Homosexuality In The Bible

[GeorgeW]

There is an article in the recent edition of "The Fourth R" (a publication associated with the Jesus Seminar) appropriate to this thread. It is titled "When a Man Lies with a Man as with a Woman" referring to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. The author, Stephen Patterson, is a professor of religious and ethical studies at Willamette University.

 

The author argues that there were only three contexts in the Ancient Near East in which these passages can be read: Domination, recreation (in the absence of female companionship), and religious devotion (like fertility rituals). He does raise the question: "So was there actual gay sex, as we today understand that concept, in the Ancient Near East?" He answers, "probably" but then moves on without further consideration.

 

It is true that the concept of sexual orientation is modern and Western in origin. but it is, IMO, a huge reach to just dismiss this without examination. There almost certainty were gay men at that time and they almost certainly would not have abstained from sex. Further, there was no evidence offered that they would be exempted from this prohibition. The absence of the concept of sexual orientation would make it even more likely to apply to all instances of male, same-sex activities.

 

In fact, to imply that same-sex orientation could be a modern, Western innovation plays into the hands of homophobes who claim that it is a choice encouraged by a permissive society.

 

While I do not think we today are obligated to comply with a 3,000-year-old bedouin prohibition, to suggest that Leviticus did not encompass gay sex in its prohibition, is, IMO, simply trying to explain away the text instead of dealing with it objectively.

 

George

[minsocal]

George,

 

I think it is amtter of having the verbal categories. There is a difference between describing behavior and describing feelings. This is the latest from the APA concerning the progress of defing thing the subject:

 

"Sexual orientation and homosexuality

 

Since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations. The discipline of psychology is concerned with the well-being of people and groups and therefore with threats to that well-being. The prejudice and discrimination that people who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual regularly experience have been shown to have negative psychological effects. This information is designed to provide accurate information for those who want to better understand sexual orientation and the impact of prejudice and discrimination on those who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

 

What is sexual orientation?

 

Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of one’s own sex), and bisexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to both men and women). This range of behaviors and attractions has been described in various cultures and nations throughout the world. Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all.

 

Sexual orientation is distinct from other components of sex and gender, including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological, and genetic characteristics associated with being male or female), gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female),* and social gender role (the cultural norms that define feminine and masculine behavior).

 

Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others. People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing. Thus, sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment, and intimacy. In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment. Therefore, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic within an individual. Rather, one’s sexual orientation defines the group of people in which one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling romantic relationships that are an essential component of personal identity for many people."

 

http://www.apa.org/h...rientation.aspx

 

 

The Bible does not talk about sex in terms of "love, attachment, and intimacy" and we have to ask whether heterosexuals in the time of the Bible would have used those words?

Edited May 13, 2012 by minsocal

[GeorgeW]

Myron,

 

According to the APA you cited: "Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes." To claim or suggest that this did not exist in biblical times, without solid evidence, is not being objective or responsible.

 

"The Bible does not talk about sex in terms of "love, attachment, and intimacy" and we have to ask whether heterosexuals in the time of the Bible would have used those words?"

 

Right . . . well . . . generally. Late writings like the Song of Solomon does, and in rather graphic terms. And, it almost didn't make the final cut for that reason. But, yes, there was no conceptual means of expressing this in the Pentateuch.

 

George

Edited May 13, 2012 by GeorgeW

[minsocal]

Myron,

 

According to the APA you cited: "Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes." To claim or suggest that this did not exist in biblical times, without solid evidence, is not being objective or responsible.

 

"The Bible does not talk about sex in terms of "love, attachment, and intimacy" and we have to ask whether heterosexuals in the time of the Bible would have used those words?"

 

Right . . . well . . . generally. Late writings like the Song of Solomon does, and in rather graphic terms. And, it almost didn't make the final cut for that reason. But, yes, there was no conceptual means of expressing this in the Pentateuch.

 

George

 

George,

 

Yes, it's a difficult subject. But, the dialoque must continue. The various views bend and twist on reason, behavior, feelings and emotions. I am hoping to move towards a view that sees the early Bible as the beginning of a trajectory to where we are now? I'd call that progress without loss.

