My Blog on The Bible and Homosexuality.

[JaredThaJa888]

Blogmithrandirolorin -> The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality.

[Deku Trii]

Neat. I'll be sure to read it. I actually just watched For the Bible Tells Me So tonight. I imagine this will tread some of the same ground.

[CaptHayfever]

I think I read about 3/4 of it (past the halfway point, I started sorta skimming). You raise a lot of interesting points about the translations.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Kil'jaeden]

So basically Sodom, Gomorrah, and the 3 unnamed cities were destroyed because the people had a really big fetish for angels. But the whole Nephilim thing is basically a throwaway line in Genesis and some later mentions of Caananite giants that may have been related to that. That is, if you don't count the Book of Enoch, and I am sure no major church does (for some reason). Also, unless you count Enoch, no mention is made of whether these Sons of God were benevolent or not. Just that they happened to "go in unto the daughters of men".

Another notable thing about Sodom is that Lot offered his daughters to the crowd, and advertised that they were virgins. That should give an idea of what they had in mind, I guess the other question is why they would do it, but the story doesn't have to make sense. I see it as mostly nationalist propaganda on the part of the Hebrews who recorded this story later on. In the same story, it is also mentioned that the sons born from Lot's drunken coupling with his daughters were the ancestors of the Moabites and Ammonites. If the other tribes around the Hebrews in Caanan put as much emphasis on their great ancestors as the Hebrews did, this would have been a big insult. "Your great great great great granpa was born of an adulterous, incestuous, drunken union and cities of people like you were burned to ashes, ha ha ha" and all that.

I guess you can see them as an inhospitable people as well. Gang raping your guests in the street is not very nice, and angel rape is probably a sin, so homosexual angel rape is probably a bit higher on the scale, if that was the case. I also agree people taking the moral of the story as "homosexuals are bad" are missing most of the point. It's irrelevant because there are plenty of other verses they can use against homosexuals. Why bother with a confusing story/parable when you can clearly point out in Leviticus that a man that lies with another man is to be put to death? That is very unambiguous.

And the later comments involving male vs. female homosexuality. The Bible (unfortunately) has no references to lesbians, but does that mean that the ancient Hebrews or the Church would have approved? Really, I think it makes no mention of women homosexuals because the law makers thought the issue to be of little import. When are women mentioned in the Law except in reference to men, or ritual cleanliness, in some way? If they had caught two women doing something, they would have probably punished them like most of the sexual taboo laws required, death or banishment. Those seem to be the only punishments in those cases, excepting for some instances of rape where the rapist must marry the rapee. And even banishment was mostly reserved for some types of incest. The rest are death penalties. I do not see where you get the definition of adultery either. Of all the cases described in the law, pretty much any sex outside a marriage is adulterous, and that leads to execution or being forced to marry them. In the case of slaves (when the instigator was a free person, and I assume was not the slave owner) I think it was a fine. But all those were considered crimes, and there is really no wiggle room to use legal definitions to find a case where it would not be adultery.

As for polygamy, I do not see where it is disapproved. Nowhere in the Old or New Testament, or even Apocrypha, is there anything saying you cannot have more than one wife. The only line I can think of with any such stipulation is in Acts, and it is explicitly for the clergy. Why say that clergy can only take one wife if that would apply to everyone? I think the main reason the monogamous marriage issue was pressed in Christianity is because it spread largely in Greek and Roman culture, where monogamous marriage was the norm. The Near Eastern cultures all had some sort of polygamy, usually for the upper classes that could afford it, and the Hebrews were people of their region. Why would they be different? Their laws did not condemn it because it was a cultural norm for them.

And though the New Testament does not address the issue at all outside some comments in the Epistles, there is not a kind word for homosexuality anywhere. If the Epistles are to be taken at face value, all marriage and sex should be avoided. Origen castrated himself, but "if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off." Besides, the 144000 Jews to be taken up to Heaven were to be male virgins, and castration helps that along.

However, I do think what you said about people perceiving the Bible as anti-sex from beginning to end was accurate. The Old Testament is very excepting of sex within its set limits, and there's all those stories involving it, Song of Solomon aside. I doubt the Hebrews were at all as stuffy about it as the early Christians. I think the reason there is pretty simple too. The early Christians were basically a small cult, not popular with either the Romans that ruled everything or the local authorities in Judea. They seemed to expect the world to end, and again, there is a lot of emphasis on purity and chastity in the Epistles (and to a lesser extent the Gospels). Why marry or have kids when the Day of Wrath is coming? And you'd better not even think of adultery, or you'll burn for sure (both paraphrasing Paul). So they emphasized chastity and celibacy because those things would pay off in the soon to come kingdom. Some early sects were very strict about this, which is probably why they are not around. As the faith spread and the world refused to end, these rules became less rigid, applying only to the clergy. You can't have a national religion where everyone has to be celibate, chaste, and poor, or the empire would collapse.

