The Bible, homosexuality, and semantics

[Agnostic75]

If the Bible disapproves of same-sex behavior, that would include 1) same-sex behavior among people who usually prefer to have sex with members of the opposite sex, but occasionally experiment with same-sex behavior, 2) same-sex behavior among people who enjoy having sex somewhat equally with both sexes, and 3) people who enjoy having sex only with people of the same sex. So, there is no need to try to apply modern terms for sexual orientation, and sexual practices, to what the Bible apparently refers to as same-sex behavior among anyone of any sexual persuasion. In other words, apparently the Bible only approves of sex between members of the opposite sex, and only when they are married.

Because of the widespread historical persecution of people who practiced same-sex behavior, I would be surprised if Old Testament, and New Testament writers did not disapprove of all same-sex sexual behavior.

 

[Sleeppy]

How could they approve it? The entire society was based on the one type of marriage. Two people, that are male and female. No lust. No sex before marriage. No adultery; physically or mentally. I don't see any room for them, beyond abstinence.

 

[Awoon]

Same sex activity in the Bible is simply called Unclean. Certain animals were and are still called Unclean. The Bible only applies to those that give the Bible authority over their lives.

 

[captainbryce]

If the Bible disapproves of same-sex behavior, that would include 1) same-sex behavior among people who usually prefer to have sex with members of the opposite sex, but occasionally experiment with same-sex behavior, 2) same-sex behavior among people who enjoy having sex somewhat equally with both sexes, and 3) people who enjoy having sex only with people of the same sex. So, there is no need to try to apply modern terms for sexual orientation, and sexual practices, to what the Bible apparently refers to as same-sex behavior among anyone of any sexual persuasion. In other words, apparently the Bible only approves of sex between members of the opposite sex, and only when they are married.

To what scripture are you basing this opinion on exactly? Because I think this is where you go from what the bible actually says, to your interpretation of it. So instead of presuming what "the bible" approves of, why don't you point out a specific scripture that you think justifies your opinion, so we can evaluate objectively whether your interpretation is in fact applicable.

Because of the widespread historical persecution of people who practiced same-sex behavior, I would be surprised if Old Testament, and New Testament writers did not disapprove of all same-sex sexual behavior.

You're entitled to that opinion, but opinion is not fact. In order to make a claim against the bible, you have to base that claim on actual scripture, not on the "historical persecution" of individuals.

 

[Question_love_act]

It's not about particular verses of the Bible, but of the culture's understanding of what we now call "homosexuality".

In Biblical times and in Semitic culture, there was no such thing as "sexual orientation". Only sexual behavior.

For more information read Homosexuality and the Bible by Rev. Wink, available online:
http://abouthomosexuality.com/wink-text-only.pdf

Just like Agnostic75 explained, there is no doubt that same-sex sexual contact was prohibited. However, the reasons why it was condemned are different than the ones we use today.

For example, I doubt all Christians today refrain from masturbating (though some extremist do, but that's another topic). However, in Semitic times, it was considered a murder because you "waste" sperm for non-reproductive purposes. Same logic was applied to homosexual acts.

 

[Question_love_act]

No adultery; physically or mentally.

In fact, homosexuality was considered unclean specifically because it was aldultery. Because it was unconceivable that someone wold "only" have same-sex sexual behavior.

The conception of "sexual orientation" was not the same as today so Romans 1 was concerning what we would call "heterosexuals" today.

 

[Agnostic75]

In fact, homosexuality was considered unclean specifically because it was aldultery. Because it was unconceivable that someone would "only" have same-sex sexual behavior.

The conception of "sexual orientation" was not the same as today so Romans 1 was concerning what we would call "heterosexuals" today.

It absolutely was not inconceivable that some would only have same-sex sexual behavior since ancient people who exclusively had same-sex behavior were well aware of it, and surely many of them told family members and close friends about it.

Obviously, exclusively same-sex behavior in ancient times was not nearly as well-known as it is today, but it was not inconceivable. If only 1% of humans had always exclusively practiced same-sex behavior, that is a whole lot of people who knew that they had exclusively same-sex behavior, and that does not include everyone who they told about it.

