Is pro-gay Christianity really a tenable position?

[jonathan180iq]

Thank you. That would be great.

No problem.

The Codex Sinaiticus only has the last verse of Lev 20. Despite the fact that it's in really good shape, the two verses that I think matter the most to your inquiry aren't there.
Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Leviticus |

The Dead Sea Scrolls, similarly, only have a few passages from Leviticus, but not what you're looking for.
Dead Sea Scrolls -- Leviticus

THE QUMRAN LIBRARY: SCROLLS: Scrolls from the Dead Sea (Library of Congress Exhibition)

The Dead Sea Scrolls - Browse Manuscripts

I'm still digging

 

[Jainarayan]

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

But what's the point? You believe what you believe, or not. The Church is infallible only when the Pope speaks ex cathedra. To my knowledge he has never spoken ex cathedra on homosexuality or gay marriage. Therefore I have to conclude that until such time, the Church may very well be wrong.

 

[columbus]

Jesus did it too.

One of my favorite metamessages from the teachings attributed to Jesus is "Don't put too much faith in tradition and scripture".
Tom

 

[Jainarayan]

The closest you get to anything positive is Jonathan and David

In spite of what many gays (want to) believe, I think David and Jonathan had a very intense 'bromance', but nothing more.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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.

Thanks. I'll look into what Johnson has to say about it.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Greek Septuagint - Wiki English Translation - Leviticus 18

Wiki Greek-English Lexicon - ἀρσενοκοίτης - sodomite (n.)

The Septuagint Bible Online

Any help from @Vishvavajra & @sojourner ?

 

[lovemuffin]

What gsa said matches my impression from what I've read. If you haven't heard of it, there's an interesting ritual that existed in Christianity that some people think seems suspiciously like gay unions called adelphopoiesis (brother making). I don't have much of an idea of how reasonable that supposition is. I haven't read Boswell's book. It's interesting though.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think the OP is addressing what is ultimately not an important matter.

Even if we knew for a fact that the traditional views of Christianity are opposed to homosexualism as a matter of course (and I don't think that is the case), that is not and should not be any more binding than the equally traditional acceptance of slavery.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think the OP is addressing what is ultimately not an important matter.

Even if we knew for a fact that the traditional views of Christianity are opposed to homosexualism as a matter of course (and I don't think that is the case), that is not and should not be any more binding than the equally traditional acceptance of slavery.

Speak for yourself! It's not important to you because you're not a Christian who is bisexual and trying to figure out the truth of the matter. So this is a very important topic to me and many others.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What gsa said matches my impression from what I've read. If you haven't heard of it, there's an interesting ritual that existed in Christianity that some people think seems suspiciously like gay unions called adelphopoiesis (brother making). I don't have much of an idea of how reasonable that supposition is. I haven't read Boswell's book. It's interesting though.

Yes, I have heard of that. Not sure what to make of it.

 

[lovemuffin]

I think what Luis means is that if modern Christians can reject slavery and not feel any particular discomfort that they are doing an injustice to the Bible or to Christian tradition, than perhaps they could also accept homosexuality in the same way. It's the same point as gsa was making about anti-semitism. I think it's a reasonable point, although it's true that biblical support for slavery or in justification of anti-semitism are perhaps less direct (not involving direct injunctions) than the few verses about homosexuality, although at least with the NT I think gsa is right that the reference is not really exactly a prohibition on general homosexuality, it addresses sexual categories and behavior that don't really have a modern analogue.

That said, I think the truth is that as far as the intent of the authors of the texts, they were almost certainly against homosexuality in general, even if the way we talk about it today is different. I'm not sure there' s a way around that if you also take their words to be immutable and infallible proclamations of the Divine will. There's definitely some room to make nuanced arguments about interpretations of words, but probably not enough to think that they were accepting of homosexuality, giving the verses entirely technical exegeses.

 

[suncowiam]

Speak for yourself! It's not important to you because you're not a Christian who is bisexual and trying to figure out the truth of the matter. So this is a very important topic to me and many others.

You based your OP on text and scripture. If purely on that, then you are unfortunately on the wrong side of the fence with a pro-gay/trans stance.

The majority of Christians believe this way and they use the same scripture to "prove" it. You don't have an argument to disprove them other then to prove that the source is wrong or their translation is wrong.

Which is it you want to do here?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You based your OP on text and scripture. If purely on that, then you are unfortunately on the wrong side of the fence with a pro-gay/trans stance.

The majority of Christians believe this way and they use the same scripture to "prove" it. You don't have an argument to disprove them other then to prove that the source is wrong or their translation is wrong.

Which is it you want to do here?

