Is pro-gay Christianity really a tenable position?

[Saint Frankenstein]

Okay, so I generally take the position that Christianity is not against homosexuality and that the verses seeming to pertain to it have been misinterpreted and mistranslated. But lately I'm having some problems with this line of thinking. Is there any evidence that those verses were ever interpreted differently? Were ancient Jews and Christians ever accepting or tolerant of homosexuality? If they were misinterpreted, when did the interpretation change and how was it interpreted originally?

If there isn't evidence that ancient Christians and Jews were accepting or tolerant of homosexual sex, then I have to conclude that the view that homosexual sex is sinful is the correct and traditional reading.

 

[leibowde84]

Okay, so I generally take the position that Christianity is not against homosexuality and that the verses seeming to pertain to it have been misinterpreted and mistranslated. But lately I'm having some problems with this line of thinking. Is there any evidence that those verses were ever interpreted differently? Were ancient Jews and Christians ever accepting or tolerant of homosexuality? If they were misinterpreted, when did the interpretation change and how was it interpreted originally?

If there isn't evidence that ancient Christians and Jews were accepting or tolerant of homosexual sex, then I have to conclude that the view that homosexual sex is sinful is the correct and traditional reading.

I would argue that "traditional" is not synonymous with "correct", as even the traditional interpretations were, in fact, interpretations themselves. Beyond speculation, we do not have any reason to believe that any Gospel writer ever met Jesus face to face.

Further, the mere absence of evidence does not prove anything about the early church and it's treatment of homosexuality. That is a logical fallacy. If the Church did proactively change the interpretation of scripture to outlaw homosexuality, it can safely be assumed that they would have wiped out any evidence of the change. Also, we don't even have much to go on in terms of Jesus, who the Church is founded upon, so how can it be reasonable to assume that we would be able to find this kind of evidence?

I agree with your premise that the treatment of homosexuality is merely a misinterpretation, mostly of St. Paul's letters imho. While I don't think finding evidence of a different treatment of homosexuality in the early Church, as their views were much less compassionate at that time, I think it is honorable as Christians to rethink the treatment of homosexuality in Church Doctrine using faith, reason, and compassion in order to better align that treatment with Jesus' teachings rather than Paul's (who I don't really believe at all ... his recount of the "vision" he had is tantamount to a slap in the face of any logical person).

 

[Jainarayan]

How Jews view(ed) it is of no consequence to Christians any more than the views of Hindus, Buddhists, Raelians or Pastafarians are. The early Christians were converts from either no religion, or Greek or Roman religions. Greece and Rome were tolerant of same sex relationships. Not everyone had a copy of the Torah to read Leviticus, nor did everyone hear or read Paul's letters. The canon of the Bible wasn't established until the 4th century. In my view it seems logical that early Christians gave no more thought to homosexuality as converts than they did in their old religions. They were drawn to Jesus's message of peace, love and hope for a better (after)life, rather than what people did with their boyparts and girlparts. Too much overthinking about homosexuality and the bible.

 

[leibowde84]

How Jews view(ed) it is of no consequence to Christians any more than the views of Hindus, Buddhists, Raelians or Pastafarians are. The early Christians were converts from either no religion, or Greek or Roman religions. Greece and Rome were tolerant of same sex relationships. Not everyone had a copy of the Torah to read Leviticus, nor did everyone hear or read Paul's letters. The canon of the Bible wasn't established until the 4th century. In my view it seems logical that early Christians gave no more thought to homosexuality as converts than they did in their old religions. They were drawn to Jesus's message of peace, love and hope for a better (after)life, rather than what people did with their boyparts and girlparts. Too much overthinking about homosexuality and the bible.

But, aren't you overlooking the fact that the Early Church (before Paul's preaching became widespread) was mostly Jewish, and that Christianity, according to the spirit of Jesus' teachings, was meant to be a sect of Judaism?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I would argue that "traditional" is not synonymous with "correct", as even the traditional interpretations were, in fact, interpretations themselves. Beyond speculation, we do not have any reason to believe that any Gospel writer ever met Jesus face to face.