 

Myron

[GeorgeW]

I am hoping to move towards a view that sees the early Bible as the beginning of a trajectory to where we are now? I'd call that progress without loss.

 

Yes, good point.

 

But, trying to explain away problematic texts without some degree of objectively, is not, IMO, the way to go. That is what I feel Patterson did as well as other well-meaning progressive Christians. I would prefer that we confront the text objectively in its context, accept it for what it is and "progress" from that point (as you point out).

 

FWIW, many things in the Bible that we consider reactionary today were quite progressive in their time. And, IMO, we should respect that.

 

George

[minsocal]

FWIW, many things in the Bible that we consider reactionary today were quite progressive in their time. And, IMO, we should respect that.

 

George

 

George,

 

Oh yes, I agree. There are key transitions over time. These are something like the "epochs" of the Urantia Papers. They are the same as Whitehead saying that G-d tenderly intevenes at the transition, etc.

 

Myron

Edited May 14, 2012 by minsocal

[Raven]

While I don't think that Christianity or the Bible causes homophobia, it certainly does nothing to ameliorate the societal stigma directed toward persons of same gender attraction.

 

A church I attended in my early 20s tried so desperately to deconstruct a young, gay man in our congregation that it drove him to commit suicide. Arguably, there were deeper issues at work, but the layers upon layers of guilt piled upon this poor soul by well-meaning, but WRONG Christians - a group he wanted to belong to more than anything else - pushed him to a final solution at his own hands.

 

The speaker whose audience dissipated over words that challenged their prejudices underscore the themes meted out within this thread - whether of Christian or secular origin, homophobia is a scourge worthy of defeat.

 

NORM

 

Interesting thought, Norm, and I don't tend to disagree. However, as a question - do you think there's something inherent in relgious institutions that might account for the ways some have treated gay/lesbian people, or is it more about using the church/mosque/synagogue (etc) as a centre for the social issues?

[murmsk]

While I don't think that Christianity or the Bible causes homophobia, it certainly does nothing to ameliorate the societal stigma directed toward persons of same gender attraction.

 

A church I attended in my early 20s tried so desperately to deconstruct a young, gay man in our congregation that it drove him to commit suicide. Arguably, there were deeper issues at work, but the layers upon layers of guilt piled upon this poor soul by well-meaning, but WRONG Christians - a group he wanted to belong to more than anything else - pushed him to a final solution at his own hands.

 

 

The speaker whose audience dissipated over words that challenged their prejudices underscore the themes meted out within this thread - whether of Christian or secular origin, homophobia is a scourge worthy of defeat.

 

The example you site suggests that Christianity does indeed cause homophobia unless you are willing to separate Christianity from the church. My experience suggests that the "church " is often one of the most bigoted institutions on the face of the earth. bigoted= not limited to race.

 

I think certain congregations go out of their way to foster homophobia as well as secularphobia , islamaphobia and ChristianViewsOtherThanOurOwnphobia. Even churches that don't actively spout hateful rhetoric often have hateful undercurrents that are every bit as damaging.

 

steve

[GeorgeW]

Steve,

 

Do churches cause people to be homophobic and Islamophobic, or do these churches reflect the worldview of their membership?

 

Since there are Christian churches that are quite the opposite, the case that Christianity causes hateful attitudes would be hard to sustain. And, it gets harder yet when there are secular people and organizations who also have these attitudes.

 

George

[glintofpewter]

There are conservative and progressive forces active in churches and other institutions. Having a higher authority to give certainty to your opinion will lead you to keep your opinion longer, maybe. But I see these forces active across all human activity and thought. Use of higher authority is active on both sides of the science and religion debates. Whether it's family dysfunctional traditions, fraternal hazing, or church dogma - all appeal to higher authority to justify the continuance of bad or damaging behaviors.

 

Dutch

[murmsk]

Do churches cause people to be homophobic and Islamophobic, or do these churches reflect the worldview of their membership?

 

In my view both. People can be very impressionable . A good example is Germany in the 30's. Certainly the Nazi's couldn't have done what they did without the support of many many Germans But the government did a masterful job praying on the plight of the people and whipping up a very high percentage of otherwise good people to a point where they lost thier point of reference.

