Religion, Faith, and Spirituality : The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

So it's "Greatest Hits" time now in honor of shutting down?

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

You could say that. This is now my last chance to use this forum to spread this important message.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

Well in that case, I don't mind lending a hand (not that I have any particular opinion about what the Bible teaches, if anything, on the matter).

http://www.notalllikethat.org/taking-god-at-his-word-the-bible-and-homosexuality/
Excerpt:
"During the time in which the New Testament was written, the Roman conquerors of the region frequently and openly engaged in homosexual acts between themselves and boys. Such acts were also common between Roman men and their male slaves. These acts of non-consensual sex were considered normal and socially acceptable. They were, however, morally repulsive to Paul, as today they would be to everyone, gay and straight."

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


Well in that case, I don't mind lending a hand (not that I have any particular opinion about what the Bible teaches, if anything, on the matter).

http://www.notalllikethat.org/taking-god-at-his-word-the-bible-and-homosexuality/
Excerpt:
"During the time in which the New Testament was written, the Roman conquerors of the region frequently and openly engaged in homosexual acts between themselves and boys. Such acts were also common between Roman men and their male slaves. These acts of non-consensual sex were considered normal and socially acceptable. They were, however, morally repulsive to Paul, as today they would be to everyone, gay and straight."

Except no one, including Paul, had any reason to view these acts as non-consensual. Rape was already illegal, and a man forcing himself on another man (or boy, unless his slave) was a crime punishable by death. If this is what Paul was referring to, one must assume - by implication - that the rape of women was perfectly fine - or he would simply have spoken of rape. Back then people did not think of "informed consent": there was no such thing as an age of consent. Indeed, that concept is only a little over 100 years old. A child was seen as every bit as capable of consenting to sex as an adult.

Now, the thing about homosexuality in the ancient world is that it was considered perfectly ok if the active party was considerably senior in age and status - but deeply immoral if they were on equal footing, in which case it was considered that the man had allowed himself to have been made a woman for the duration. So a male citizen sleeping with his slave's 6 year old son was perfectly acceptable - but two adult male citizens sleeping together was not.

So what is Paul condemning? It is hardly mere pederasty, or he would have used the perfectly common word for pederasty. Instead, he uses the word arsenokoites, which is a pretty rare word - at least in surviving documents. The word is a combination of arsen (man) and koitazu (to bring to bed with), and so the reasonable interpretation is that of a man who sleeps with other men. Whether pederast or not.

Some try to say it refers to temple prostitution, but again, if that were the case, he would have spelled it out to avoid confusion.

Also, Jesus condemned all sexual lust which was not directed towards one's spouse, and there were absolutely no provisions made for same-sex marriage. For someone who is that strict when it comes to lust, is it really reasonable to assume he would be ok with homosexuality? He is only barely ok with heterosexuality.

The biggest argument, though: If neither Paul nor the OT condemned homosexuality in general, why is it that it is only today that this meaning has come to light? Why did the early Christians not interpret it this way? It is only reasonable to assume that the closer you get to the source in time, the closer you get to the source's original meaning. And the early Christians - from the time they were in a position to legislate - condemned all homosexual acts. So if the notion that the Bible condemns homosexuality is a wrong interpretation, how come it was thus wrongly interpreted from the inception?

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

Yes I have never agreed with the "their really about Pedastry" theories. My argument is clear, their about Pagan rituals involving anal sex.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


Yes I have never agreed with the "their really about Pedastry" theories. My argument is clear, their about Pagan rituals involving anal sex.

I don't think it is limited to rituals, or Paul would surely have made mention of it. Besides, considering the audience he was speaking to, homosexuality was generally not ritualistic.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

Paul did mention it, the entire context of Romans 1 is that he's talking about Paganism.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

Pagan customs are not necessarily the same as pagan rituals, though. Indeed, Paul says it is because they turned away from God that God gave them over to "shameful lusts". Whether these desires also happened to be incorporated in pagan worship is neither here nor there - they were still "shameful lusts". It is difficult to place envy and gossip, for example, within a ritual context.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

One the Lust in question is very specific. When it applies to women gender doesn't mater, but for men it's specified to be same sex. That logically rules out pretty much everything but being the passive partner in Anal sex.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


One the Lust in question is very specific. When it applies to women gender doesn't mater, but for men it's specified to be same sex. That logically rules out pretty much everything but being the passive partner in Anal sex.

Yes, it is penetrative sex which is being discussed. Biologically, we have evolved to look at penetration as a dominant act, and being penetrated as submissive. Consequently, pride is attached to the ability to penetrate (and shame attached to impotency), and shame attached to having been forced to receive - or perhaps being willing to receive. This has greatly influenced cultural approach to sex.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

My point is that's not the only thing Gay Men do.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


My point is that's not the only thing Gay Men do.

Sure. The prohibition is not against being gay, but against homosexual penetrative sex.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

I don't see where penetration as a dominant act and being penetrated as a submissive one is biological. Rather, that's cultural. Certainly our language reflects that cultural take, but it's equally valid to discuss enveloping as penetrating.

The issue is with gender roles and only in cultures that look down on women. Look at the Iroquois Confederacy. Notably, cultures where women had the vote as a given (rather than something earned over time by fighting for it) were ones that had no issue with gay couples or marriages.

Bringing it back to Paul, terms used suggest ritual impurity and so are reasonably read as being about temple prostitutes.

Projecting a modern understanding, with the use of the modern term 'homosexuality', onto peoples of an earlier time who used no similar term is not a reasonable way to understand history. Yes, homosexuality is generally not ritualistic, but the culture you're addressing had no understanding of homosexuality as we do. Instead, they addressed roles, be those about presumed gender roles or ritual presentation.

All roads lead to truth if you're willing to travel honestly.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


I don't see where penetration as a dominant act and being penetrated as a submissive one is biological. Rather, that's cultural. Certainly our language reflects that cultural take, but it's equally valid to discuss enveloping as penetrating.

Seeing as it is something we have in common with our simian cousins, it is more than merely cultural.



The issue is with gender roles and only in cultures that look down on women. Look at the Iroquois Confederacy. Notably, cultures where women had the vote as a given (rather than something earned over time by fighting for it) were ones that had no issue with gay couples or marriages.

Biology is a significant factor in how culture shapes. The fact that societies like the Iroquois are the exception rather than the norm, is quite telling. Equality between sexes and acceptance of men who are the passive part in homosexual encounters, is something which cultures have to evolve. They are not so egalitarian by default.



Bringing it back to Paul, terms used suggest ritual impurity and so are reasonably read as being about temple prostitutes.

Spiritual impurity, not ritual. After all, like I said, you'd be hard pressed to place envy, gossip, insolence in a ritual setting. So Paul is very clearly not discussing rituals.



Projecting a modern understanding, with the use of the modern term 'homosexuality', onto peoples of an earlier time who used no similar term is not a reasonable way to understand history.

I thought I was exceedingly clear that I was talking about homosexual acts, and not homosexual persuasion. So why bring up projecting modern understanding when that is clearly not what I am doing?



Yes, homosexuality is generally not ritualistic, but the culture you're addressing had no understanding of homosexuality as we do. Instead, they addressed roles, be those about presumed gender roles or ritual presentation.

They addressed activities. They only addressed roles indirectly, in association with such activities. In ancient Rome (and Greece - and the whole Mediterranean basin), to be penetrated by another man was to take on a woman's role. You were not less of a man if you were the one doing the penetrating, but you were considered less of a man if you were the one being penetrated.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


Seeing as it is something we have in common with our simian cousins, it is more than merely cultural.
Not at all. Bonobos don't equate to chimps don't equate to orangutans. You can't make the blanket statement you just did and pretend it holds up to scrutiny.