There is a difference between the "concept" of exclusively same-sex behavior, and the existence of the "term" exclusively same-sex behavior. A concept can easily exist even though a term has not yet been made up for it.

 

[captainbryce]

It's not about particular verses of the Bible, but of the culture's understanding of what we now call "homosexuality".

That's not the issue at all. This was the OP's statement: "In other words, apparently the Bible only approves of sex between members of the opposite sex, and only when they are married." This is a conclusion the OP draws based on either HIS interpretation of biblical scripture, or his evaluation of how other Christians have interpreted it in the past. But his conclusion isn't necessarily "apparent" to everyone! If he is going to make a claim of what the bible apparently approves of or not, he should at least be able to support that claim via scripture, otherwise there is no validity to anything else that follows in his post. His entire argument depends on "the bible" (a collection of 66 books, written by over 40 people, over a period of 1600 years) actually taking one collective stance on the issue of homosexuality, a topic that as you just pointed out wasn't even understood when the bible was written.

Just like Agnostic75 explained, there is no doubt that same-sex sexual contact was prohibited. However, the reasons why it was condemned are different than the ones we use today.

My question for him is, Condemned by WHOM, and for what reasons? Because that is important for the sake of context whenever you make such claims.

For example, I doubt all Christians today refrain from masturbating (though some extremist do, but that's another topic). However, in Semitic times, it was considered a murder because you "waste" sperm for non-reproductive purposes. Same logic was applied to homosexual acts.

Are you saying that homosexual acts was considered a form of "murder"?

 

[captainbryce]

In fact, homosexuality was considered unclean specifically because it was aldultery. Because it was unconceivable that someone wold "only" have same-sex sexual behavior.

What scripture are you basing this on exactly?

 

[Skwim]

Because of the widespread historical persecution of people who practiced same-sex behavior, I would be surprised if Old Testament, and New Testament writers did not disapprove of all same-sex sexual behavior.

Well, the Old Testament certainly doesn't condone it.

Leviticus 18:22 (NLT)
22 “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.

Leviticus 20:13 (NLT)
13 “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.
​

Nor does the New Testament

Romans 1:26-27 (NLT)
26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NLT)
9 Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.

1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NLT)
9 For the law was not intended for people who do what is right. It is for people who are lawless and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful, who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who kill their father or mother or commit other murders. 10 The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders,[a] liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching.

​

So, it appears that the good Bible-believing Christian should condemn homosexual sex, and perhaps even those who practice it.

 

[captainbryce]

So, it appears that the good Bible-believing Christian should condemn homosexual sex, and perhaps even those who practice it.

Not really. Sometimes what it may "appear" to novice eyes may not actually be what is true to seasoned eyes.

 

[sojourner]

To the ancient sensibility, homosexual activity was not an expression of love, or even particularly of desire. It was always one of lust, or of ritual activity. There are several reasons why sexual contact of these types are prohibited. None of them (to the ancient mind) had anything to do with anything approaching normal sexual relations. it really had more to do with cultural taboo and purity codes than it did any moral infringement.

 

[Skwim]

Not really.

So, even though the Bible clearly condemns homosexual acts you don't feel it necessary to do the same. I'm curious as to what standard you use in picking those Biblical practices to follow and those to ignore. Care to clue us in?

Sometimes what it may "appear" to novice eyes may not actually be what is true to seasoned eyes.

If you're intimating this is true in this case, just what is the truth to "seasoned eyes"?

 

[Skwim]

To the ancient sensibility, homosexual activity was not an expression of love, or even particularly of desire.. It was always one of lust, or of ritual activity.

And what do you think lust is?

lust (l

st)n.1. Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.
2. a. An overwhelming desire or craving
​

There are several reasons why sexual contact of these types are prohibited. None of them (to the ancient mind) had anything to do with anything approaching normal sexual relations. it really had more to do with cultural taboo and purity codes than it did any moral infringement.

FYI, taboos are almost always the result moral judgments.

Do you honestly think the Bible doesn't consider homosexual acts to be immoral?

Leviticus 18:22 (NLT)
22 “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.