This is probably long and disorderly, so to sum it up, you raised some interesting points about common misconceptions, but in the end I do not see how exactly homosexuality is not condemned when it is a death penalty offense in the Old Testament and grounds for damnation in the New.

[JaredThaJa888]

Only Jude emphasis the sexual nature of what they did at all. To most ancient commentators the main issue was in hospitality.

Elsewhere the Bible tells us Angels aren't supposed to Marry, so clearly this action is not Natural for them.

It doesn't directly address Male Homosexuality either.

Polygamy was TOlerated under the Law of Moses, but ti's never really acknowledged in a positive context the first reference to it is among Cain's descendants. The Polygamy of the Patriarchs resulted in problems as did David and Solomon's.

[Valigarmander]

Interesting read. I think Kil'jaeden already shared most of my thoughts, but there's one thing I was expecting you to cover in your essay that I didn't see, and it's the content of Romans 1:31-32. To clarify:

Originally Posted by Romans 1:26-27

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.

Originally Posted by Romans 1:31-32

Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Romans 1:26-27 discusses men and women going against nature (or, what's normal) and engaging in homosexual activities. Romans 1:31-32 goes on to say that those described in the previous few verses, including those without natural affections, "are worthy of death". (And those that "have pleasure in them that do them" as well. Supporters of homosexuals?) So, I'm wondering how you would consider this. In Paul's rant about Roman society in Romans 1:29-32 he lists unnatural affection alongside murder, deceit, envy, pride, maliciousness, disobedience, lack of mercy, and "all unrighteousness" as their crimes. Is homosexuality a crime worthy of death? Or is the crime just the rejection of God, and homosexuality just happens to be one of the symptoms these faithless Latins suffered from?

What I'm really confused about, assuming that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, is why it is included in Romans 1:31-32 at all. I could say, "O.J. Simpson is a murderer, a liar, a jerk, a thief, a pervert, and an African-American, and he deserves to be thrown in jail." O.J. may be all of those things, yet including "African-American" in a list of crimes would imply that it had a negative connotation from my point of view. If homosexuality is not to be condemned in the Bible, then including it in Romans 1:31-32 makes as much sense as including Roman architecture would.

Even if your claim that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality as a sin worthy of death or damnation is true, it still portrays it as something depraved and unfavorable.

(I might write more about this tomorrow. Right now, I need to go to bed.)

[JaredThaJa888]

I did cover Romans 1, in the 4th section, and not it's not addressing Female Homosexuality. Deere are many factors of it I covered, I don't think I missed anything.

What ti depicts as Depraved and Unfavorable is Paganism, and Lust weather Homosexual or Heterosexual, if Lust is the sole motivator behind the Sex then that is a Sin.

[CaptHayfever]

^^Of course, for a tribe of nomadic ex-slaves wandering through a desert full of hostile peoples en route to a long-reoccupied ancestral homeland which they'll have to fight their way into, any sexual release not directed towards procreation would probably be considered "unfavorable" by the community, even if it wasn't actually forbidden by law.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Kil'jaeden]

They were not just about that. They did not want anyone mixing with other tribes either, hence the killing of the Moabite women.

[Kil'jaeden]

That also illustrates another matter. Trying to apply the laws of the ancient Israelites to Western society now would be like applying the laws of ancient Rome or India to it now. No Jew or Christian would approve of the action of spearing a man's wife, and other women, for being from a different tribe. But in the Old Testament, this action is said to have averted God's anger. For some reason we think forcing a woman (always the woman) to marry a man that raped her, or even sentencing her to death (also in the Old Testament for some cases) to be barbaric if it happened in an Arab country today, and yet these same people that would denounce it now will tell you God himself said it was okay, but only 3000 years ago. Today it's not okay, but why would that be? Trying to say God was trying to fit their culture is like saying that you would keep your medicine, knives, and guns on the floor because small children would play with them without knowing better. And the "it was tolerated but not endorsed" argument always gets me because it is made perfectly clear that God has no problem incinerating a city or a country to make a point over any infractions. I don't think the word "tolerate" is even in any edition of the Bible.

As for the inhospitability, the Israelites themselves were not all the hospitable either. They were supposedly a group of nomads that came upon settlements of other people (peaceful or not) and massacred them, looting everything in the process. That's not exactly unusual, but it makes the hospitality thing look silly. But it was okay when they did that, because it's written in their national epic. It's a lot like a lot of the things in the Iliad appear to us now, but no one defends the massacre, slavery, looting, and other such things in that work. You don't see people making moral points by citing Hammurabi, Shang Yang, or Cicero, because to us they represent the mere opinions of their time, place, and social group.