Cultural is a given if you look at it. Different cultures have had different approaches.

Biology is a significant factor in how culture shapes. The fact that societies like the Iroquois are the exception rather than the norm, is quite telling. Equality between sexes and acceptance of men who are the passive part in homosexual encounters, is something which cultures have to evolve. They are not so egalitarian by default.
Where do you get such as the exception? Various cultures across the Americas stood in the same stead. We can look at such across Asia, pre-Christian Europe, Africa, etc. You can't look only at the commonality after such has been spread via cultural dynamics and say such is the standard. Indo-European languages are more common, but such is not the standard, nor is such a given rather than the result of perpetuation of certain cultural concepts.

Egalitarian takes as the default is not something I put forward. Rather, I put forward that there has been no singular default. Instead, we've seen clearly in history how societies can shift, and rather quickly, from one dynamic to another.

Spiritual impurity, not ritual. After all, like I said, you'd be hard pressed to place envy, gossip, insolence in a ritual setting. So Paul is very clearly not discussing rituals.
Fair enough, but 'ritual impurity' is about being impure for the sake of taking part in rituals. It's not about having been stained by a ritual but having stained yourself so as not to be able to take part in rituals. As such, addressing placing things in a ritual setting is rather irrelevant.

I thought I was exceedingly clear that I was talking about homosexual acts, and not homosexual persuasion. So why bring up projecting modern understanding when that is clearly not what I am doing?
It is what you're doing, whether or not such is your intent. In addressing roles, cultures didn't treat the two participants in a gay sex act the same. Such exists culturally today in various places, such as in Latin America where receiving oral sex from or giving anal sex to a male prostitute is not seen as a gay act.

The address of acts is itself a modern perspective. Roles was the dynamic likely addressed in the culture in question.

They addressed activities. They only addressed roles indirectly, in association with such activities. In ancient Rome (and Greece - and the whole Mediterranean basin), to be penetrated by another man was to take on a woman's role. You were not less of a man if you were the one doing the penetrating, but you were considered less of a man if you were the one being penetrated.
You contradict yourself there, specifying that roles were the pivot rather than activities.

All roads lead to truth if you're willing to travel honestly.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


In ancient Rome (and Greece - and the whole Mediterranean basin), to be penetrated by another man was to take on a woman's role. You were not less of a man if you were the one doing the penetrating, but you were considered less of a man if you were the one being penetrated.
Though in respect of ancient Greece James Davidson in "Courtesans and Fishcakes" (1998) has argued that this model is incorrect. I was particularly struck by his quote from Arcesilaus, who "remarked on seeing some 'adulterous and intemperate' men, 'it makes no difference whether you are a kinaidos in front or behind'." (p.178) That single sentence puts in question the classic "poker/pokee" model of sexual categorization which Kenneth Dover articulated in "Greek Homosexuality" (1978). To be honest, I'm not sure I buy Davidson's argument entirely, but it is certainly thought provoking.


Call me Ishmael...

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


Bringing it back to Paul, terms used suggest ritual impurity and so are reasonably read as being about temple prostitutes.
I'm afraid I don't agree with that interpretation. While the earliest sexual legislations in the OT - namely Deuteronomy 23:17-18 - clearly do address banning male cult prostitutes, the later legislation in Leviticus gradually loses the cultic connotations and becomes a ban on male-male intercourse (ie anal sex). I say gradually, because while in Leviticus 18:22, the asssement of the ruling against "man-bedding" as to'ebhah certainly harks back to cultic heresy, in Leviticus 20:13 the ruling has no cultic context and no cultic reference (as Karl Aksel points out). Its language unambiguously follows the pattern and the language of the previous verses and simply bans man-bedding along with other banned sexual relationships and types of sex. Period.

Now there is no reason to assume that Paul, whose use of the word arsenokoites clearly refers to the passages in Leviticus (as rightly Poisoned Dragon states), meant it to have a narrower meaning than it did in Leviticus, and nothing in the passage suggests that Paul is limiting it to a narrower cultic context. Given that both Philo and Josephus are unambiguously hostile to male sexual intercourse, I really think that this was Paul's attitude as well.


Call me Ishmael...

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

Austen! Long time! Good to see you in the waning days of the boards.

As for the matter at hand, I did quite specifically write 'suggest' rather than saying Paul said such outright. However, we can't impose modern understandings on people of that time. The specific role was their view and, as there weren't two prohibitions, I can't read such as being about anal sex. Were such clear, we wouldn't have seen Justinian railing that people weren't reading it as barring same-sex activity.

But without going into Christianity, we have copious records of Jewish law, with Leviticus 20:13 never being read in that manner. Gender roles were important to the Jews and that could certainly figure into their understanding of the passage, but that would reflect on one participant only. Adultery with another man is one reading that's out there, one that would play out on both participants. Even with that, gay couples lived peacefully among the Jews into Jesus' day.

Now, if you want to make a case that Paul read Leviticus that way and was launching off of that, that would be one thing, but even so, we didn't see Leviticus or Paul read that way by the cultures following either or both. That's a huge gap to ignore.

All roads lead to truth if you're willing to travel honestly.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


Austen! Long time! Good to see you in the waning days of the boards.
Yes, indeed. A final fling, before the curtain falls.

I'm at work and can't really give this my attention until a bit later....



Call me Ishmael...

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


The specific role was their view and, as there weren't two prohibitions, I can't read such as being about anal sex.
I'm not sure I understand about the need for two prohibitions. Why would that be necessary? Here's Leviticus 20:12 & 13:

12 And if a man beds his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have wrought corruption; their blood shall be upon them.
13 And if a man beds a male - with the bedding of a female - both of them have committed abomination (to'evah): they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

(NB: I was enitrely wrong when I said only Leviticus 18:12 mentioned "to'evah" - it appears here too.)

I can't see how the word rendered above as "bedding", in this context, means anything other than, er, "poking". Note also that in the above verses, both parties in both cases are considered blameworthy... the two verses are pretty analogous in grammar, terminology and sense. I can't see where the doubt arises, to be honest.

we have copious records of Jewish law, with Leviticus 20:13 never being read in that manner
I'd say that Talmud clearly understands it that way. Which records of Jewish Law offer a different explanation?

When Josephus discusses marriage, he comments that "μῖξιν... πρὸς ἄρρενας ἀρρένων" "mixin.... pros arrenas arrenwn" (Against Apion II, 25) "the co-mingling" of man with men" is punishable by death, and he is surely referencing Leviticus 20:13; the broad "man with men" does not suggests that he read it in a limited sense, ie referring to some special circumstances.

Were such clear, we wouldn't have seen Justinian railing that people weren't reading it as barring same-sex activity.
I'm showing my ignorance, but can you give me more details of this?


Call me Ishmael...

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

is that of a man who sleeps with other men




Yes, and it's forbidden by God.







All fundies are nuts-Poisoned Dragon

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


Now, the thing about homosexuality in the ancient world is that it was considered perfectly ok if the active party was considerably senior in age and status - but deeply immoral if they were on equal footing, in which case it was considered that the man had allowed himself to have been made a woman for the duration.

This was unlikely to have been the representative viewpoint for more than a few. Characterizing it as a society-wide viewpoint would be somewhat comparable to citing Catholic statements on homosexuality and thinking they were typical of all of society today.

Except no one, including Paul... If this is what Paul was referring to... So what is Paul condemning?

The assumption that all these texts were actually written by Paul is problematic, since the disciplines of critical scholarship have long recognized that they are by different authors, at different times, and with very different agendas. It hobbles any potential understanding of the actual meanings of the texts.