Transsexualism has nothing to do with homosexuality or sexual orientation. That's an entirely different topic.

This topic has nothing to do with what the majority of Christians believe now, but what ancient Jews and Christians believed about it.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'm pretty sure he just wants to know what the original manuscripts and traditions actually say.
He's just looking for knowledge beyond reasonable doubt.

Cut him some slack.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm pretty sure he just wants to know what the original manuscripts and traditions actually say.
He's just looking for knowledge beyond reasonable doubt.

Cut him some slack.

Yes, exactly. That's exactly the point of this thread.

 

[Norman]

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.

Norman: Hi Saint Frankenstein, Jesus is quoting from Genesis. I don't know if this will answer your question, but in my opinion Jesus set the record straight that marriage is between one man and one woman. Matthew 19:3 ¶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? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them‍ at the beginning made them male and female, 5 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? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined‍ together, let not man put asunder.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

Jewish men are forbidden a specific sexual item, but they also have to endure circumcision. Christians don't have to be circumcised. That changes everything. If you are going to call yourself messianic but not get circumcised than you are now walking on water. There is no boat beneath you, no specific path to trod. However there is a caveat to that wonderful life of freedom...

If you are Christian you have decided that rules like "Do not taste. Do not touch." have the appearance of righteousness but "lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence" (NIV 2 Corinth 2:23), however you have decided to avoid sensual indulgence! Its not 'Celebate' but 'Celebrate', and yet you don't have time for any. You have renounced sensual indulgence. It is an extreme, extreme thing to do. You may as well be a Buddhist by yourself in a cave or passing out soup. You are free, but your time is now holy time all the time. So...naturally people might get the impression that you are asexual or that you find sex disgusting, but that is not really what you are about. You simply don't have time for sensual indulgence. Congratulations on your new way of life.

However...people don't like the idea that they are supposed to give up indulgence. It would mean no TV, no sports, no coffee, no getting drunk, no pleasant vacation days, no hoarding money and all kinds of other things. It would basically mean work, work all the time. There are always poor people to help and always someone is in trouble of some kind, so there is no justification to sit around doing nothing. Instead of realizing that terrible truth, people would rather make up new rules. They may watch TV, but no homo-sex. They may get filthy stinking rich but no homo-sex. They may sit around while the world goes to waste as long as they aren't cutting up little children or something they call 'Bad'. As long as they don't do XYZ (whatever is easy for them not do do) then they are gold and can just do nothing! That's how people think.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Jewish men are forbidden a specific sexual item, but they also have to endure circumcision. Christians don't have to be circumcised. That changes everything. If you are going to call yourself messianic but not get circumcised than you are now walking on water. There is no boat beneath you, no specific path to trod. However there is a caveat to that wonderful life of freedom...

If you are Christian you have decided that rules like "Do not taste. Do not touch." have the appearance of righteousness but "lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence" (NIV 2 Corinth 2:23), however you have decided to avoid sensual indulgence! Its not 'Celebate' but 'Celebrate', and yet you don't have time for any. You have renounced sensual indulgence. It is an extreme, extreme thing to do. You may as well be a Buddhist by yourself in a cave or passing out soup. You are free, but your time is now holy time all the time. So...naturally people might get the impression that you are asexual or that you find sex disgusting, but that is not really what you are about. You simply don't have time for sensual indulgence. Congratulations on your new way of life.

However...people don't like the idea that they are supposed to give up indulgence. It would mean no TV, no sports, no coffee, no getting drunk, no pleasant vacation days, no hoarding money and all kinds of other things. It would basically mean work, work all the time. There are always poor people to help and always someone is in trouble of some kind, so there is no justification to sit around doing nothing. Instead of realizing that terrible truth, people would rather make up new rules. They may watch TV, but no homo-sex. They may get filthy stinking rich but no homo-sex. They may sit around while the world goes to waste as long as they aren't cutting up little children or something they call 'Bad'. As long as they don't do XYZ (whatever is easy for them) then they are gold! That's how people think.

Um...what? This rant doesn't belong in this thread.

 

[Nietzsche]

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.

The word commonly translated as "sodomy" in the New Testament(and even the OT, I believe) refers to more than just anal sex. It seems to refer, rather, to orgies involving multiple people and animals. So there's an argument to be made that they weren't talking about sodomy at all.

In a broader view, homosexuality as we know it is a relatively modern thing. Homosexuality is not just sexual attraction to those of the same sex, but emotional & other such relationship with them. That's something that only recently has been possible, due to the nature of life before the 20th century. You needed kids to work the land, after all.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Um...what? This rant doesn't belong in this thread.

I don't know why it appears to be a rant to you.