posted
Found this at another forum, but is really interesting.
quote: References to Homosexuality in the Bible
From chapter four of John Boswell's Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. You can confirm most of the information in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. The argument that God punished Sodom for homosexuality turns on the word "know" in Genesis 19:5, "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them." The chapter contains no other possible reference to homosexuality.
There is no reason to assume that "know" in this passage meant carnal knowledge: the Hebrew verb "to know" occurs 943 times in the Old Testament, but refers to carnal knowledge only ten times. In the Septuagint, the Greek word chosen to translate it in this verse clearly means "to make the acquaintance of" with no sexual connotation. There is a strikingly similar passage in Judges 9:22ff., "...the men of the city...beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him." (The old man even offers his daughter as a bribe to get them to go away, just as Lot does.) This passage is universally interpreted as a warning against inhospitality, and the old man himself doesn't mention homosexuality at all when he recounts the incident in 20:5.
Jesus himself apparently believed that Sodom was destroyed for the sin of inhospitality: check Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:10-12. In Ezekial 16:49-50 the sins of Sodom are enumerated; homosexuality is not mentioned. The word "sodomite" occurs five times in the King James Version: Deuteronomy 23:17; I Kings 14:24, 15:12, and 22:46; and II Kings 23:7. In all five cases it translates the Hebrew word "qadesh" which means a male prostitute in a pagan temple; there is very little evidence about the practices of the qadeshim, and no particular reason to assume they serviced men. The only direct references to homosexuality in the King James Old Testament are Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination," and the similar verse 20:13. "Abomination" here is a rather loaded translation of the Hebrew word "toebah" which suggests ritual uncleanliness rather than moral evil.
Both Jesus and Paul taught that under the new dispensation it was not the physical violation of Levitical precepts which constituted "abomination" but the interior infidelity of the soul. The Council of Jerusalem in A.D. 49 decided that converts to the Christian faith would not be bound by any requirements of the Mosaic law except to refrain from eating food that had been strangled, contained blood, or had been offered to idols, and to refrain from fornication--the Greek term for which does not refer to homosexuality.
(There is also room for doubt as to what exactly is being prohibited: a literal translation would be "You shall not sleep the sleep of a woman with a man"; just what constitutes "the sleep of a woman" has been the subject of considerable debate, to put it mildly, among Jewish scholars. Some have speculated that this passage, too, was aimed specifically at curbing temple prostitution; notice, for example, that the qadeshim are specifically labeled as "toebah" in I Kings 14:24.)
Romans 1:26-27 reads, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
The "nature" in this passage is the Greek word "phusis" which means personal nature or disposition. It's the same Greek word that occurs, for example, in I Corinthians 11:14, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?", where Paul is probably using "phusis" to mean custom or tradition.
There's a lot of debate about just what "phusis" connoted at that time; but the one thing that's clear is that Paul isn't talking about "natural law" here. (The concept of a "natural law," one that was sinful to violate even for those ignorant of divine law, probably never even occurred to Paul, and certainly didn't occur to any of the many early Christian theologists who commented on this passage; the idea didn't show up in theology for another thousand years. Also, we know from other sources that homosexuality was generally regarded at the time as a natural physical trait; if Paul disagreed with the prevailing belief, there are plenty of other places in his writings where you'd expect him to say so, and he doesn't.)
The word "against" in "that which is against nature" is a clear mistranslation. The Greek word here is "para," which means not "against" but "in excess of." (It's translated as "more than" in the preceeding verse, in fact, and in many other places in the New Testament. The Greek word meaning "in opposition to" is "kata.") The very same phrase, "para phusis," is even used to describe the activity of God Himself in Romans 11:23-24, "And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree."
What Paul seems to be condemning here is not homosexuality per se (in fact, the absence of any reference to homosexuality in the list of sins that immediately follows, in verses 29-31, is striking) but the satisfying of one's desires in excess of what is fitting to one's nature. (This is also how the passage was interpreted by early Christian theologians; Saint John Chrysostom, for example, felt that it was an important point that the men and women had previously enjoyed satisfactory heterosexual relations.
"No one can claim, [Paul] points out, that she came to this because she was precluded from lawful intercourse or that...she was unable to satisfy her desire...") In general, Paul seemed to feel that sin lay not in specific acts but in their immoderation. "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband," I Corinthians 7:1-2. "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any," I Corinthians 6:12.
I Corinthians 6:9-10 reads, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
"Effeminate" is a poor translation of the Greek word "malakos" which means "soft". The word is not translated as "effeminate" anywhere else in the Bible. It is the same word that is translated as "soft" in Matthew 11:8 ("But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses"; similarly Luke 7:25). In a moral sense, "malakos" just means "licentious"; Aristotle in the _Nicomachean Ethics_ (7.4.4) says specifically that "malakos" refers to unrestraint in respect to bodily pleasures. The translation as "effeminate" seems awfully gratuitous.
"Abuser of himself with mankind" is a translation of the Greek word "arsenokoites"; this word has changed meaning several times over the centuries, so it's perhaps understandable how it got translated as it did; but in Paul's time, and in fact until well into the fourth century, it seems to have simply meant a temple prostitute. (Corroborating this indirectly is the fact that a great deal of contemporary homoerotic Greek writing has survived and not once in any of it does the word "arsenokoites" appear.)