 

Certainly worldview offers a soft spot.

 

steve

[Bea]

I'm just joining, but you folks are discussing the very topic I struggle with. I have read in other texts such as by Dr. Mel White, that the Bible does not mean "homosexuality" as we mean it today. What does that mean? Is there a good book I can read on the subject?

[murmsk]

This article is a start

 

http://www.reviewatlas.com/opinions/x639968844/America-will-move-forward-from-LGBT-prejudice

 

steve

[GeorgeW]

I have read in other texts such as by Dr. Mel White, that the Bible does not mean "homosexuality" as we mean it today. What does that mean? Is there a good book I can read on the subject?

 

Bea,

 

I cannot recommend a specific book. However, I think the contention is that there was no concept of homosexuality as an orientation at that time and the biblical prohibitions were against same-sex sex (at least male). As far as I know this is correct, but I also have no reason to think that there were not homosexual men at the time and the prohibitions would have included them as well.

 

Even if any form of homosexual behavior was prohibited in Biblical Judaism (and I think it was), this does not mean that the social norms of an ancient middle-eastern culture should apply to us today. As an example, they permitted bigamy. Are we obliged to allow it? Jesus forbade remarriage after divorce, must we? Should we abstain from pork and shrimp? Clothes with linen and wool? I don't think so.

 

George

[Bea]

George -

I appreciate your points and it's refreshing for me to hear someone say (or type) it out loud. In my introduction to this forum I stated that I turned from my faith because of all the contradictions and hypocrisy. I have come realize my faith is just fine, it's organized/legalized religion I have an issue with. All that you list is exactly what I'm talking about. Identifying as lesbian with a strong history with the Presbyterian Church from childhood, my church was telling me that I could not be lesbian and follow thier faith. Going to a Catholic College, I was met with the same attitude.

 

In my study, I found there is alot of things we do in this society that Old Testament specifically prohibits and encouraged. We no longer require women to marry thier deceased husbands brother if she were childless when her husband died in an attempt to bare a child in that bloodline, nor do we require the men to marry thier deceased brothers wife and take care of her and all the children. We don't give away our daughters as a trade for cattle. You pointed out the prohibitions - divorce and remarriage for example. Christian Fundamentalist claim to follow the Bible for what it says, but if they did truly, I think they'd find they have alot to repent for!

 

Thank you for your most valuable input and Steve - Thank you for the article!

[GeorgeW]

Identifying as lesbian with a strong history with the Presbyterian Church from childhood, my church was telling me that I could not be lesbian and follow thier faith. Going to a Catholic College, I was met with the same attitude.

 

Bea, You should remind those who would scold you that the OT prohibition specifically designated men. They need to be more literal.

 

George

[GeorgeW]

A minor, but pertinent, section of E.O. Wilson’s latest book addresses homosexuality. (He is a noted sociobiolgist whose latest book I recently read and have cited several times in this forum). Some excerpts from this section:

 

“Heredity-influenced homosexuality occurs in populations worldwide too frequently to be due to mutations alone […] The trait must be favored by natural selection […] homosexuality may give advantages to the group by special talents, unusual qualities of personality, and the special roles and professions it generates. There is abundant evidence that such is the case in both preliterate and modern societies.”

 

What he is proposing is that some level of homosexuality in society confers an evolutionary selective advantage to the groups in which it occurs. Otherwise, it would not persist.

 

George

[Bea]

Good Point George! The argument I have gotten is that when the Bible designates "males" "men" "he" it is an assumption that it also applies to "females" "She" because women of that time did not have the same standing as men. Men being regarded on a much higher level, considered more intelligent then females. Essentially, whatever applied to men, applied to women and the Bible did not have to specify because it was a given. My retort has often been that if they read Bible so literally, there is no room for assumption. Which has backed them in a corner to having to admit it's a matter of how the person reading the passage interprets the information.

 

Which is precisely my point and why there is discrepancy in specific translations when it comes to the words - Malakos and Arsenkoites. As was thoroughly discussed already, these are often misinterpreted to mean homosexual. However, if Paul meant "men having sex men" he could have used the word "paiderasste" which he did not use and never does it appear in the Bible from what I understand.