Instead, he uses the word arsenokoites, which is a pretty rare word - at least in surviving documents. The word is a combination of arsen (man) and koitazu (to bring to bed with), and so the reasonable interpretation is that of a man who sleeps with other men.

The word's origin can easily be found in the Septuagint translation for Leviticus 18:22: καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν. But Leviticus 18:22 was a pesher (interpretation) of an older passage in Deuteronomy, "There shall be no qedeshah of the daughters of Israel, and no qedes of Israel's sons. You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of YHWH your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to YHWH your God (23:17,18). The terms qedeshah and qedes literally mean "holy ones," servants of the Gods, but are commonly translated variants of "cult prostitute" in deference to Deuteronomic invective characterizing them as some sort of sexual offenders. This was waaay overblown, since the Deuteronomists regarded anything but strict, exclusive service paid towards YHWH as "whoring after other gods" (cf. Judges 2:17). It was religious hyperbole referring to ritual offenses, later misunderstood as describing actual sexual offenses.

By the time it came to the authors of Leviticus, the mention of the qedeshah had been dropped altogether, since women had no official role in the temple service of YHWH. The men, qedeshim, were characterized as "male cult prostitutes," although all they had ever actually been were male ministers of the traditional Levantine pantheon, no 'gay sex' involved. The Levitical precept remembers only the would-be sexual aspect of the offense: "And with male you shall not lay lyings of a woman; abomination it is." That, beyond the invective, the roots of the offense actually lay in idolatry, the worship of gods other than YHWH, is demonstrated by its characterization as tō-w-‘ê-ḇāh, 'abomination,' a word frequently reserved for idolatry (i.e. "abomination of desolation").
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/8441.htm

The biggest argument, though: If neither Paul nor the OT condemned homosexuality in general, why is it that it is only today that this meaning has come to light? Why did the early Christians not interpret it this way? It is only reasonable to assume that the closer you get to the source in time, the closer you get to the source's original meaning. And the early Christians - from the time they were in a position to legislate - condemned all homosexual acts.

By the time Christians were in a position to legislate, it could no longer be characterized as "early Christianity." It was the early Middle Ages.

Even in the early Middle Ages, Christians did not have a unanimous opinion of same-sex relations. In some communions, same-sex rituals were celebrated by the Church, as a sort of same-sex marriage. It wasn't until the 12th-13th centuries that Church law (Corpus Juris Canonici) formally described and condemned same-sex relations.

§« https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhG6uc7fN0o »§

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


This was unlikely to have been the representative viewpoint for more than a few.

What makes you say that? On the contrary, besides written evidence, it is very typical of every culture which have a strong opinion on what is or isn't "manly". The Japanese were the same: homosexual activity was fine, except when the passive party was of equal or higher standing than the active party. The same is still true in prison culture all over the world, and the same is also true when we look at our simian cousins: they use sex to establish dominance. It is deep seated in our biology that the who penetrates is dominant to the one who is being penetrated, which is precisely why there is a particular sense of humiliation if that is something one was forced to submit to. It is only very recently - extremely recently, in fact - that the Western culture has started moving away from that.



The assumption that all these texts were actually written by Paul is problematic, since the disciplines of critical scholarship have long recognized that they are by different authors, at different times, and with very different agendas. It hobbles any potential understanding of the actual meanings of the texts.

It really doesn't matter if the author was Paul or not. That's a different discussion, and doesn't affect the arguments in this thread.



The word's origin can easily be found in the Septuagint translation for Leviticus 18:22: καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν. But Leviticus 18:22 was a pesher (interpretation) of an older passage in Deuteronomy, "There shall be no qedeshah of the daughters of Israel, and no qedes of Israel's sons. You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of YHWH your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to YHWH your God (23:17,18). The terms qedeshah and qedes literally mean "holy ones," servants of the Gods, but are commonly translated variants of "cult prostitute" in deference to Deuteronomic invective characterizing them as some sort of sexual offenders. This was waaay overblown, since the Deuteronomists regarded anything but strict, exclusive service paid towards YHWH as "whoring after other gods" (cf. Judges 2:17). It was religious hyperbole referring to ritual offenses, later misunderstood as describing actual sexual offenses.

By the time it came to the authors of Leviticus, the mention of the qedeshah had been dropped altogether, since women had no official role in the temple service of YHWH. The men, qedeshim, were characterized as "male cult prostitutes," although all they had ever actually been were male ministers of the traditional Levantine pantheon, no 'gay sex' involved. The Levitical precept remembers only the would-be sexual aspect of the offense: "And with male you shall not lay lyings of a woman; abomination it is." That, beyond the invective, the roots of the offense actually lay in idolatry, the worship of gods other than YHWH, is demonstrated by its characterization as tō-w-‘ê-ḇāh, 'abomination,' a word frequently reserved for idolatry (i.e. "abomination of desolation").
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/8441.htm

All fine and good, except when you consider both Leviticus chapter 20 as well as chapter 18, and consider what is not written. First things first:

One can be forgiven for reading Leviticus 18 as referring only to temple prostitution, given the context where it appears. However, when it is repeated in chapter 20 it is very obviously not in the context of temple prostitution, because it also talks about incest in the same context - the context being which sexual relations are prohibited.

Also, assuming this is all about temple prostitution: Where is the command that says that to lie with a female temple prostitue as one would a woman is an abomination? What is the reason male temple prostitution is singled out? Even if this is only about male temple prostitutes, the implication is clear: homosexual acts are frowned upon. Besides, the interpretation that this has only to do with temple prostitution and nothing more, is a very recent interpretation, barely 30 years old. And the Jews never interpreted it that way, either. In the Mishneh Torah, we find the following:

When a man enters into relations with a male or has a male enter into relations with him, once the corona is inserted [into the anus] they should both be stoned if they are both adults. As [Leviticus 18:22] states: "Do not lie with a man," [holding one liable for the act, whether] he is the active or passive partner.

If a minor of nine years and a day or more is involved, the man who enters into relations or has the minor enter into relations with him should be stoned and the minor is not liable. If the male [minor] was less than nine years old, they are both free of liability. It is, however, appropriate for the court to subject the adult to stripes for rebellious conduct for homosexual relations although his companion was less than nine years old.

Issurei Biah 1:14

Note the second paragraph: if the boy is young enough, they are both free of liability, even the older man. But wait, there's more:

It is forbidden to release sperm wastefully. Therefore a person should not enter his wife and ejaculate outside of her. A man should not marry a minor who is not fit to give birth.

Those who, however, release sperm with their hands, beyond the fact that they commit a great transgression, a person who does this will abide under a ban of ostracism. Concerning them, it is said: "Your hands are filled with blood." It is as if they killed a person.

Issurei Biah 21:18

This heavily implies that the only acceptable release of sperm is for the purpose of conception. This would automatically prohibit any homosexual intercourse. After all, why would that be allowed, when even masturbation is not? In verse 9 of the same chapter, however, a husband is specifically granted the permission to have any sort of intercourse with his wife that he likes (anal sex is specifically mentioned), but on the condition that his seed is not "spilled in vain".

But there is still more:


Lesbian relations are forbidden. This is "the conduct of Egypt" which we were warned against, as [Leviticus 18:3] states: "Do not follow the conduct of Egypt." Our Sages said: What would they do? A man would marry a man, a woman would marry a woman, and a woman would marry two men.