I Timothy 1:10 refers to "them that defile themselves with mankind"; this is a translation of the same Greek word "arsenokoites" as appears in I Corinthians.
------------------ "Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." - Jeffrey Richman, UB student
Let the flame war begin.... *awaits Omega and First of Two*
------------------ "...when all that is driving my heart forward is you, thoughts of you, hopes for you, and a fading dream with a Mona Lisa smile that whispers "are you thinking of me too?"
posted
Yep. The entire basis of "Christian antihomosexuality" is based on passages taken out of context, misunderstood translations, and outright fibbery.
posted
_I'M_ not.... THIS is what I was trying to say LAST time this was brought up, but no one would believe me.....
------------------ "...when all that is driving my heart forward is you, thoughts of you, hopes for you, and a fading dream with a Mona Lisa smile that whispers "are you thinking of me too?"
posted
Face it Jubes, you and I are just smarter than most of them folks. Or at least better read, more logically coherent, and just a bit less likely to be led by our noses.
------------------ 'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson
Charles Capps
We appreciate your concern. It is noted and stupid.
Member # 9
posted
IIRC, my month long ban on religion-versus-sexual-orientation discissions is still in effect. Thread closed, it will be reopened when the ban is lifed in a few days.
------------------ Avon: "You really do believe in taking risks, don't you?" Tarrant: "Calculated risks." Avon: "Calculated on what? Your fingers?" -- Blake's Seven, Ultraworld
------------------ "Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." - Jeffrey Richman, UB student
posted
O God this goes to different translations of the bible, what words exactly mean, what the writers, said and what they meant to say. Hmmm I say that given these fun varibles I going to stay the hell away from this topic.
Hey Omega honestly I would really just put this one up to a MAJOR differences in Bible translations and let this dog lay, because it's not going to change anyone's option and it's going to piss a LOT of people off.
Of course "God Loves Fags...?", God loves everyone .
------------------ I will not subject my classmates to medical experiments.
[This message has been edited by HMS White Star (edited November 04, 1999).]
Their logic is coherent and the Biblical references cited make sense the way they are interpreted.
On an emotional level, I still feel that homosexual behavior might be "wrong", but this could just be residual resistance to altering a long-held view. I can find no logical way to refute the arguments at that site, and must therefore conclude that they are probably right.
I'll probably be doing some more research on this topic. Thus far, the only arguments I have found against homosexuality being compatible with Christianity appeal to hatred and distrust. If I find anything logical from either point-of-view, I shall post it here and see what the rest of you think.
One last thing: Just like you, I have noticed that some people use the "gay is evil" argument to promote violence and hateful acts against gays. That is plainly wrong. It is no different than the use of the Bible to lable all Jews "Christ killers" or using evolution to "prove" that blacks (or some other minority) are inferior and deserve to be subjugated.
Just a word of wisdom (okay, another last thing ) to those (mostly Christians) who will argue that homosexuality is wrong: be very careful of how you state your case. Say what you mean without making it sound like homosexuals ought to be rounded up and eliminated. Carefully read your statements before you post. If you are right, remember that God has created each and every one of these people and has commanded you to love them, even if you believe they are practicing a sin. Keep in mind that there are other sins of which you yourself are guilty. Get the lumber out of your own eyes before you start looking for specks in other people's eyes.
--Baloo
[Sorry if the wording of those last two paragraphs are awkward. It's late, I'm tired, and I'm adding that because I hate it when people point and shout "SINNER!" without realizing that they are sinners, too, so why all the shouting?]
------------------ Welcome to the museum of really dangerous things. Feel free to pick up and handle any of the displays. www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/
[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited November 04, 1999).]
posted
I have found another site that shows some good scholarship regarding the subject of the Biblical view of homosexuality. It's a bit more detailed and extensive than the site referenced above. It also gives some pretty good advice as to how Christians ought to approach such a debate (actually how to approach any debate). Actually, it's pretty good advice, and articulates a lot of what I've been trying to say about how one ought to approach a touchy subject.
------------------ Welcome to the museum of really dangerous things. Feel free to pick up and handle any of the displays. www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/
[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited November 04, 1999).]
posted
And we give any relevance to a scrap of paper written by some potentially drunk poets in a fit of humor because? Sorry to all ye faithful out there, but is there any need to squabble over the contents of a dubiously interpreted text? I'd just like to see common sense kick in.
Education is the key here and I don't just mean academic, I mean life education.
Let me quote someone - Grand Nagus Gint to be exact:
"Would anyone have bought it if we had called it 'The suggestions of aquisition?'."
Now, I await the standard bearer. Anyone have the hand-grenade of antioch about?
------------------ "Diplomacy is the art of Internationalising an issue to your advantage"
Actually, anybody who would use those passages as a literal argument against homosexuals DOES have to also believe that they have to be "rounded up and eliminated," coz the Bible says to do that, too.
Not to mention a whole lot of other "unsavory" types, of which I am at least one. (Or if not, I will be, in just a second...)
Come away! Worship Reason!
There, that should do it. Come and slay me now.
------------------ 'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson
posted
And putting my bi-sexuality aside...... I'm a witch so I guess that means you have to burn me at the stake, too.
------------------ "...when all that is driving my heart forward is you, thoughts of you, hopes for you, and a fading dream with a Mona Lisa smile that whispers "are you thinking of me too?"
Printer-friendly view of this topic
