The Bible, homosexuality, and semantics

[Question_love_act]

What scripture are you basing this on exactly?

I stated my reference above:
http://abouthomosexuality.com/wink-text-only.pdf
see page 2.

Since semen was considered life, wasting it was indeed seen as murder.

I do not mean by that that we must that view today. Au contraire, we have to recognize that what they describe as "homosexuality" is not our view of the non-changing, intrinsic and consenting sexual relation between consisting adults or youths of the same sex.

 

[Question_love_act]

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.

True. I have exaggerated my claim. It was indeed not unconceivable, but not well-know in indeed a better way to word it.

 

[Question_love_act]

To the ancient sensibility, homosexual activity was not an expression of love, or even particularly of desire.

Pretty much in contrast to our conception today. Which is why we must consider our actual conception when we interpret a Scripture. We do it for almost every part of the Bible, but it seems that on this particular topic, the sensibility of many Church circles interferes with reasonable interpretation.

Unfortunately, there is a double standard in the interpretation of passages regarding homosexuality versus interpretation of other sexual activity in the Bible (masturbation, nudity, menstruation, men and women's hair length, etc.). That why I think it's important to actually know the context and conception of sexuality of the era for a reasonable interpretation in our actual world.

I have to admit I know don't the subtle differences between lust and desire, but one thing is for sure : homosexuality was not defined the same way in Biblical times as it is today. Same for any other sexual activity like mentioned above.

 

[sojourner]

Pretty much in contrast to our conception today. Which is why we must consider our actual conception when we interpret a Scripture. We do it for almost every part of the Bible, but it seems that on this particular topic, the sensibility of many Church circles interferes with reasonable interpretation.

Unfortunately, there is a double standard in the interpretation of passages regarding homosexuality versus interpretation of other sexual activity in the Bible (masturbation, nudity, menstruation, men and women's hair length, etc.). That why I think it's important to actually know the context and conception of sexuality of the era for a reasonable interpretation in our actual world.

I have to admit I know don't the subtle differences between lust and desire, but one thing is for sure : homosexuality was not defined the same way in Biblical times as it is today. Same for any other sexual activity like mentioned above.

Yeah, it's a head scratcher. I don't know why homosexuality had to be chosen as the "OH, DEAR GOD!!" abomination du jour.

 

[Question_love_act]

I think it challenges the roles of men and women... That's what scares people. We humans want things to be predictable. I often hear that homosexuality is "complicated" because people (not everyone, fortunately, but still too much of a significant proportion) want to know who the "man" and the "woman" is in a same-sex couple. And when they are told that same-sex couples mostly do not follow their model, they get confused.

 

[Skwim]

Yeah, it's a head scratcher. I don't know why homosexuality had to be chosen as the "OH, DEAR GOD!!" abomination du jour.

It was a safe sin to condemn, because of all the possible sins it was the only one they could never see themselves involved in.

 

[captainbryce]

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?

It's very simple. I go off of how Jesus instructs Christians to judge, and by how Jesus tells Christians to behave towards other people. Because he is ultimately the "highest" authority. And I go off of the examples made by his apostles in the New Testament.

Romans 3:23
23 For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard.

1 John 1:8-10
8 If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth. 9 But if we confess our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all wickedness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling God a liar and showing that his word has no place in our hearts.

Matthew 7:1-5
“1 Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. 2 For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged. 3 “And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? 4 How can you think of saying to your friend, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.

John 8:4-9
4 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery.5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?” 6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust. 9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman.

I have yet to find the scripture that says my expectation as a proper Christian is to condemn what other people do. Perhaps you're aware of one of Jesus teachings that I'm not?

Saying that "the bible" condemns something is completely meaningless! The bible is not one all encompassing book that applies to everyone all the time. And only someone who is ignorant of scripture and without the Holy Spirit could possibly come to the conclusion that it is. The question we need to be asking ourselves when we read "the bible" is WHO in the bible is condemning something, under what circumstances is it being condemned, TO WHOM is this condemnation directed towards, and WHY? Only when those four questions are answered do you come away with anything of value that you can apply to your life. If you think that being a good Christian means following every instruction written in every book of the bible to the letter but without any regard for context, then you have completely missed the point and probably haven't read enough of the bible at all.