Although this conduct is forbidden, lashes are not given for it, for it is not a specific prohibition and there is no intercourse at all. Therefore such women are not forbidden to marry into the priesthood as zonot, nor does a woman become prohibited to her husband because of this, for this is not considered harlotry. It is, however, appropriate to give them stripes for rebellious conduct because they performed a transgression. A man should take precautions with his wife with regard to this matter and should prevent women who are known to engage in such practices from visiting her and her from visiting them.

Issurei Biah 21:8

And here we have it. Even if the prohibitions referred to something which may or may not have been done in a ritualistic setting in foreign cultures, they are forbidden for Israelites in any context, precisely because "it is what they do - we should not be like them". And so even if the author had temple prostitutes in mind in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the prohibition is a blanket one.

Note also that lesbians are not severely punished for this, because no intercourse was involved - no penetration. Again we see the importance attributed to penetration by the human psyche. Yes, that sounds positively Freudian, doesn't it, but just because Freud is a bit old hat doesn't mean that his theories were all wrong - history certainly bears him out on more than a few points.


http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960647/jewish/Chapter-One.htm#footnoteRef44a960647
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960669/jewish/Chapter-Twenty-One.htm#footnoteRef50a960669



By the time Christians were in a position to legislate, it could no longer be characterized as "early Christianity." It was the early Middle Ages.

Closer to early Christianity than early Middle Ages, which is from the 5th century on - the earliest Christian legislation is from the early 4th century, and the earliest Christian inspired legislation from 3rd century (Emperor Philip).



Even in the early Middle Ages, Christians did not have a unanimous opinion of same-sex relations. In some communions, same-sex rituals were celebrated by the Church, as a sort of same-sex marriage.

Citation needed. At any rate, Christian practice has always been at odds with Christian teaching, and certain pagan practices continued. Some continue even to our time. If homosexuality was celebrated by any Christian community (hardly very widespread if it was), then this is certainly a pagan artefact - not a Christian contribution.



It wasn't until the 12th-13th centuries that Church law (Corpus Juris Canonici) formally described and condemned same-sex relations.

So from the earliest time it was codified, then. The Corpus Juris Canonici dates back to the 13th century.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


What makes you say that? On the contrary, besides written evidence, it is very typical of every culture which have a strong opinion on what is or isn't "manly".

What makes me say that? Other written evidence; the graffiti, etc. There's every evidence that ancient societies had as many different approaches/outlooks on same-sex relations as we have.

The same is still true in prison culture all over the world, and the same is also true when we look at our simian cousins: they use sex to establish dominance.

Some simians do; others (like bonobos) do not.

It is deep seated in our biology that the who penetrates is dominant to the one who is being penetrated, which is precisely why there is a particular sense of humiliation if that is something one was forced to submit to.



It is only very recently - extremely recently, in fact - that the Western culture has started moving away from that.

It is only recently that Western culture has formulated a concept of sexual orientation, and established a formal system of labels describing such traits. But no - there's evidence that other bases for same-sex interactions have always been with us. Cultures have changed; same-sex attraction/relations have not.

It really doesn't matter if the author was Paul or not. That's a different discussion, and doesn't affect the arguments in this thread.

Ah, but it does. One reads all sorts of assumptions into epistolary texts when one takes for granted the Book of Acts' narrative for the character Paul - that he was Jewish, of the school of the Pharisees, that he had such-and-such relationship with the supposed "Jerusalem Church," that he held certain views/had certain experiences, etc.

However, when it is repeated in chapter 20 it is very obviously not in the context of temple prostitution, because it also talks about incest in the same context - the context being which sexual relations are prohibited.

Correct. Chapter 20 groups the subjects by a different criteria - the intensity of the penalty. In the case of passing one's offspring through the molech, using familiar spirits, cursing one's parents, adultery, etc. - all of these warrant the death penalty, and so all are listed together.

Also, assuming this is all about temple prostitution: Where is the command that says that to lie with a female temple prostitue as one would a woman is an abomination? What is the reason male temple prostitution is singled out?

The reason is as I said before: "By the time it came to the authors of Leviticus, the mention of the qedeshah had been dropped altogether, since women had no official role in the temple service of YHWH." To offer some repetition of the injunction against the qedeshah would be to call attention to the fact that women had once served in the temple, and it's likely that the authors of Leviticus did not believe or acknowledge that, somewhat the way observant Jews today do not own that their religion began in polytheism.

Male "temple prostitution" is "singled out" because, by the point that text was written, only males served YHWH.

I must re-emphasize that no actual "prostitution" was involved; this was purely Yahwist hyperbole.

Besides, the interpretation that this has only to do with temple prostitution and nothing more, is a very recent interpretation, barely 30 years old.

I'm not sure how old it is precisely, but people lob different forms of criticism at views they don't like: some ridicule a hermeneutic for being too old, and some for being too new. Either way, "too young/too old" isn't a valid argument.

And the Jews never interpreted it that way, either. In the Mishneh Torah, we find the following:

The Mishneh Torah is from the Middle Ages, from pretty much the same time the Latin Church was codifying Corpus Juris Canonici to make official pronouncements on same-sex behavior. It cannot be used to demonstrate what "Jews have never interpreted." Similarly, it was also in the Middle Ages that the Talmudists decided that Deuteronomy 14:21d meant that meat and dairy could not be eaten together, or even prepared with the same utensils.

Citation needed.

See John Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-Sex_Unions_in_Pre-Modern_Europe

If homosexuality was celebrated by any Christian community (hardly very widespread if it was), then this is certainly a pagan artefact - not a Christian contribution.

Pagans didn't invent homosexuality; they didn't own it. From a statistical standpoint, there would have been just as high an incidence of homosexuals in Christianity as in paganism. But Christianity's doctrines of celibacy/monasticism/sexual segregation would have provided a uniquely welcome environment for men who did not wish to marry women; the priesthood would have been (and indeed has been) an escape route from what would otherwise be considerable familial/social pressure to marry and have children. Homosexuality and Christianity have been together since Christianity's formation; its influence upon Christianity is unmistakable, especially since Christianity seems to have inherited wholesale Platonism/Neo-Platonism's struggles with sexuality, sharing their metaphysical assumptions.

So from the earliest time it was codified, then. The Corpus Juris Canonici dates back to the 13th century.

Yes. It's a profound cultural distance from the 2nd century milieu in which Christianity began.

§« https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhG6uc7fN0o »§

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


What makes me say that? Other written evidence; the graffiti, etc. There's every evidence that ancient societies had as many different approaches/outlooks on same-sex relations as we have.

Homosexual depictions in graffiti is hardly evidence of acceptance for homosexuality - just the opposite, in fact. When sexual acts are depicted in graffiti, they are invariably humiliating sexual acts. Same as today. And throughout history, getting fcked is a metaphor for something decidedly negative, precisely because of the humiliation associated with it. Note that the metaphor is not getting raped, but getting fcked - particularly if one has been had, one might say one bent over and took it with a smile, or something to that effect. Same with *beep* - it is not an endeering term. The connotation is negative, because the act is submissive, and therefore humiliating. Receiving anal and giving oral were considered extremely submissive acts, and therefore humiliating in the light of day. Even today, in Latin macho cultures, men will not readily admit to having ever gone down on a woman. Whether they actually do is another matter, but there are men still today who are too proud to do so. I'm afraid the evidence is not on your side here.



Some simians do; others (like bonobos) do not.

Almost all simians do. Our closest cousins, the chimps, most certainly do. The bonobo are quite unusual in their sexuality, and quite unlike us in that regard. Or other simians, for that matter.





You may all you want, it won't change anything.



It is only recently that Western culture has formulated a concept of sexual orientation, and established a formal system of labels describing such traits.

