The Christian Attitude Toward Homosexuals and Homosexuality

[sojourner]

I was simply taking APW's claim that "It fell to [Jesus'] followers, early and recent, to twist and misinterpret his teachings to fit their own prejudices, wishes and beliefs" to its logical conclusion. The logic being that it's only through the Bible that APW would be familiar with such early teachings.

And all that makes the bible "untrustworthy"...how? Sounds more like it's some of the followers who may be untrustworthy...

 

[Skwim]

And all that makes the bible "untrustworthy"...how? Sounds more like it's some of the followers who may be untrustworthy...

Please reread the exchange. If it still doesn't click together then so be it. It ain't that important.

 

[Ingledsva]

Actually, Jesus doesn't talk about homosexuals, and neither does Paul.

Are you saying that the only trustworthy statements in the NT are those attributed to either Jesus or Paul?

I was replying to a NT post which mentioned Paul.

I don't pretend to understand the language. However, those that do understand it, e.g. those who compiled Strong's Concordance, say that in 1 Corinthians 6:9, the word translated as "homosexual" is ἀρσενοκοίτης (transliteration: arsenokoitēs) is defined as:

"1) one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual."
​

It doesn't say it in 1 Corinthians 6:9 either. The verse doesn't have Effeminate either.

By the way Strongs does have a correct definition of Sodomite (H6945) a Qadesh - Sacred prostitute.

Arsenokoites is not correct in the strongs. There are several sites out there that have all known uses - just Google - All know ancient Greek uses of arsenokoites.

As I said some of the uses are with women.

It appears to mean aggravated sex crimes - rape - pedophilia - kidnapping for sexual slavery, etc, of men, women, and children.

You will find that some of the definitions are somewhat later - for instance the Greeks originally practiced cultural pedestery.

 

[Ingledsva]

Then it's a pretty much an untrustworthy book.

Not necessarily; it has been translated to fit their later Christian ideas.

 

[Skwim]

I was replying to a NT post which mentioned Paul.

So what is the significance of neither Jesus or Paul mentioning homosexuals?

It doesn't say it in 1 Corinthians 6:9 either. The verse doesn't have Effeminate either.

Arsenokoites is not correct in the strongs.

Unless you have a PhD in ancient Greek I have absolutely no reason to believe you.Your claim is meaningless.

There are several sites out there that have all known uses - just Google - All know ancient Greek uses of arsenokoites.

Doesn't matter what other uses the word may have. The concern here is with a specific context at a specific time.

 

[McBell]

He made no proclamations on homosexuality; spoke very little about politics and in general rose above the sordid details of everyday life.

at least based on the less than half of his lifetime "recorded" in the Bible....

 

[Skwim]

Not necessarily; it has been translated to fit their later Christian ideas.

So you don't think that Biblical passages that twisted and misinterpreted the teachings of Jesus so as to accommodate the prejudices of early chroniclers don't compromise the trustworthiness of the Bible? If not, then your standards of veracity are far lower than mine, and everyone else I know.

 

[Ingledsva]

So what is the significance of neither Jesus or Paul mentioning homosexuals?

I was referring to Penumbra's post. However the significance is that not Jesus or any of the apostles actually mention homosexuals. Sacred Sex, yes - but not homosexuals.

Skiwm

Unless you have a PhD in ancient Greek I have absolutely no reason to believe you.Your claim is meaningless.


Doesn't matter what other uses the word may have. The concern here is with a specific context at a specific time.

Making it bigger isn't goint to change the facts.

And by the way the translation you chose is even more wrong - it left out (malakos).

Facts are facts - there are no known ancient Greek uses of that word meaning homosexual.

 

[Skwim]

I was referring to Penumbra's post.

Take a look at post #35.

Making it bigger isn't goint to change the facts.

As it was I reduced the image by 35%. But you're correct; changing the size doesn't affect the Bible's use of "homosexual." It's still there.

And by the way the translation you chose is even more wrong - it left out (malakos).

But this is the neat thing about the Bible, there are enough versions around so that Christians can choose the one that best suits their needs and prejudices. In any case, this is how the New American Standard Bible puts it:

"9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,"
​

We good now?