Christians are not bound to Old Testament laws. Any law that was given to the Israelites (Hebrews) in the time before the messiah has no bearing on how Christian gentiles should behave in the time after the messiah. So to bring up a law written in Leviticus as a model for how Christians should behave is ridiculous and only demonstrates ignorance. One, I'm not Jewish -- therefore no law written in the Old Testament EVER applied to me at all. Two, I'm bound by the new covenant in Jesus Christ. So to expect to be redeemed by the laws of Moses means that I have abandoned my Lord and Savior, and that I've been cut off from Christ. This is clearly taught in the New Testament.

Galatians 5:1
1 So Christ has truly set us free. Now make sure that you stay free, and don’t get tied up again in slavery to the law.

Galatians 5:4
4 For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God’s grace.

We use the OT as a guide because there is lots of history in it to draw on. There is also much wisdom in the way of Psalms and Proverbs. Wisdom such as this:

Now, since I'm not a Jew (I am a Gentile who is under the New Covenant in Christ), I don't have to concern myself with the laws of Moses. However, if I wanted use the OT as a guide for understanding how God views the actions of man, I need look no further than this.

Proverbs 6:16-19
16 There are six things the Lord hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
17 haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19 a false witness who pours out lies
and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

Logic dictates that if there are only 7 things that God HATES, and homosexuality is not on this list, but stirring up conflict in the community is, I probably shouldn't be stirring up conflict by condemning homosexuals. It seems to me that this would be a much greater sin. Do you disagree?

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

I'm not "intimating" anything. I'm flat out saying that based on the conclusions you've drawn, this clearly IS the case. There is no evidence that Jesus condemned homosexuality, and I personally believe that such a condemnation of homosexuals is something absent in the New Testament. I'm aware that there are several passages in the NT that are often used to condemn homosexual behavior, and I'd be happy to debate such scriptures with you if you'd like, but that's your call.

 

[captainbryce]

I stated my reference above:
http://abouthomosexuality.com/wink-text-only.pdf
see page 2.

Since semen was considered life, wasting it was indeed seen as murder.

I do not mean by that that we must that view today. Au contraire, we have to recognize that what they describe as "homosexuality" is not our view of the non-changing, intrinsic and consenting sexual relation between consisting adults or youths of the same sex.

In other words, it's NOT based on "scripture" at all, but on commentary by Walter Wink. Fair enough! That's all I was asking.

 

[Skwim]

It's very simple. I go off of how Jesus instructs Christians to judge, and by how Jesus tells Christians to behave towards other people. Because he is ultimately the "highest" authority. And I go off of the examples made by his apostles in the New Testament.

I have yet to find the scripture that says my expectation as a proper Christian is to condemn what other people do.

Well, the Apostle Paul is said to have written:

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.
​

Kind of a short rehash of god's treatment of those engaged in homosexual sex. However, in 1 Corinthians Paul puts a more contemporary spin on the subject, saying:

1 Corinthians 5:11-13
11 I meant that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer[j] yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Don’t even eat with such people. 12 It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. 13 God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, “You must remove the evil person from among you
​

I think that pretty well fits the definition of "condemn" in the context here:

con·demn [ kən dém ]
* consider somebody or something guilty: to judge that somebody or something is to blame for something

* say somebody or something is bad: to state that somebody or something is in some way wrong or unacceptable
​

1 Corinthians continues:

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.
​

And here Paul tells Timothy who the law is for and what actions are lawless.

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.
​

Think you're suppose to recognize such actions without condemning them? Without "consider[ing] somebody or something guilty," OR to "Say somebody or something is bad: to state that somebody or something is in some way wrong or unacceptable"?

I wouldn't think so. In view of the bad light in which they hold homosexual sex, putting it in with adultery, thievery, and prostitution Paul obviously condemns it and I would expect Jesus would have condemned it as well.

this clearly IS the case. There is no evidence that Jesus condemned homosexuality, and I personally believe that such a condemnation of homosexuals is something absent in the New Testament. I'm aware that there are several passages in the NT that are often used to condemn homosexual behavior, and I'd be happy to debate such scriptures with you if you'd like, but that's your call.