Further, the mere absence of evidence does not prove anything about the early church and it's treatment of homosexuality. That is a logical fallacy. If the Church did proactively change the interpretation of scripture to outlaw homosexuality, it can safely be assumed that they would have wiped out any evidence of the change. Also, we don't even have much to go on in terms of Jesus, who the Church is founded upon, so how can it be reasonable to assume that we would be able to find this kind of evidence?

I agree with your premise that the treatment of homosexuality is merely a misinterpretation, mostly of St. Paul's letters imho. While I don't think finding evidence of a different treatment of homosexuality in the early Church, as their views were much less compassionate at that time, I think it is honorable as Christians to rethink the treatment of homosexuality in Church Doctrine using faith, reason, and compassion in order to better align that treatment with Jesus' teachings rather than Paul's (who I don't really believe at all ... his recount of the "vision" he had is tantamount to a slap in the face of any logical person).

Tradition is important to me as a Catholic. I'm not a fan of changing things just because the modern world thinks we should. (I know you disagree with that and I vehemently disagree with you on that point, so let's not get bogged down with that.) Either way, I would like to see if my question can be answered.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

How Jews view(ed) it is of no consequence to Christians any more than the views of Hindus, Buddhists, Raelians or Pastafarians are. The early Christians were converts from either no religion, or Greek or Roman religions. Greece and Rome were tolerant of same sex relationships. Not everyone had a copy of the Torah to read Leviticus, nor did everyone hear or read Paul's letters. The canon of the Bible wasn't established until the 4th century. In my view it seems logical that early Christians gave no more thought to homosexuality as converts than they did in their old religions. They were drawn to Jesus's message of peace, love and hope for a better (after)life, rather than what people did with their boyparts and girlparts. Too much overthinking about homosexuality and the bible.

Okay, but is there evidence of that?

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'm trying to find the oldest copy of Leviticus at the moment for comparison.

If I remember correctly, all of the arguments about being taken out of context are simply apologists of Christianity trying to soften the blow. I haven't looked it up in a long time, but that's what I remember. It pretty much means exactly what it says.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm trying to find the oldest copy of Leviticus at the moment for comparison.

If I remember correctly, all of the arguments about being taken out of context are simply apologists of Christianity trying to soften the blow. I haven't looked it up in a long time, but that's what I remember. It pretty much means exactly what it says.

Thank you. That would be great.

 

[Jainarayan]

But, aren't you overlooking the fact that the Early Church (before Paul's preaching became widespread) was mostly Jewish, and that Christianity, according to the spirit of Jesus' teachings, was meant to be a sect of Judaism?

That's very true, but again, the people that Jesus addressed were illiterate peasants and laborers. The Pharisees were concerned with how people conducted rituals, and appearances. They always questioned Jesus about rituals, public behavior and his relationship to God. I think the Pharisees and priests were more focused on that. They never asked him about the clobber verses in Leviticus. That says to me that while it is in there, they didn't seem to give it much thought. I think the Pharisees and priests were more focu

 

[leibowde84]

Tradition is important to me as a Catholic. I'm not a fan of changing things just because the modern world thinks we should. (I know you disagree with that and I vehemently disagree with you on that point, so let's not get bogged down with that.) Either way, I would like to see if my question can be answered.

I am only for changing tradition when it is not in line with Jesus' teachings.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

By the way, I'm interested in what the ancient Jews thought because Christianity came from the Jewish religion and took its sexual morality from the Jews. Converts from Hellenic religion would've had to change their sexual morality.

 

[suncowiam]

Frankly, it doesn't matter what some books says. All religious folks have access to the same book and, yet, all these "ethics" and "morals" are never consistent among religious folks. It's such an error prone process when interpretation is the only method of supporting a conclusion.

