• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is pro-gay Christianity really a tenable position?

Tumah

Veteran Member
I am not talking about taboo/to'evah however, I am talking about the idiomatic expressions related to zachar/isha and the beddings/layings of a female. And that does only appear once really, in the prohibition section and the penalty section, which is extended to active and passive partners.
I see what you are saying. I thought you were bringing it for the first part.
I know what rabbinic tradition teaches but secular scholars are not bound by it and reject divine authorship as a rule.
Yes, I understand that. They are very early translators, more so Onkelos. I was only bringing it to show that this translations has been around awhile.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
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.
There's every evidence that the texts were interpreted differently. Ancients couldn't be tolerant of something they didn't know existed. For them, homosexuality didn't exist. The only thing that existed was the act, which they were against, for several cultural reasons. First, in the ancient Judaic reasoning, one didn't "waste" one's "seed." Homosexual acts were a waste of seed. Second, there was the whole sexually-embodied shame/honor thing. For a man to "take it like a woman" was to bring female shame into the male honor world.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I cannot fathom why a modern queer would join, yet again, a religious organization that actively discriminates against them.
I'd stay a Satanist or a pagan if I felt the need to be a theist of some sort. At least they don't revere a book that teaches I should be punished severely for not being a heteronorm guy.
Tom
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Fantastic!

Are you going to change the world by telling St. Frankenstein how he should conduct his personal inquiry? It's a simple thread asking for references and sources for his position. He wasn't trying to get into schisms between good, better, and best gay arguments.

Are you saying I can't criticize his approach? Let me be clear. Being gay has nothing to do with religion. Religion has no basis to judge the social and ethical attributes of homosexuality.

So to find sources of religion whether currently or in the past to satisfy one's justification of being religiously gay is utterly wrong and misleading. Gay is gay. There's no spin on this.

Is that a fair response and criticism to such rhetoric. If he's going to post on this forums in the debate section then expect to get responses that aren't favorable to any position not just his.

If you disagree with my assertion then I welcome your response.
 

gsa

Well-Known Member
There's every evidence that the texts were interpreted differently. Ancients couldn't be tolerant of something they didn't know existed. For them, homosexuality didn't exist. The only thing that existed was the act, which they were against, for several cultural reasons. First, in the ancient Judaic reasoning, one didn't "waste" one's "seed." Homosexual acts were a waste of seed. Second, there was the whole sexually-embodied shame/honor thing. For a man to "take it like a woman" was to bring female shame into the male honor world.

I am not sure we actually know what the basis for the prohibition is, because it is certainly not clear that wasting semen was regarded as a major violation. There are some early rabbinic interpretations to that effect from what I understand, but that is thousands of years after the account, and seemingly inconsistent with other descriptions in the Tanakh.

The other problem is that the prohibition on homosexuality also appears to apply to the active partner. But there's no real shame in that in the surrounding environs.

A possible clue is in the unique idiomatic nature of the prohibition. It is quite possible that the prohibition was intended to apply to relations between Israelites only, and to circumscribe one particular act associated with loss of status. It is possible that the prohibition was intended to apply to people only with certain ritual roles. Many things are possible. We just don't know.

But we do know what the tradition is at the doctrinal level, and that it is uniformly negative until the modern era. I disagree with Boswell's hopeful interpretations as signaling anything other than possible practical tolerance as opposed to doctrinal tolerance. There is also evidence that Jewish zealots had sex with each other during the various violent rebellions against Rome, if Josephus is to be believed. Now since Josephus was a traitor and hated Zealots, maybe he should be taken with a grain of salt, but there could be an element of truth there, somewhat similar to what we see in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other intensely homophobic societies that nevertheless institutionalize homosexuality at a de facto but not de jure level.

All of which signifies nothing to me. These people were savages that believed leprosy was caused by demons. We take them seriously at our own peril.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I cannot fathom why a modern queer would join, yet again, a religious organization that actively discriminates against them.
I'd stay a Satanist or a pagan if I felt the need to be a theist of some sort. At least they don't revere a book that teaches I should be punished severely for not being a heteronorm guy.
Tom
I can think of a reason. Some people just feel like they are out of control or have trouble making decisions. Its why some young people join the military, and some young people often feel like they are rushed into decisions. They go to college just to avoid making a career decision for just a little longer.