And I haven't said the Bible condemns homosexuality, have I? Only homosexual sex.

 

[sojourner]

It was a safe sin to condemn, because of all the possible sins it was the only one they could never see themselves involved in.

Wow. ^^This^^. Heterosexuals could never be guilty of homosexuality. Therefore, safe to judge, because that "log" (no pun intended) could never exist in their own eye.

 

[Question_love_act]

In other words, it's NOT based on "scripture" at all, but on commentary by Walter Wink. Fair enough! That's all I was asking.

Look, scripture has to be interpreted in some way. And knowing the culture and the context is essential to understanding some parts of the Bible we simply can't understand by just reading if out of context. That's what eugenics are for.

Again, don't misunderstand me. I did say above that the "Bible condemns same-sex sexual contact" (NOT "homosexuality" as we understand it today). I recognized - and still do - that my claim was exaggerated. I should have said "Levictus" or "Romans" instead of "The Bible". Because indeed, generally, the Bible is more about accepting others and not judging. As you mentioned, Jesus did not speak against same-sex sexual contact and in fact I would hypothesize he would not judge the people who practiced it, just like he did with the Samaritan woman.

To be clear again: the fact that I stated that some parts of the Bible do not encourage same-sex sexual contact does not mean I say that we should condemn homosexuality today. It's the complete opposite. Since in Biblical times the conception of homosexuality was not in any way alike to ours today (that applies to both conservative and liberal Christians or Jews), we should not condemn homosexuality today.

I sincerely hope that my point is more clear. There's enough homophobia today, particularly coming from people who call themselves spiritual, I don't want to be mistakenly associated with them.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

First Yes then No. Originally No but lately Yes. The modern translated versions of the Bible condemn homosexuality, but the writers of the original languages probably didn't. Things have changed a lot. I should mention that lately many people are returning to the original language in an attempt to reassert reality upon that particular topic.

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.

Because homosexuals are generally persecuted in all civilizations everywhere from time to time, and because the modern translations were made in some very screwed up times its very likely that the OT and NT you mention were translated with a bias against them, but I don't think that homosexuals were at the time of writing out of favor with God and man. They fell out of favor sometime before the modern translations. Its fair to say the 'Bible' as it is in English is opposed, but the Bible as Jesus read it or as Paul appended probably wasn't. I say this will consideration for the scripture verses that Skwim brought up, that with study its not too hard to put them into a more historical perspective, and that perspective disentangles homosexuals from disfavor.

For some its a matter of expediency to debunk the Bible and the Christian movements for the sake of homosexuals. Others prefer that Christians return to a historical view and help Christianity to be more compatible with nature. Many Christians prefer to remain with the modern translations and hold their ground. That is why the answer to the question is both Yes and No.

 

[captainbryce]

Look, scripture has to be interpreted in some way. And knowing the culture and the context is essential to understanding some parts of the Bible we simply can't understand by just reading if out of context. That's what eugenics are for.

Again, don't misunderstand me. I did say above that the "Bible condemns same-sex sexual contact" (NOT "homosexuality" as we understand it today). I recognized - and still do - that my claim was exaggerated. I should have said "Levictus" or "Romans" instead of "The Bible". Because indeed, generally, the Bible is more about accepting others and not judging. As you mentioned, Jesus did not speak against same-sex sexual contact and in fact I would hypothesize he would not judge the people who practiced it, just like he did with the Samaritan woman.

To be clear again: the fact that I stated that some parts of the Bible do not encourage same-sex sexual contact does not mean I say that we should condemn homosexuality today. It's the complete opposite. Since in Biblical times the conception of homosexuality was not in any way alike to ours today (that applies to both conservative and liberal Christians or Jews), we should not condemn homosexuality today.

I sincerely hope that my point is more clear. There's enough homophobia today, particularly coming from people who call themselves spiritual, I don't want to be mistakenly associated with them.

So far, I am not disagreeing with ANYTHING you've said here.