Facts are facts - there are no known ancient Greek uses of that word meaning homosexual.

Then prove your point. And FYI, the Greek that Paul was familiar with was ancient Greek. So, even if he coined the word, which some suspect he might have, it doesn't affect its meaning, which is confirmed in the following:

"Standard Greek lexicons and dictionaries understand this word [ἀρσενοκοίτης] as a reference to homosexual behavior.[24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

[24] ‘ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ arsenokoitēs male homosexual* Referring to a male who engages in sexual activity with men or boys: 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10; Pol. Phil. 5:3; W. L. PETERSEN, “Can ἀρσενοκοῖται be translated by ‘Homosexuals’?” Vigiliae Christianae 40 (1986) 187-91. — D. F. WRIGHT, Translating ΑΡΣΕΝΟΚΟΙΤΑΙ,” Vigiliae Christianae 41 (1987) 396-98.’, Balz & Schneider, ‘Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament’, p. 158 (1990).

[25] ‘ἀρρενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ, sodomite, AP9.686, (Maced. iv/vi A.D., v. BCHsuppl. 8 no. 87); (ἀρσ-) 1Ep.Cor.6.9.’, Liddell, Scott, Jones, & McKenzie, ‘A Greek-English Lexicon’, p. 246 (rev. and augm. throughout, 19996).

[26] ‘ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ an adult male who practices sexual intercourse with another adult male or a boy homosexual, sodomite, pederast.’, Friberg, Friberg, & Miller, ‘Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament’, p. 76 (2000).

[27] ‘ἄρσην G781 (arsēn), male; θῆλυς G2559 (thēlys), female; ἀρσενοκοίτης G780 (arsenokoitēs), male homosexual, pederast, sodomite.’, Brown, ‘New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology’, volume 2, p. 562 (1986).

[28] ‘88.280 ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου m: a male partner in homosexual intercourse—‘homosexual.’’, Louw & Nida, ‘Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains’, volume 1, p. 771 (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition 1996).

[29] ‘733. ἀρσενοκοίτης arsenokoítēs; gen. arsenokoítou, masc. noun, from ársēn (730), a male, and koítē (2845), a bed. A man who lies in bed with another male, a homosexual (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10 [cf. Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:27]).’, Zodhiates, ‘The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament’ (electronic ed. 2000).

[30] ‘a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9 (on the impropriety of RSV’s ‘homosexuals’ [altered to ‘sodomites’ NRSV] s. WPetersen, VigChr 40, ’86, 187–91; cp. DWright, ibid. 41, ’87, 396–98; REB’s rendering of μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται w. the single term ‘sexual pervert’ is lexically unacceptable), of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. μαλακός (difft. DMartin, in Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality, ed. RBrawley, ’96, 117–36); 1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27. Romans forbade pederasty w. free boys in the Lex Scantinia, pre-Cicero (JBremmer, Arethusa 13, ’80, 288 and notes); Paul’s strictures against same-sex activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution (on its rarity, but w. some evidence concerning women used for sacred prostitution at Corinth s. LWoodbury, TAPA 108, ’78, 290f, esp. note 18 [lit.]), or limited to contract w. boys for homoerotic service (s. Wright, VigChr 38, ’84, 125–53).’, Arndt, Danker, & Bauer (eds.), ‘A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature’, p. 135 (3rd ed. 2000)."
source
​

 

[sojourner]

So you don't think that Biblical passages that twisted and misinterpreted the teachings of Jesus so as to accommodate the prejudices of early chroniclers don't compromise the trustworthiness of the Bible? If not, then your standards of veracity are far lower than mine, and everyone else I know.

Trustworthiness, again, in what way? To claim that the bible has every single one of Jesus' statements verbatim was never a claim that the writers made. That's a claim that was thrust upon the texts later on. You see, the bible has always been more a vehicle for the thought of believers than it was (or is) a repository of fact. This is an important point to consider (in rebuttal to your earlier suggestion to me), because if the bible isn't supposed to be a verbatim repository of fact, the statement "because the bible says..." becomes pretty lame in areas of dictating minutae, such as "is homosexuality bad or good?" What is important is to look at what believers have said about love, about hospitality, about inclusion. In other words, the real question isn't, "Is homosexuaity immoral?" The real question is, "How shall we treat homosexuals?"