That isn't the case, and you have yourself contradicted this point in previous posts. For as long as there have been gay people (which is as long as there have been people), there have been clear preferences for same-sex companions, rather than mere same-sex adventures. We know that same-sex marriage has occurred since very early on (and also legislated against very early on), so even though they did not think of sexual persuasion in terms of brain chemistry, they knew that certain people were "like that".



But no - there's evidence that other bases for same-sex interactions have always been with us. Cultures have changed; same-sex attraction/relations have not.

Of course they've always been with us, and I have never remotely suggested otherwise. However, throughout Christian history, it is only now that homosexuality is beginning to be accepted. And it isn't even universally accepted yet.



Ah, but it does. One reads all sorts of assumptions into epistolary texts when one takes for granted the Book of Acts' narrative for the character Paul - that he was Jewish, of the school of the Pharisees, that he had such-and-such relationship with the supposed "Jerusalem Church," that he held certain views/had certain experiences, etc.

No matter who the author was, the words written are the same - so the actual author is unimportant. We must assume that the words reflect the author's mind, no matter who he was. The only thing that would make a difference is if it was actually a different intended audience, because the assumed common ground would then be different. By assumed common ground I mean this: the author does not have to spell certain things out, because it is commonly understood. Unless he is talking to a Jewish audience, he would not assume they knew he was referring to Leviticus and temple prostitution (ie. assuming Leviticus is only about temple prostitution - and that's a big 'if') unless he spelled it out - which he very tellingly did not do. Therefore it is not reasonable to assume he was talking about temple prostitution.



Correct. Chapter 20 groups the subjects by a different criteria - the intensity of the penalty. In the case of passing one's offspring through the molech, using familiar spirits, cursing one's parents, adultery, etc. - all of these warrant the death penalty, and so all are listed together.

True, but if it were only meant to apply to priests, it would specify priests and not simply say "if a man...". Even in Lev. 18, you are reading "temple prostitution" because the gay prohibition follows a mention of a ritual of Molech, but what then of the verse concerning women and animals, which follow the homosexual thing? The context is still the same, after all. And the reason why it is forbidden is not because of any ritual context: it is because it is an "abomination". And the reason it is an abomination may well be because it was used in religious observance by other people to another god, but Jews were already prohibited from worshipping other gods. So it should rather be read, "you are never to do these things, because it is what those filthy foreigners do in obeisance to their gods."

And really, why decide that the mention of Molech suddenly changes the context? Why did not the incest change the context, or the gay stuff? Leviticus 18 is, of course, all in the same context: immoral relations, regardless of context. It may be fordibben because of specific use in specific context of other peoples, but that translates to a general prohibition for the Jews. Just because one verse mentions Molech, does not mean that any verse you want to should be interpreted in that light. For example, the incest bit does not mean that the gay bit only concerns homosexual acts with members of one's own family. Or that bestiality is only prohibited if the animal is the same sex as you.



The reason is as I said before: "By the time it came to the authors of Leviticus, the mention of the qedeshah had been dropped altogether, since women had no official role in the temple service of YHWH." To offer some repetition of the injunction against the qedeshah would be to call attention to the fact that women had once served in the temple, and it's likely that the authors of Leviticus did not believe or acknowledge that, somewhat the way observant Jews today do not own that their religion began in polytheism.

Male "temple prostitution" is "singled out" because, by the point that text was written, only males served YHWH.

I must re-emphasize that no actual "prostitution" was involved; this was purely Yahwist hyperbole.

I'm not talking about women prostituting themselves - I'm talking about men lying with female temple prostitutes. Would a man be allowed to sleep with a female temple prostitute? Bear in mind that - as you yourself suggest - temple prostitution is actually sex in the context of religious worship, something not practiced by the Jews. So the Yahweh is obviously not the god being worshipped, meaning it is clearly a no-no - whether you sleep with a male or a female. But only males are singled out, why? Because it is not about temple prostitution. If it were, it would simply have said as much: do not sleep with khadeshim. Instead, it says men are not to sleep with men.



I'm not sure how old it is precisely, but people lob different forms of criticism at views they don't like: some ridicule a hermeneutic for being too old, and some for being too new. Either way, "too young/too old" isn't a valid argument.

I disagree. If one is to explore the original meaning of a text, the earliest interpretations are necessarily more valid than the latest ones. They are, after all, more closely connected to the culture in which the text was written.



The Mishneh Torah is from the Middle Ages, from pretty much the same time the Latin Church was codifying Corpus Juris Canonici to make official pronouncements on same-sex behavior. It cannot be used to demonstrate what "Jews have never interpreted." Similarly, it was also in the Middle Ages that the Talmudists decided that Deuteronomy 14:21d meant that meat and dairy could not be eaten together, or even prepared with the same utensils.

Oh, so now it's too new for you? At any rate, the 12th century is when it was compiled, but it was based on an oral tradition before then. Regardless, the reason I thought it pertinent is because the people who compiled it used the language: They were intimately familiar with the language of Leviticus, far more than the people who now interpret it differently, and they did not seem to think the prohibition was only in a ritual context.

And I never said Jews do not interpret. It is impossible to read a text - any text - without interpreting it. My point was that Jews have always interpreted the prohibition of male homosexual acts in general terms. You would not expect that to be the case if the true meaning was something else.



See John Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-Sex_Unions_in_Pre-Modern_Europe

I'm sorry, that really doesn't support what you said. You said:


In some communions, same-sex rituals were celebrated by the Church, as a sort of same-sex marriage.

...and although I haven't read Boswell's book, from what I gather his musings on same-sex unions in Christian times is conjecture on his part.



Pagans didn't invent homosexuality; they didn't own it. From a statistical standpoint, there would have been just as high an incidence of homosexuals in Christianity as in paganism.

Of course pagans didn't invent homosexuality, but they had a much higher acceptance of homosexuality.



But Christianity's doctrines of celibacy/monasticism/sexual segregation would have provided a uniquely welcome environment for men who did not wish to marry women; the priesthood would have been (and indeed has been) an escape route from what would otherwise be considerable familial/social pressure to marry and have children.

Marriage was not a matter of "I want to marry"/"I don't think I want to marry" - it was a matter of duty, and carrying the family name. If you were an only son, you had very little choice in the matter. The more brothers you had the more choice you had, but if you wished to stay with a man you had to do so in secret, as homosexuality had been outlawed since the the 4th century.



Homosexuality and Christianity have been together since Christianity's formation; its influence upon Christianity is unmistakable, especially since Christianity seems to have inherited wholesale Platonism/Neo-Platonism's struggles with sexuality, sharing their metaphysical assumptions.

Well, obviously homosexuality and Christianity have always been together. But Christianity has also always disapproved of homosexuality. Christianity is a very prudish religion, tolerating sex only within the confines of marriage and recognising no other form of marriage than between man and woman.



Yes. It's a profound cultural distance from the 2nd century milieu in which Christianity began.

Again with the "too late" thing, which you poopooed before. No matter, it was you who brought up the fact that the ban on homosexuality was not recorded in the Corpus Juris Canonici until the 13th century. I merely pointed out that this was a meaningless fact, given that this is when it was written. One might as well say that the Ten Commandments did not appear in the Gutenberg Bible until the 1450s. This does not, however, mean that they did not appear in earlier Bibles. Nor does that lack of a Corpus Juris Canonici before the 13th century imply a lack of its concepts prior to that time. We know that all male homosexual acts were banned as early as the 4th century AD in Christian provinces. And if that ban did not come from... Wait, I'll give this its own paragraph because it is a pretty important question:

If the ban on homosexuality did not come from Christianity, whence did it come?

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

I've never seen anyone so thoroughly dismantle each of PD's arguments. It's a thing of beauty.