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

I simply wanted to know whether or not the statement you made was actually "stated somewhere in the bible", "extrapolated from something else the bible says", "someone else's interpretation of what the bible says", "an idea drawn from extra-biblical sources", or "just made up altogether". And you've provided me with the answer to that question. Thank you!

 

[captainbryce]

Kind of a short rehash of god's treatment of those engaged in homosexual sex. However, in 1 Corinthians Paul puts a more contemporary spin on the subject, saying:

I think that pretty well fits the definition of "condemn" in the context here:

con·demn [ kən dém ]
* consider somebody or something guilty: to judge that somebody or something is to blame for something

* say somebody or something is bad: to state that somebody or something is in some way wrong or unacceptable
​

Think you're suppose to recognize such actions without condemning them? Without "consider[ing] somebody or something guilty," OR to "Say somebody or something is bad: to state that somebody or something is in some way wrong or unacceptable"?

I wouldn't think so. In view of the bad light in which they hold homosexual sex, putting it in with adultery, thievery, and prostitution Paul obviously condemns it and I would expect Jesus would have condemned it as well.

And I haven't said the Bible condemns homosexuality, have I? Only homosexual sex.

I think that your post contains numerous assumptions (many of which are without merit from my perspective) and that because of the ingrained assumptions, you have drawn many faulty conclusions.

1) Your post assumes that judging is always synonymous with condemnation. That is a false premise.

2) Your post assumes that "the bible" (I just love that all inclusive phrase) condemns homosexual sex for everyone. That is a debatable assumption.

3) Your post assumes that the "New Living Translation" of the bible accurately translates Paul's words in the three books you've taken scripture from. That is a faulty analysis.

 

[Skwim]

I think that your post contains numerous assumptions (many of which are without merit from my perspective) and that because of the ingrained assumptions, you have drawn several faulty conclusions.

1) Your post assumes that judging is always synonymous with condemnation. That is a false premise.

2) Your post assumes that "the bible" (I just love that all inclusive phrase) condemns homosexual sex for everyone. That is a debatable assumption.

3) Your post assumes that the "New Living Translation" of the bible accurately translates Paul's words in the three books you've taken scripture from. That is a faulty analysis.

Your post contains numerous assumptions (many of which are without merit from my perspective) and that because of the ingrained assumptions, you have drawn many faulty conclusions.

1) Your post assumes that I believe judging is always synonymous with condemnation. That is a false premise.

2) You assume that it is worthwhile to debate that "the bible" (I just love that all inclusive phrase) condemns homosexual sex for everyone. It isn't.

3) You assume I put any stock in your opinion that my "post assumes that the "New Living Translation" of the bible accurately translates Paul's words in the three books you've taken scripture from.' is a faulty analysis. Believe me, I don't.

However, your effort here to avoid the issue by posting your silly assumptions doesn't go unappreciated. It leaves no doubt of your inability to confront the points I made, which I'll take it as an admission that "Skwim is right." Thanks.

See you in the next go-around.

 

[captainbryce]

1) Your post assumes that I believe judging is always synonymous with condemnation. That is a false premise.

It is based directly on your argument that when Paul says we should judge, it means that we should condemn. If that is not what you were saying, then you should clarify.

2) You assume that it is worthwhile to debate that "the bible" (I just love that all inclusive phrase) condemns homosexual sex for everyone. It isn't.

If that's the case, then why are you even bothering to make an argument at all? If such debates are not worthwhile, then what's the point of you even bringing this up?

3) You assume I put any stock in your opinion that my "post assumes that the "New Living Translation" of the bible accurately translates Paul's words in the three books you've taken scripture from.' is a faulty analysis. Believe me, I don't.

Then you have pre-decided that only YOUR interpretation on this particular subject counts, and any other interpretation is something you're not willing to take into consideration. So then I ask you again, why even try to debate such a topic in the first place if you don't care about anyone else's opinion?

However, your effort here to avoid the issue by posting your silly assumptions doesn't go unappreciated.