 

[Skwim]

Trustworthiness, again, in what way?

Sorry. I thought this would be self-evident. Please reread what I said.

To claim that the bible has every single one of Jesus' statements verbatim was never a claim that the writers made. That's a claim that was thrust upon the texts later on.

Really! This something I've never seen before, and probably because it's obvious he said a whole lot more during his lifetime than the few quotes in the Bible. Got a source that addresses those folk who make such ridiculous claims?

You see, the bible has always been more a vehicle for the thought of believers than it was (or is) a repository of fact. This is an important point to consider (in rebuttal to your earlier suggestion to me), because if the bible isn't supposed to be a verbatim repository of fact,

Has someone suggested it is? The most I've seen are the numbers of Christians---one third of them---who believe the Bible is literally true.* Thus a repository of fact.

What is important is to look at what believers have said about love, about hospitality, about inclusion. In other words, the real question isn't, "Is homosexuaity immoral?" The real question is, "How shall we treat homosexuals?"

In the mean time the Bible condemns homosexual acts. So am I correct in thinking that you "love" the homosexual but despise what he does?


* source

 

[sojourner]

Really! This something I've never seen before, and probably because it's obvious he said a whole lot more during his lifetime than the few quotes in the Bible. Got a source that addresses those folk who make such ridiculous claims?

Rhoads, Kloppenborg and Scott are good places to start. They all talk about the nature of ancient history, narrative and gospel presentation.

Has someone suggested it is? The most I've seen are the numbers of Christians---one third of them---who believe the Bible is literally true.* Thus a repository of fact.

Read Crossan, Funk, Scott again. In fact, most mainstream, liberal scholars deny biblical literalism as remotely realistic.

In the mean time the Bible condemns homosexual acts.

Not quite. It does condemn certain acts that were felt to be "unnatural," but since homosexuality as an orientation was unknown at that time, it was thought that same-sex acts were done by men who were otherwise attracted to women. So to say that "the bible condemns homosexual acts" is a little misleading, and very modern in its interpretation.

So am I correct in thinking that you "love" the homosexual but despise what he does?

Nope. Not even close. Homosexual acts are just as fine for homosexuals as heterosexual acts are for heterosexuals.

 

[Skwim]

Rhoads, Kloppenborg and Scott are good places to start. They all talk about the nature of ancient history, narrative and gospel presentation.

And they also say that their are those who claim "the bible has every single one of Jesus' statements verbatim"? Strange, but I'll take your word for it.

Read Crossan, Funk, Scott again. In fact, most mainstream, liberal scholars deny biblical literalism as remotely realistic.

And I too agree it's unrealistic. But whether or not it's supposed to be a repository of fact, the fact is millions and millions of Christians nonetheless do regard the Bible as a source of fact.

Not quite. It does condemn certain acts that were felt to be "unnatural," but since homosexuality as an orientation was unknown at that time, it was thought that same-sex acts were done by men who were otherwise attracted to women. So to say that "the bible condemns homosexual acts" is a little misleading, and very modern in its interpretation.

Not at all. Even if they lacked the concept of sexual orientation they still recognized that some males preferred other males rather than females. And it was these acts, which we have since come to recognize and label as homosexual that the Bible rails against. Consider; even though kangaroos existed before they were labeled marsupials, they were still marsupials at the time. Recognizing and labeling a condition doesn't bring that condition into being.

Nope. Not even close. Homosexual acts are just as fine for homosexuals as heterosexual acts are for heterosexuals.

And I agree, but the Bible doesn't.

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
​

 

[Pegg]

In another thread the following exchange took place:

Person A: "Why do you assume that homosexual identity is sinful? the bible doesn't say so."

Person B: " XXXXXXX has admonished me not to be using the bible any more on his thread, so I'm not going to be able to answer your question. Sorry."
​

Because no such thread has been forthcoming I've taken it upon myself to create one; showing that the while the Bible doesn't consider "homosexual identity" to be sinful, it does suggest that homosexual acts are.