Usually he runs away long before his hole gets this deep. Well done Karl.









All fundies are nuts-Poisoned Dragon

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

Hm. Karl...are you a closeted gay who identifies as Christian? This last post is a monumental screed. I definitely get something frantic here.


The Dumpster gives a whole new meaning to "red" states.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


Hm. Karl...are you a closeted gay who identifies as Christian? This last post is a monumental screed. I definitely get something frantic here.

My agenda is honesty in research. I am an atheist: The main reason I abandoned Christianity in my youth in the first place is because I realised wishful thinking didn't qualify as evidence. I have no agenda as far as what I want the Bible to say. If modern Christians adopt a more tolerant view of homosexuals, I think that's great. However, pretending that the Bible is ok with sexuality is just dishonest. And it is such an obvious dishonesty, because this new interpretation would only ever come about in a time like our's, when society is secular and liberal, and there is a push towards ending homophobia. The Bible has been intolerant for centuries, but now - because tolerance has become a virtue in our society - we decide that the Bible is supposedly tolerant as well? Yes, love your neighbour, love your enemy and all that, but it doesn't say make love to them. Sexual lust has always been one of the big taboos in the Bible, something it is remarkably intolerant about.

The Bible has always been interpreted in light of the times in which it is being interpreted - which is why rather remarkably, it has always been in agreement with all Christian cultures, regardless of time or place. The implication is, "they had it wrong in the past, but now we know what it actually says." And it is so silly, because this has been the case throughout the history of Christianity.

In 1054: "They had it wrong in the past, but now we know what it actually says."
In 1208: "They had it wrong in the past, but now we know what it actually says."
In 1484: "They had it wrong in the past, but now we know what it actually says."
In 1517: "They had it wrong in the past, but now we know what it actually says."
In 1649: "They had it wrong in the past, but now we know what it actually says."
In 1830: "They had it wrong in the past, but now we know what it actually says."
In 1900: "They had it wrong in the past, but now we know what it actually says."
In 1994: "They had it wrong in the past, but now we know what it actually says."
In 2017: "They had it wrong in the past, but now we know what it actually says."

My point is that it stands to reason to read a text in the light of the time it was written, rather than the light of my own time. As such, the earliest known interpretations can reasonably be assumed to be closer to the authors' intent than interpretations 2000 years after the fact.

As for "monumental screed" - no more so than the post I replied to. And I have no idea how the contents of my post should indicate that I am a "closet homosexual". Was that your attempt at an insult, perhaps?

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

pretending that the Bible is ok with sexuality is just dishonest

My experience has been the scholarly mostly accept that early Christian writings are generally clueless about sexuality, concentrating instead on sex acts. The overall point made by those who reject the notion those writings condemn homosexuality is that their writers had no idea what it was. I’d certainly agree that, if they had, they’d have condemned it. But their world dynamic was much less sophisticated.

The Bible has always been interpreted in light of the times in which it is being interpreted

Precisely right. The world of 2017 is fully aware of what constitutes homosexuality, so Christian homophobes interpret their texts to support their bigotry, while Christian liberals interpret those same texts in exactly the opposite way. My position is the texts themselves manifestly have nothing meaningful to say on the subject of sexuality, thus are worthless as an authority on it one way or the other.

Was that your attempt at an insult, perhaps?

Actually, it was sincere curiosity mixed with genuine reservations about the intent of the post. My experience has been, one often borne out by the facts, that great outward passion often masks deeper unresolved issues. If this isn’t the case in this instance, you have my genuine apologies.


The Dumpster gives a whole new meaning to "red" states.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

And at the time The Bible was written, the idea of condemning all Same Sex acts was unheard of.

Something more specific must be what the Author of Leviticus had in mind.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


My experience has been the scholarly mostly accept that early Christian writings are generally clueless about sexuality, concentrating instead on sex acts. The overall point made by those who reject the notion those writings condemn homosexuality is that their writers had no idea what it was. I’d certainly agree that, if they had, they’d have condemned it. But their world dynamic was much less sophisticated.

No, homosexuality as a sexual persuasion is not condemned - but homosexual activity is. Jesus goes further, though: he condemns lust itself, if it is not directed towards one's spouse:

You have heard that it was said, "Do not commit adultery." But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Mat. 5:27-28

It isn't until Jesus enters the scene that the Bible starts to condemn thoughts. The OT prohibitions are only concerned with acts.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

homosexuality as a sexual persuasion is not condemned - but homosexual activity is

The current thinking of certain theologians is this condemnation had nothing to do with the act being homosexual, but because of its context (i.e. temple prostitution, for one.)

he condemns lust itself

Again, these theologians honor that by saying homosexuality is therefore acceptable only if the parties are married. Which is a big reason these particular thinkers so heartily endorse same-sex marriage.


The Dumpster gives a whole new meaning to "red" states.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


The current thinking of certain theologians is this condemnation had nothing to do with the act being homosexual, but because of its context (i.e. temple prostitution, for one.)

It behooves them to think so, for no other reason than the times are changing to accept homosexuality. It has never been the interpretation before.



Again, these theologians honor that by saying homosexuality is therefore acceptable only if the parties are married. Which is a big reason these particular thinkers so heartily endorse same-sex marriage.

Except there is no provision in the Bible for same-sex marriage. Traditional Jewish interpretation of OT scriptures even condemns heterosexual sex if it does not have the potential of pregnancy. And given the condemnation of homosexual acts, regardless of context, a Biblical blessing of a homosexual marriage is a contradiction in terms, as homosexual activity would not be ok in those circumstances either. After all, if all Paul was condemning was extra-marital sex, he would scarcely have to specify homosexual acts - and he certainly would not have called them "unnatural". Nor could he have been speaking in a ritual context, because most of the things he listed had never had any ritual associations. It is certainly possible that the reason homosexual acts were condemned is because it was used in a ritual context by pagans, but that does not mean that it is only in a ritual context it was forbidden. Just the opposite, in fact: "Because it is a pagan custom, you are never to engage in this activity." Doesn't matter if the pagans did it all the time or only in a ritualistic setting: the prohibition never specified a ritual setting for this.

Just like the prohibition in Leviticus about sacrificing one's children to Molech - yes, this is what the Canaanites did in their rituals, but the prohibition is not "do not let your seed pass through the fires of Moloch while observing their rituals" - it is "do not let your seed pass through the fires of Moloch, period". And, by implication, do not sacrifice your children to any other gods, either. It isn't specified, but it doesn't need to be. Because "neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God".

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

there is no provision in the Bible for same-sex marriage

I can only tell you what others claim, who have more expertise in this than do I. I'm certainly not a huge authority on it. But apparently (and forgive me for not having their arguments under my fingers to present you) they disagree. You've certainly made it clear beyond any doubt you feel this is just another phase of apologetics in a more gay-friendly age. Interestingly, several of these scholars claim they were themselves devout and anti-homosexual before they studied the issue more in depth in terms of the actual Christian/Jewish writings. It was this study (so they say), not any inclination to acquit homosexuality, that changed their minds.


The Dumpster gives a whole new meaning to "red" states.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

I condemn homosexual male that tryes to seduce me and acts in me a female

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

If you're not homosexual, why would one try to seduce you? Ever hear of the words, "No thanks?"


The Dumpster gives a whole new meaning to "red" states.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

Hi, everyone! This is my first post on this thread. I just wanted to throw some food for thought out there.


Yes, love your neighbour, love your enemy and all that, but it doesn't say make love to them. Sexual lust has always been one of the big taboos in the Bible, something it is remarkably intolerant about.