The only way Christianity will support homosexuality is when more Christians accept homosexuality.

 

[Jainarayan]

Okay, but is there evidence of that?

Is there evidence there isn't evidence? Your conclusion "If there isn't evidence that ancient Christians and Jews were accepting or tolerant of homosexual sex, then I have to conclude that the view that homosexual sex is sinful is the correct and traditional reading." isn't really valid... absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Some things may not need to have been addressed because nary a thought was given to them. People cite the verse "male and female he created them" to beat down gay marriage, saying it's between a man and woman. Well of course male and female were created. But that doesn't say anything about marriage. And yes, there is the verse that a man leaves his family and takes his wife. Well yeah, of course. That does not rule anything else. It's a statement which is not untrue. People interpret and see what they want to.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Is there evidence there isn't evidence? Your conclusion "If there isn't evidence that ancient Christians and Jews were accepting or tolerant of homosexual sex, then I have to conclude that the view that homosexual sex is sinful is the correct and traditional reading." isn't really valid... absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Some things may not need to have been addressed because nary a thought was given to them. People cite the verse "male and female he created them" to beat down gay marriage, saying it's between a man and woman. Well of course male and female were created. But that doesn't say anything about marriage. And yes, there is the verse that a man leaves his family and takes his wife. Well yeah, of course. That does not rule anything else. It's a statement which is not untrue. People interpret and see what they want to.

On the other hand, maybe they didn't discuss it that much because they agreed that it was wrong.

 

[Jainarayan]

I am only for changing tradition when it is not in line with Jesus' teachings.

Jesus did it too.

 

[Deidre]

Tradition is important to me as a Catholic. I'm not a fan of changing things just because the modern world thinks we should. (I know you disagree with that and I vehemently disagree with you on that point, so let's not get bogged down with that.) Either way, I would like to see if my question can be answered.

Seeing that the RCC won't 'bless' (acknowledge) or preside over a homosexual marriage, and seeing that it explicitly states its position on sexuality being between a man and women in holy matrimony (and that sexual relations must always be open to life)..that should indicate its stance. The RCC is pretty clear on it.

 

[Jainarayan]

On the other hand, maybe they didn't discuss it that much because they agreed that it was wrong.

Can you prove that?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Can you prove that?

If I could, I wouldn't have started this thread. I was just showing that it can go both ways.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Seeing that the RCC won't 'bless' (acknowledge) or preside over a homosexual marriage, and seeing that it explicitly states its position on sexuality being between a man and women in holy matrimony (and that sexual relations must always be open to life)..that should indicate its stance. The RCC is pretty clear on it.

Um, yeah. I'm well-aware of the Church's teachings on it. I'm not asking what the Church believes now.

 

[gsa]

Personally, I do not think that there is any explicit evidence of tolerance. The closest you get to anything positive is Jonathan and David and maybe that centurion. Both examples are hardly clear and they definitely do not correspond with modern gay monogamy as an ideal. Unless adultery and sex slavery are on the table.

That said, the anti-gay case is overstated. There is actually far more support in the gospels for (religious) anti-Semitism than there is for homophobia, notwithstanding the fact that a mix of Hellenized Jews and Gentiles produced the writings. Tradition had to get over that bump for historical reasons as well.

The other issue you have is that the sexual categories are so different in that time and place that you cannot easily make one to one comparisons if you can make them at all. The Romans both expected male slaves and inferiors to submit to penetrative sex (as a legal and moral obligation) and detested the idea of a citizen submitting to it. Almost no thought at all was given to lesbianism because women basically existed in a subservient property role.

So I don't know what to tell you. I do think that the Catholic teachings are clear, however, and negative. The best traditionalist Catholic defense that I know of is Luke Timothy Johnson, who is very much a traditionalist but after dealing with his own daughter's lesbianism advanced several traditionalist arguments in favor of gay monogamy.