There is a lot of pain involved in disagreeing with people, too. Some people might just want to stop having to disagree with everybody, so they might go looking for someone to talk them into it. The desire to be like everybody else and be one of the group is a strong desire.
 

Kuzcotopia

If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
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 think one problem you may run into with the inquiry is that there may have been some regional differences in how the issue was interpreted. With mass communication and high literacy rates, we take it for granted what the issue was, and we easily align to common interpretations based on media, etc.

It's possible that a particular region may have had a permissive view of the issue, while others on the other side of a geographic impediment may have had a stricter view.

Since this is speculation, and we may not have evidence from every region and time, I'm not sure how you would ever get a very definitive answer. I think the interpretation may have been quite relative in those days without the kinds of media reinforcement we have today.

In the beginnings of the church, it may have taken months for actual news to spread across a region, let alone interpretations about specific cultural issues. Ideas moved a lot slower then.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
I cannot fathom why a modern queer would join, yet again, a religious organization that actively discriminates against them.
I'd stay a Satanist or a pagan if I felt the need to be a theist of some sort. At least they don't revere a book that teaches I should be punished severely for not being a heteronorm guy.
Tom
I don't understand why a person would base their religious identity around their sexual orientation.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
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 wish I could give you an educated answer. It seems kind of common sense to me.

Homosexuality, in the bible, is defined by immoral and lust oriented acts between the same gender. There is no mention of orientation (though straightness seemed implied by every person in the bible who had a husband or wife. Also implied by how God created humans. And directly seen by what humans can naturally do if we went strictly by actions.)

Im sure there are many people who "practiced" homosexuality. None of which I have yet read in scripture implies or states that two men or two women can consumate their love by imtimacy without being married. Scripture is silent in orientation.. Every anti homosexual quote is based on lust.

Bacically, homosexuals in honest commited relationships are not homosexuals if we went on biblical definitions alone.
 

gsa

Well-Known Member
I don't understand why a person would base their religious identity around their sexual orientation.

I can.

You would disagree with the reasoning behind it because you like traditional religion, but basically why would anyone sacrifice a good life, including a fulfilling sexual and romantic life, for something that seems likely to be false? We are only guaranteed one life. I would never sacrifice a good life for an afterlife that has very little in the way of reasonable evidence to support it.

So I can understand why people would religion shop when faced with a confrontation. They find solace in it. But ultimately, it is kind of the inverse of Pascal's wager: Why would you waste your life on something that you know is probably not true? Particularly when it conflicts with your own subjective experience of your sexuality?
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
I can.

You would disagree with the reasoning behind it because you like traditional religion, but basically why would anyone sacrifice a good life, including a fulfilling sexual and romantic life, for something that seems likely to be false? We are only guaranteed one life. I would never sacrifice a good life for an afterlife that has very little in the way of reasonable evidence to support it.

So I can understand why people would religion shop when faced with a confrontation. They find solace in it. But ultimately, it is kind of the inverse of Pascal's wager: Why would you waste your life on something that you know is probably not true? Particularly when it conflicts with your own subjective experience of your sexuality?
Yeah, I can understand that point of view. I guess since I've never really had sex or had a relationship, that it doesn't really matter much to me anymore. I'm used to being alone even though at times I really wish I had someone.
 

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
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.

To be honest, if "God's Word" can be so easily misinterpreted by us silly hoomuns, then why bother getting stuck into scripture so much?
I guess one can be a pro-gay Christian, just do what everyone else does with scripture: cherry-pick or leave the religion. :)

I have gay friends who indentify as Christian, and personally I don't know why they decide to be part of a faith that has been responsible for so much Homophobia over the world..... but it's their call.

Just my two cents (or pence).
 

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
I can.

You would disagree with the reasoning behind it because you like traditional religion, but basically why would anyone sacrifice a good life, including a fulfilling sexual and romantic life, for something that seems likely to be false? We are only guaranteed one life. I would never sacrifice a good life for an afterlife that has very little in the way of reasonable evidence to support it.