I, personally, think there is a huge distinction between making love with someone, and lust. Making love, IMO, is the mutual giving of yourself, completely, to the person you love. With lust, IMO, it is all about your own sexual pleasure- objectifying the other person for your own benefit. Seen this way, making love would be an act of love, whereas lust would be an act of selfishness. ...I think that perhaps we all have selfish tendencies (I know it is something that I try to fight against, inside of myself.), and I think that love, where you want what is best for the other person, is the cure for selfishness.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


If the ban on homosexuality did not come from Christianity, whence did it come?


Go to the Post in this Thread titled Plato, Augustine, and Traditional Christianity.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


Homosexual depictions in graffiti is hardly evidence of acceptance for homosexuality - just the opposite, in fact. When sexual acts are depicted in graffiti, they are invariably humiliating sexual acts. Same as today. And throughout history, getting fcked is a metaphor for something decidedly negative, precisely because of the humiliation associated with it.

Your interpretation is purely subjective, apparently based on your own negative perspective.
http://tinyurl.com/ancientgaygrafitti

Even today, in Latin macho cultures, men will not readily admit to having ever gone down on a woman. Whether they actually do is another matter, but there are men still today who are too proud to do so. I'm afraid the evidence is not on your side here.

There is, and has always been, an incredible gulf between what men will admit to doing and what they actually do in a same-sex context with a degree of privacy. Such attitudes, however, are not as innate as you've tried to claim (without any evidence besides your own repeated say-so), but are predicated on the culturally-propagated belief that women are inferior to men, and something to be despised. Your claim that to be penetrated is an act of humiliation is an indictment of all penetrative sex, including the heterosexual. It's unfortunate that you subscribe to that sexual worldview. But it is culturally transmitted, not innate.

Almost all simians do. Our closest cousins, the chimps, most certainly do. The bonobo are quite unusual in their sexuality, and quite unlike us in that regard. Or other simians, for that matter.

In the views of primatologists and other behavioral scientists the bonobo have distinguished themselves as being much more like us than other chimps, not least in the fact that they initiate sexual contact anytime, and apparently purely for pleasure.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bonobo-sex-and-society-2006-06/

https://psmag.com/bonobos-have-lots-of-sex-are-awesome-may-hold-key-to-our-past-d89e75f7d5a3

You may all you want, it won't change anything.

My use of the emoticon is to express my distaste at the prospect of having to discuss the apparent personal perspective you're interjecting into the discussion. Like it or not, you're saying far more about your own viewpoint than factually about males in general and the nature of sexuality in particular.

That isn't the case, and you have yourself contradicted this point in previous posts.

Which is it? You need to decide.

No, I haven't contradicted anything of the sort. I've been posting on this subject for over a decade, and haven't varied on the information presented. That you may have misunderstood me (as you've done more than once on this thread, forcing me to try to re-state what you misunderstood) isn't my fault.

For as long as there have been gay people (which is as long as there have been people), there have been clear preferences for same-sex companions, rather than mere same-sex adventures.

Until the 19th century, it was always understood and discussed in terms of behavior, something anyone might do, instead of an innate nature or preference (now described as 'orientation'). The distinction is critical.

We know that same-sex marriage has occurred since very early on (and also legislated against very early on), so even though they did not think of sexual persuasion in terms of brain chemistry, they knew that certain people were "like that".

Vague allusions to "very early on" will not do here - you will need to be far more specific. Cite the literature. (There's not any.)

Of course they've always been with us, and I have never remotely suggested otherwise. However, throughout Christian history, it is only now that homosexuality is beginning to be accepted. And it isn't even universally accepted yet.

There is a distinction between "accepted" and "not criminalized." As I remarked in the thread above, homosexuality has informed Christianity in its formation, and there have been times and places where it was ritually addressed as an acceptable social interaction, or at least not formally recognized or labeled in such a way as to engender public opprobrium. I'm informally reminded of that scene in Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006) where our hero engages in same-sex activity with Azamat Bagatov and thinks nothing of it. Upon being informed that this was "gay," however, he becomes ill and throws up. Homosexual behavior was often documented in first-contact situations with various islanders, who did not believe it was anything wrong or shameful until this was communicated to them by the missionaries. As I pointed out, the Latin Church did not formally describe or specifically condemn the activity until the 13th century.

No matter who the author was, the words written are the same - so the actual author is unimportant. We must assume that the words reflect the author's mind, no matter who he was.

You either don't understand what I'm saying here or you're deliberately avoiding the point. The meanings of the passages have traditionally been based upon who Paul was thought to be.

Unless he is talking to a Jewish audience, he would not assume they knew he was referring to Leviticus and temple prostitution (ie. assuming Leviticus is only about temple prostitution - and that's a big 'if') unless he spelled it out - which he very tellingly did not do. Therefore it is not reasonable to assume he was talking about temple prostitution.

The Septuagint translation of Leviticus is the only place those two words appear in that context; the author(s) of the 'Pauline' epistles have joined them together as a compound word. In that form, it's an example of a hapax legomenon - a word that exists no place else, and whose context cannot otherwise shed light on its exact meaning. Many commentators acknowledge this about αρσενοκοίτης, and leave it at that - I'm generously throwing you a bone in linking it to the Septuagint version of Leviticus. It's not a given that it's a Jewish readership, because the Jews altogether abandoned the Greek version of the scriptures after the destruction of Jerusalem, and possibly earlier than that, when the cultural gap between Jews and "the nations" widened. The Septuagint achieved continued relevance to Christian sectarians (the proto-orthodox) who decided to appropriate the Jewish scriptures for themselves, regarding them as "fulfilled" in Jesus and in the Church. (Gnostic sectarians did not think of Christ and Christians in this way; they had no need or use for the Jewish Testament.)

True, but if it were only meant to apply to priests, it would specify priests and not simply say "if a man...".

I didn't say anything about a priesthood, but about "the service of YHWH," to which all "fit" males of Israel aspired.

Even in Lev. 18, you are reading "temple prostitution" because the gay prohibition follows a mention of a ritual of Molech,

I argue that the subject shows a definite shift to the ritual because of broaching the topic of the molech. The topic of bestiality immediately follows, and it has been commonly claimed of Canaanite religious observances that it included sex with animals. I, however, would point out that this too is completely explainable in terms of strict Yahwist hyperbolically sexual invective inveighing against non-Yahwist worship and those of other nations (cf. Ezekiel 23:20). From the Yahwist standpoint, all non-Yahwist worship constituted harlotry/whoredom, and the utilization of graven images depicting animals seems to have been considered tantamount to having intercourse with animals.

And the reason why it is forbidden is not because of any ritual context: it is because it is an "abomination".

Again, the term "abomination" links it with idolatry, which is from our perspective purely a ritual offense.

Just because one verse mentions Molech, does not mean that any verse you want to should be interpreted in that light. For example, the incest bit does not mean that the gay bit only concerns homosexual acts with members of one's own family. Or that bestiality is only prohibited if the animal is the same sex as you.

The mention of the molech is a purely ritual offense (incidentally, that's not a foreign god - it was a ritual performed on firstborn in the name of YHWH, which is why Leviticus 18:21 states that it profanes the name of YHWH).

The entire chapter can be seen as a halakhic meditation on Ezekiel 22-23 (especially 22:10-11), where most of the greatest hits of Leviticus 18 play out as a string of condemnations against political alliances with the nations as invaders. Again, the cited sexual offenses are metaphorical, a function of hyperbolic invective. What was metaphorical in Ezekiel is spelled out as commandments against literal sexual offenses. But reading them this way is to misunderstand.