Leviticus 20:13 (NLT)
13 “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.
​

If you still have doubts, simply Google "the Bible and the immorality of homosexuality."

 

[sojourner]

And what do you think lust is?

"unreasonable" or "unbalanced" desire. I'm denoting a difference between "desire" and "lust." Lust is more a physical reaction. Desire is more a spiritual yearning.

FYI, taboos are almost always the result moral judgments.

In this case, I'm referring to the embodiment of the concepts of honor and shame within sexual identity, not sexual orientation. Men embody honor in that culture; women embody shame. For a man to act like a woman -- that is, bend over and take it... -- is to act shamefully. It's a cultural taboo.

Do you honestly think the Bible doesn't consider homosexual acts to be immoral?

See above. I was speaking of "morality" in the sense of spiritual purity, not socio-cultural mores.

 

[Skwim]

"unreasonable" or "unbalanced" desire. I'm denoting a difference between "desire" and "lust." Lust is more a physical reaction. Desire is more a spiritual yearning.

In this case, I'm referring to the embodiment of the concepts of honor and shame within sexual identity, not sexual orientation. Men embody honor in that culture; women embody shame. For a man to act like a woman -- that is, bend over and take it... -- is to act shamefully. It's a cultural taboo.

See above. I was speaking of "morality" in the sense of spiritual purity, not socio-cultural mores.

I suggest that in the future when you use words with non-standard meanings that you make note of it. Also, what is the morality of spiritual purity?

 

[sojourner]

I suggest that in the future when you use words with non-standard meanings that you make note of it. Also, what is the morality of spiritual purity?

I'm not sure what you're asking here.
To me, "morality" is a perceived purity -- of thought, behavior, attitude -- in this case, it's a purity predicated upon spiritual standards, that is, the state of the person's spiritual health. What I'm saying is that I don't think that the injunctions speak of an impurity with regard to a person's spiritual state of being, but with regard to a person's socio-cultural compliance.

 

[ZooGirl02]

If the Bible disapproves of same-sex behavior, that would include 1) same-sex behavior among people who usually prefer to have sex with members of the opposite sex, but occasionally experiment with same-sex behavior, 2) same-sex behavior among people who enjoy having sex somewhat equally with both sexes, and 3) people who enjoy having sex only with people of the same sex. So, there is no need to try to apply modern terms for sexual orientation, and sexual practices, to what the Bible apparently refers to as same-sex behavior among anyone of any sexual persuasion. In other words, apparently the Bible only approves of sex between members of the opposite sex, and only when they are married.

Because of the widespread historical persecution of people who practiced same-sex behavior, I would be surprised if Old Testament, and New Testament writers did not disapprove of all same-sex sexual behavior.

I believe that as you said in your first paragraph the Bible only condones sexual relations between two people of the opposite sex. That would obviously exclude homosexual sexual relations of all kinds.

Also, this doesn't have to do with the Bible but it shows that the early Church Fathers which included people who were taught by the disciples of Jesus who walked with Him while He walked on earth and who themselves were taught by Jesus believed that same sex sexual behavior is and was wrong.

Early Teachings on Homosexuality | Catholic Answers

The above is what I believe on the issue.

 

[Skwim]

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

Lust: is more a physical reaction.
Desire: is more a spiritual yearning.
Morality: "morality" in the sense of spiritual purity,
​

These aren't standard definitions. So, when you use them in this fashion, without indicating these irregular meanings, the reader is most likely to miss your point.

To me, "morality" is a perceived purity -- of thought, behavior, attitude -- in this case, it's a purity predicated upon spiritual standards, that is, the state of the person's spiritual health. What I'm saying is that I don't think that the injunctions speak of an impurity with regard to a person's spiritual state of being, but with regard to a person's socio-cultural compliance.

And of what use is predicating morality on spiritual standards? Particularly when it would seem to be nigh impossible to acuratly judge a person's spiritual state of being.

 

[sojourner]

And of what use is predicating morality on spiritual standards? Particularly when it would seem to be nigh impossible to acuratly judge a person's spiritual state of being.

I don't know. But that's what Levitican Law seems to do, that is, it seems to predicate morality based on a spiritual standard of "keeping the Law."