OLD TESTAMENT

Leviticus 22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination
​

NEW TESTAMENT

Romans 1:26-27
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Timothy 1:8–10
8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,


​

Now, given that homosexual acts are "an abomination," "shameless," and "unrighteous," and that such lawless individuals "will not inherit the kingdom of God" it appears the Bible feels that, if nothing else, homosexuals should at least abstain from sexually expressing themselves---I assume that homosexuals can live together as a couple as long as they remain celibate.

So, is this the prevailing attitude among those Christians who favor gay rights and such: it's okay to be homosexual, just don't practice homosexuality?

Or, is it:

A) Not okay to even be a celibate homosexual.

B) Okay to be a practicing homosexual.

men can have natural affection for other men...the bible has the example of King David and Johnathan. They had a very close relationship. Were they homosexual? No. Was their close bond wrong? No.
Did they have sex together? No.

Can a man love another man and it not be sexual? Yes.

 

[Skwim]

men can have natural affection for other men...the bible has the example of King David and Johnathan. They had a very close relationship. Were they homosexual? No. Was their close bond wrong? No.
Did they have sex together? No.

Can a man love another man and it not be sexual? Yes.

That's very nice.

 

[sojourner]

And I too agree it's unrealistic. But whether or not it's supposed to be a repository of fact, the fact is millions and millions of Christians nonetheless do regard the Bible as a source of fact.

Wishing for a thing doesn't make it true.

Not at all. Even if they lacked the concept of sexual orientation they still recognized that some males preferred other males rather than females. And it was these acts, which we have since come to recognize and label as homosexual that the Bible rails against. Consider; even though kangaroos existed before they were labeled marsupials, they were still marsupials at the time. Recognizing and labeling a condition doesn't bring that condition into being.

I disagree. They didn't recognize a "preference." That's where all the confusion lies. There was no such concept as "preference" until relatively recently. it was not conceived that men could preferentially want other men. It was simply dismissed as some "unnatural" urge. That's where most fundies are stuck. They simply can't conceive that human beings can (and do) have a natural preference for the same sex.

And I agree, but the Bible doesn't. "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

Again, because it is viewed as completely unnatural; there is no possibility of a natural attraction for the same sex.
Additionally, there are also other cultural anomalies present here that are not present for modern America. There is the whole shame/honor imbedded in the sexes thing. For a man to treat another man "as a woman" was a shameful act. Not because of the sex involved, but because it violated the boundaries of shame/honor. It was shameful for a man to "bend over and take it like a woman," too. In ways other than sexually, I might add.

 

[sojourner]

men can have natural affection for other men...the bible has the example of King David and Johnathan. They had a very close relationship. Were they homosexual? No. Was their close bond wrong? No.
Did they have sex together? No.

Can a man love another man and it not be sexual? Yes.

And men (as well as women) can have natural sexual affection for the same sex. The biblical writers simply didn't know that.

 

[Skwim]

Wishing for a thing doesn't make it true.

I disagree. They didn't recognize a "preference." That's where all the confusion lies. There was no such concept as "preference" until relatively recently. it was not conceived that men could preferentially want other men. It was simply dismissed as some "unnatural" urge. That's where most fundies are stuck. They simply can't conceive that human beings can (and do) have a natural preference for the same sex.

Again, because it is viewed as completely unnatural; there is no possibility of a natural attraction for the same sex.
Additionally, there are also other cultural anomalies present here that are not present for modern America. There is the whole shame/honor imbedded in the sexes thing. For a man to treat another man "as a woman" was a shameful act. Not because of the sex involved, but because it violated the boundaries of shame/honor. It was shameful for a man to "bend over and take it like a woman," too. In ways other than sexually, I might add.

I give up.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

How about Judge not lest ye be judged?

Love your neighbor?

Jesus also said not to judge by appearances but to exercise righteous judgment.

If we did not judge, criminals would never be prosecuted.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

I'm often times thinking about obese people gorging themselves with shellfish and pork at the local buffet while their children run around like little heathens disrespecting everyone in the establishment.

Why don't we hear sermons about that?

Good point! I also agree with your observation that "free trade is slave trade".