What issue have I avoided exactly? I am in fact addressing the issue here in a rather subtle way admittedly. But you have decided to ignore all of my comments on the issue and respond with a vindictive attitude. So clearly the evidence seems to indicate that it is YOU who is avoiding the issues that I bring up in response to your issues.

It leaves no doubt of your inability to confront the points I made, which I'll take it as an admission that "Skwim is right." Thanks.

See you in the next go-around.

You're cute, but rest assured there is nothing you could throw at me that I couldn't confront. It seems that you are afraid to address my criticism of the assumptions made in your post (you don't care about my opinion remember). That suggests that it is YOU who is unable to confront the fact that your post depends on ingrained faulty assumptions.

The fact is Skwim you don't really want to have a serious discussion about this because you are assuming that you are right, and apparently you're easily offended when someone points out the fact that you might not be. This was a really emotional and immature response by you! I was trying to cleverly point out that you should probably re-evaluate some of the ingrained assumptions you made BEFORE you try to make an argument based on them. You're trying to be a dick! If you have no intention of even considering the possibility that you might be wrong then there is really no point in arguing with you. I have no idea why you came here in the first place

If I wanted to be a dick about it like you, I could EASILY destroy your post in a single response. But that wouldn't force you to engage in any critical thinking at all. And I'm glad I didn't do that because if this response of yours is any indication then it would have just made you angry and you would have given an even more immature response back.

If you want to play the "I know you are but what am I" game, then I really have better things to do. If you want to actually have an intelligent, serious discussion, about what the bible ACTUALLY says and WHY, then I'll invite you to get back to me with a more mature response next time (starting by addressing the ingrained assumptions in your initial post that I pointed out). That's entirely up to you. Later!

 

[Question_love_act]

I simply wanted to know whether or not the statement you made was actually "stated somewhere in the bible", "extrapolated from something else the bible says", "someone else's interpretation of what the bible says", "an idea drawn from extra-biblical sources", or "just made up altogether". And you've provided me with the answer to that question. Thank you!

Ok I misunderstood your emphasis in your previous post. And just wanted to make sure not to sound homophobic. Glad it wasn't the case!

 

[ZooGirl02]

In my opinion the reason why there is such a debate on this is because not all Christians accept a central authority as they did before 1054 AD when the Great Schism between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church's split occurred. But really there wasn't even a debate on what the Bible says about homosexuality until the 20th century. At least not that I know of.

Also, I have changed back to being an orthodox Catholic and so I now believe that homosexual acts are gravely sinful and so is "gay marriage". I do not, however, believe that being a homosexual is a sin although I do believe the orientation is objectively disordered.

 

[Skwim]

You're cute, but rest assured there is nothing you could throw at me that I couldn't confront.

I already did that, but in post 34 you ducked it. :slap:

If I wanted to be a dick about it like you,

And when all else fails go for the name calling ploy ---but, sorry to say, that's two strikes cappy,

Now all that's left is a smattering of arrogance. And. . . . . . .wait . . . . . . . yes, folks, there it is. We have strike three. PLUS, it's more than just a smattering. :tigger:

I could EASILY destroy your post in a single response.

Thank you for not disappointing.

​

Yes, you are amusing, but I'm sure you can do better. We're rooting for you. :clap:clap

 

[sojourner]

In my opinion the reason why there is such a debate on this is because not all Christians accept a central authority as they did before 1054 AD when the Great Schism between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church's split occurred. But really there wasn't even a debate on what the Bible says about homosexuality until the 20th century. At least not that I know of.

Also, I have changed back to being an orthodox Catholic and so I now believe that homosexual acts are gravely sinful and so is "gay marriage". I do not, however, believe that being a homosexual is a sin although I do believe the orientation is objectively disordered.

The church had no real "central authority" other than the college of bishops, who were obviously widely diverse in opinion and theology. Roman Xy, following the Schism is the only example of "central authority" in Xy. The reason there was no debate until the 20th century about homosexuality is the same reason there was no debate until the Enlightenment about the nature of the universe. Lack of knowledge. And they threw Galileo out for stating that the earth revolves around the sun. Just like they're still throwing homosexuals under the wheels of the bus for being what God made them to be.