have no bearing on anyone else's, and certainly no bearing on secular matters pertaining to anyone I'm not directly involved with.

Which is decidedly not the Catholic Church's position.