So I can understand why people would religion shop when faced with a confrontation. They find solace in it. But ultimately, it is kind of the inverse of Pascal's wager: Why would you waste your life on something that you know is probably not true? Particularly when it conflicts with your own subjective experience of your sexuality?

Very well put.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I am not sure we actually know what the basis for the prohibition is, because it is certainly not clear that wasting semen was regarded as a major violation. There are some early rabbinic interpretations to that effect from what I understand, but that is thousands of years after the account, and seemingly inconsistent with other descriptions in the Tanakh.

The other problem is that the prohibition on homosexuality also appears to apply to the active partner. But there's no real shame in that in the surrounding environs.

A possible clue is in the unique idiomatic nature of the prohibition. It is quite possible that the prohibition was intended to apply to relations between Israelites only, and to circumscribe one particular act associated with loss of status. It is possible that the prohibition was intended to apply to people only with certain ritual roles. Many things are possible. We just don't know.

But we do know what the tradition is at the doctrinal level, and that it is uniformly negative until the modern era. I disagree with Boswell's hopeful interpretations as signaling anything other than possible practical tolerance as opposed to doctrinal tolerance. There is also evidence that Jewish zealots had sex with each other during the various violent rebellions against Rome, if Josephus is to be believed. Now since Josephus was a traitor and hated Zealots, maybe he should be taken with a grain of salt, but there could be an element of truth there, somewhat similar to what we see in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other intensely homophobic societies that nevertheless institutionalize homosexuality at a de facto but not de jure level.

All of which signifies nothing to me. These people were savages that believed leprosy was caused by demons. We take them seriously at our own peril.
I don't think the ancients were nearly as obsessed with or draconian about homosexuality as we are.
 

gsa

Well-Known Member
I don't think the ancients were nearly as obsessed with or draconian about homosexuality as we are.

With the possible exception of some Semitic groups, I agree. But then, those are the groups that gave us our two major Abrahamic religions.
 

Vishvavajra

Active Member
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?
The main problem with the view that the Bible is anti-homosexuality is that in ancient times there wasn't a concept of homosexuality as we understand it. The idea of sexual orientation is a modern one; back then there were just different kinds of sex acts, and they were not classified according to "gay" and "straight." In fact the main classification was according to "active" and "passive" roles. For a male to take the passive role was generally frowned upon, for reasons that range from over-the-top natural-law essentialism to outright medical quackery. None of those reasons or attitudes hold up today. Nor did anybody ever have a problem with a male taking the active role with another male. What mattered was not whom you were with but that you were performing the expected role.

Another problem is that certain acts, such as pederasty and the prostitution of citizens, had social implications beyond the sex acts themselves. To sexually abuse a free person in the manner of a slave would be wrong for reasons entirely separate from the sexual aspect, yet it's the sexual aspect that modern people fixate on. That's partly because modern people are sex-obsessed, and partly because they tend to be oblivious to the social dynamics involved, which seldom have any analogs in our societies today.

Basically, this whole question comes from taking modern ideas about sexuality and projecting them onto antiquity, when the attitudes and assumptions and social structures were radically different (and sometimes not terribly civilized).

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.
Nonsense. Why would it be sinful? What definition of "sinful" are we working from here? I can't accept that something can be sinful for entirely arbitrary reasons. If there's no demonstrable harm, how can it be sinful? If it's a manifestation of Love, how can it be sinful? If we can't explain it beyond "I read it in a book somewhere," then we can't hope to understand the truth of the matter.
 

Vishvavajra

Active Member
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.
All indications are that Jews and Greeks didn't actually differ significantly in this regard. The only notable difference is that pre-Hellenistic Jews were polygamous whereas Greeks were always monogamous in the strict sense (both cultures practiced concubinage and continued to do so), and Greeks had certain forms of pederasty that were acceptable in certain contexts. By the Hellenistic period even those differences had mostly disappeared, leaving the sexual mores functionally identical.

There was far less substantial difference between the two cultures to begin with than most people would assume. Even their ideas about ritual purity were largely similar; they just happened to have different specific rituals and taboos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gsa
Top