Personally, I do not know why the Israelite laws or the Old Testament are held in such regard. It's mostly a relic, held to be irrelevent for the most part even by its own followers, except when it's convenient. Strip away the religious adoration, and it is not so different from Rome's Tables or Hammurabi's Code. And yet so many people think that the set of laws of a particular group of people in Caanan are divine, though they are not really unique. Some even try to use that to assume everyone else must have ripped off of them. I think the other 99% of humanity at the time deserves some credit. If anything, the Epistles' stance against the Law is most likely because they are aimed at Gentiles. There are many implications that the writer, Paul or not, had a dispute with the more old line followers of Jewish origin about the matter of the Law. Gentile converts didn't want to follow it all, and it could be argued that they didn't have to because it was not made for them. The others saw it differently, and you can find both attitudes across the Gospels.

[JaredThaJa888]

Originally Posted by CaptHayfever

^^Of course, for a tribe of nomadic ex-slaves wandering through a desert full of hostile peoples en route to a long-reoccupied ancestral homeland which they'll have to fight their way into, any sexual release not directed towards procreation would probably be considered "unfavorable" by the community, even if it wasn't actually forbidden by law.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

Actually POitns ar ejsut the opopsite, it was Sex the resulted in Porcreaiton they cared about limting, since they didn't want lots of Chidlren born out of Wedlock.

The La wof Moses did NOT force a Woman to Marry a man that Raped her, it stated the Rapist was obligated to offer to marry her, but Jewish Law DOES allow a Woman to turn down a marriage offer.

[Kil'jaeden]

Translation conventions for certain Hebrew and Greek words, to me, do not make it any less ambiguous on the issue. Sure, temple prostitution was reviled by the Hebrews, but keep in mind male prostitution (temple and otherwise) was accepted among other cultures, and that would have horrified them more. And in male dominated cultures like the Greeks and Romans, I do not see women getting to purchase prostitutes. I do not see what "lying with mankind", "defiling oneself with mankind" could possibly mean other than what it looks like. And I do not think it matters whether it happens in your bed or not, because other laws on sex make it clear adultery is not allowed anywhere, and the clause on rape in a deserted place is similar. If the Hebrews did not like homosexuality, they did not like it anywhere. They probably received a shock because they were conquered by Greeks, and then Romans, that did not think it a big deal.

Well, I think I digressed too much with all the extraneous details. It's odd to be arguing this, because I think people being more accepting of eachother is a good thing, but at the same time, I really do not see how a person can be a Christian or a Jew and also think homosexuality is okay without making some sort of compromise on principles. Sure, you can disregard the Old Testament as being Hebrew customs, but that stil does not leave a kind word for homosexuals. I have met religious people who aren't against it, but even the ones nicest about the issue still wish homosexuality could be cured or something. I think their reasoning is that since the world is already full of things God does not like, one more won't affect much.

But one thing I can say is that some groups have taken the issue too far. They almost make it a single issue religion, but that's silly. According to the New Testament, any little infraction of the Law will condemn you like you went down the list and broke them all, whether it be wearing a mixed fabric or sweeping your porch off on Saturday. Getting angry is equated with murder and looking at someone is lust. That Paul guy and a few centuries of theology made being born a crime too, though that is nowhere in the Old Testament.

And a question. What does it say about bestiality?

[Cosmonautical]

The most obvious issues with even the most straightforward Bible excerpts always lie in context.

Did God say these things? Did God speak through a mouthpiece, throwing everything into question? Could a mouthpiece fall out of God's favor? Is there a cultural implication or insinuation in the passage that we, living thousands of years later where this language and lifestyle is dead, could miss? Did God simply say these things to these people with the intent of it only affecting those in the immediate area of effect? Could the words of one omnipotent deity be mistaken for words of another omnipotent deity? Could God say conflicting things, and if so are they both true or is one more true than another? If it is a cardinal sin to kill, and you kill through obeying these laws, are you required to sin to obey the laws?

[JaredThaJa888]

I believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and it's primarily for people who share that belief that the Blog id written.

[Cosmonautical]

Yeah, sure, that's a start. Which one, though? How does one determine the accuracy of a copy of the Christian Bible? Are there inaccurate original copies? Are there inaccurate current copies? Are there rules about the kind of paper you're allowed to print on, or with which kind of ink? Does a copy of the Bible lack credibility when the language it's written in changes? The word of God can be infallible, hypothetically, but books aren't and neither are the people printing them, nor are the people reading them.

If you're trained and raised to feel comfortable with that one particular brand of religion, one variety of the many reprints of a book, how could you ever trust your ability to judge whether or not you're actually trusting in God's power? Then it's just as feasible that even your faith is a comfort mechanism, because you're too afraid to step outside of the circle you're been running laps around to do anything differently.

To start with an understanding, you're always blocking yourself from guaranteed accuracy, because you're forced to rely on your own understanding of any language.