[Bea]

I did not see you're last post (as I was multitasking with other things while writing a response) - but I plan to follow up more on that. I have heard of this theory before.

[PaulS]

Good Point George! The argument I have gotten is that when the Bible designates "males" "men" "he" it is an assumption that it also applies to "females" "She" because women of that time did not have the same standing as men. Men being regarded on a much higher level, considered more intelligent then females. Essentially, whatever applied to men, applied to women and the Bible did not have to specify because it was a given.

 

Apolgetics at work. The human race is usually identified as mankind and it is pretty clear most times when the bible is including both sexes and when it is specifying males vs females. For example, there's no hesitancy to single out the 'less intelligent' females when it comes to the purity code and menstruating women needing to comply, being one example. I find it humurous that many literal bible-readers often accuse others of 'cafe-christianity' - i.e. picking the parts of the bible that suits there arguments, when in fact it seems to be the literalists that do the cherrypicking, choosing to ignore blatantly obvious meanings in order to twist and manipulate the text to suit their theology.

 

Anyway, what did Jesus ever say against homosexuality? You'd think if it was really that important (as a taboo), the human incarnation of God may have least made a passing comment concerning it!

Edited June 7, 2012 by PaulS

[murmsk]

“Heredity-influenced homosexuality occurs in populations worldwide too frequently to be due to mutations alone […] The trait must be favored by natural selection […] homosexuality may give advantages to the group by special talents, unusual qualities of personality, and the special roles and professions it generates. There is abundant evidence that such is the case in both preliterate and modern societies.”

 

This might a trait simular to the sickle cell trait in africans. It is a double recessive ..... it takes the trait coming from both mother and father to get sickle-cell getting the trait from only one parent gives the offspring resistance to malaria.

 

steve

[GeorgeW]

Which is precisely my point and why there is discrepancy in specific translations when it comes to the words - Malakos and Arsenkoites. As was thoroughly discussed already, these are often misinterpreted to mean homosexual. However, if Paul meant "men having sex men" he could have used the word "paiderasste" which he did not use and never does it appear in the Bible from what I understand.

 

I don't know about the Greek, but the Hebrew is unambiguous; it uses 'ish for man (not 'adam, the generic term for humankind), zakar for 'male' and 'ishah for woman. "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" (Lev. 20:13)

 

I don't think they were giving license to lesbianism as such, but this was just not a concern. Our pastor (PCUSA) has said that he thinks the prohibitions against homosexual sex and masturbation were related to the wasting of seed. They thought that human semen (which in Hebrew is the same word as seed) was limited (like literal plant seed) and should not be wasted.

 

George

[Bea]

George,

That actually makes quite a bit of sense given the times.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Anyway, what did Jesus ever say against homosexuality? You'd think if it was really that important (as a taboo), the human incarnation of God may have least made a passing comment concerning it!

The one passage I've heard Christian apologists trot out in response to this was that one verse (I think it was in Matthew?) where Jesus talks about a man leaving his parents to be joined with a wife as proof Jesus believed marriage was between a man and a woman. On the other hand, I've heard pro-gay Christians argue that the verse where Jesus said some people are born to be eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom meant that Jesus approved of homosexuality and transgenderism.

[GeorgeW]

The one passage I've heard Christian apologists trot out in response to this was that one verse (I think it was in Matthew?) where Jesus talks about a man leaving his parents to be joined with a wife as proof Jesus believed marriage was between a man and a woman. On the other hand, I've heard pro-gay Christians argue that the verse where Jesus said some people are born to be eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom meant that Jesus approved of homosexuality and transgenderism.

 

I don't think either of these are relevant to the issue. There was no concept of gay marriage at the time as an alternative to heterosexual marriage and, although I know almost nothing about eunuch-ism, it is my impression that they were asexual, not homosexual.

 

I think the most we can say about Jesus is that same-sex relations were not a serious concern of his; He had no concept of sexual orientation; And, he did have a high tolerance for those who were socially ostracised.

 

George