I'm not talking about women prostituting themselves - I'm talking about men lying with female temple prostitutes. Would a man be allowed to sleep with a female temple prostitute? Bear in mind that - as you yourself suggest - temple prostitution is actually sex in the context of religious worship, something not practiced by the Jews. So the Yahweh is obviously not the god being worshipped, meaning it is clearly a no-no - whether you sleep with a male or a female. But only males are singled out, why? Because it is not about temple prostitution. If it were, it would simply have said as much: do not sleep with khadeshim. Instead, it says men are not to sleep with men.

No, what it says is that 'males shall not lie with males the lyings of women,' whatever that last expression means. It's not as clear as one might think.

But as to the rest of it, I'm apparently not making myself understood. [facepalm]

Only males are singled out in Leviticus because, in the time/context in which Leviticus was written, YHWH worship had become a males-only religion.

How many orthodox Jews do you think you can get to admit that YHWH once had a consort named Asherah? How many Muslims will concede that Allah once had three daughters? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Lat)

I disagree. If one is to explore the original meaning of a text, the earliest interpretations are necessarily more valid than the latest ones.

I'm speaking of "too young/too old" being used as a means of well-poisoning against an interpretation, as you appear to be doing when you say that the interpretation is only 30 years old. (So what?)

But you haven't offered any "early" interpretations; you've been reaching into the Middle Ages, at later points when the culture had radically changed, and religious concepts had further developed.

Oh, so now it's too new for you?

It is inappropriate as an example of "early" views. Just as it's inappropriate when Catholics try to read the Trinity or Mariolatry into early Christianity, when these were innovations of the early Middle Ages.

They were intimately familiar with the language of Leviticus, far more than the people who now interpret it differently, and they did not seem to think the prohibition was only in a ritual context.

Untrue; they held all sorts of religious assumptions tied to a traditionalist reading of the bible: that Moses wrote the first five books, that the texts were authored in the order in which they appear, etc. (once one understands that the Pentateuch was written after the rest of them, not before, it profoundly alters one's perspective of which text could be commentary on which text). A lot of passages were inscrutable to the medieval Talmudists, like Deuteronomy 14:21d.


See John Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-Sex_Unions_in_Pre-Modern_Europe
I'm sorry, that really doesn't support what you said. You said:

In some communions, same-sex rituals were celebrated by the Church, as a sort of same-sex marriage.

...and although I haven't read Boswell's book, from what I gather his musings on same-sex unions in Christian times is conjecture on his part.

You gather incorrectly. Conservative Christians certainly don't like his work, and have made no secret of it; it makes their inner Jayby Beezus cry. But there has been no general scholarly refutation of his work; in scholarly circles, it still stands. (Boswell is the author of several works on related subject matter; all are pertinent to the subject, and relate different facets of it.)

Of course pagans didn't invent homosexuality, but they had a much higher acceptance of homosexuality.

It depends on the society and its culture. Although Christians invented the term "pagan" as a haughty, classist, all-around term of derogation meaning anything 'non-Christian,' the peoples it denoted were not all one unified thing.

Marriage was not a matter of "I want to marry"/"I don't think I want to marry" - it was a matter of duty, and carrying the family name.

As I said.

If you were an only son, you had very little choice in the matter.

Except, in Christian times, there was an honorable choice: one could become a monk or a priest.

if you wished to stay with a man you had to do so in secret, as homosexuality had been outlawed since the the 4th century.

It was outlawed in certain communions. Just because various Christian emperors criminalized it did not mean that it was outlawed everywhere, or in all forms of Christianity. Roman Catholic Christianity had many competitor sects, even up into the High Middle Ages.

But Christianity has also always disapproved of homosexuality. Christianity is a very prudish religion, tolerating sex only within the confines of marriage and recognising no other form of marriage than between man and woman.

Untrue; you simply lack historical perspective. Your assertions are more true of Latin Roman Catholicism than Christianity in general, but even then, not in all times and in all places.

Again with the "too late" thing, which you poopooed before.

No, it's not the "too late" thing - it's simply a recognition that Christianity changed and developed across the centuries; that a 2nd century Christian perspective is not at all the same thing as a 13th century Christian perspective.

No matter, it was you who brought up the fact that the ban on homosexuality was not recorded in the Corpus Juris Canonici until the 13th century. I merely pointed out that this was a meaningless fact, given that this is when it was written.

But you lack the basis to say this, being unaware of greater visibility/organization of groups of same-sex practitioners congregating in cosmopolitan areas like Florence during those centuries, which is how it began to come to the attention of Catholic society in Italy. Greater visibility led to greater public awareness, and hence into law; the Middle Ages equivalent of a flap. Political unrest and instability were also a factor in fanning the flames of such fears; these were the centuries of the Crusades as well.

One might as well say that the Ten Commandments did not appear in the Gutenberg Bible until the 1450s. This does not, however, mean that they did not appear in earlier Bibles.

This is something of a false comparison. That the Ten Commandments appeared in earlier bibles is a given, but they were not necessarily interpreted the same way, or translated the same way.

Also, until printed bibles in the vernacular became common, direct exposure to the text was limited to those who could read, a limited skill in and of itself. Commoners were told what to believe by the clergy, who received it through heavily filtered layers of magisterium, interpretation, and dogma.

If the ban on homosexuality did not come from Christianity, whence did it come?

You speak of "Christianity" as if it were a single unified body of belief. It has never been that.

§« https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhG6uc7fN0o »§

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


Your interpretation is purely subjective, apparently based on your own negative perspective.

Say what? I have the opposite perspective of what you apparently think. I am all for distancing ourselves from attributing shame to sexuality.



http://tinyurl.com/ancientgaygrafitti

That supports what I have said, not what you have said.



There is, and has always been, an incredible gulf between what men will admit to doing and what they actually do in a same-sex context with a degree of privacy. Such attitudes, however, are not as innate as you've tried to claim (without any evidence besides your own repeated say-so), but are predicated on the culturally-propagated belief that women are inferior to men, and something to be despised. Your claim that to be penetrated is an act of humiliation is an indictment of all penetrative sex, including the heterosexual.

Yes, indeed - that is precisely why it has always been considered shameful for a man to be penetrated - because that's what men do to women.



It's unfortunate that you subscribe to that sexual worldview.

Wait a minute - so if I talk about how the Aztecs approved of human sacrifice, that means I approve of human sacrifice? Unlike you, I describe history the way I think it was - not according to how I want my society to be.

You seem to think that because I believe our nature is such and such, that this means I want our nature to be such and such. However, I have given you no reason to arrive at this conclusion. On the contrary, I have left hints to the opposite effect.



But it is culturally transmitted, not innate.

Why is it prevailing in cultures all over the world, you think? Precisely because it is innate. It is not random that sexual prowess is something men take a great deal of pride in. It is something we see all over in the animal kingdom. And where there is pride, there is also shame if one does not measure up, if one is different. That is natural, not merely cultural. Culture is first and foremost defined by the biology of the creatures of that culture, which is why a wolf pack does not behave exactly like a pride of lions. Humans have highly evolved empathy, which allows us to override some of our other instincts to quite some degree, but our sexuality has still evolved to take on more than a mere reproductive function - we also use it socially, to establish pecking order etc. So it is inevitable that cultures wherein all sex acts are equally respected, whether active or passive, belong to the exception - not the norm.



In the views of primatologists and other behavioral scientists the bonobo have distinguished themselves as being much more like us than other chimps, not least in the fact that they initiate sexual contact anytime, and apparently purely for pleasure.

How does that make them more like us? The chimps are far more like us in this regard, because the chimps exhibit jealousy and possessiveness, unlike bonobos - but very much like us. Yes, we have sex for pleasure, but so do chimps. So do most mammals, in fact. Bonobo sexuality is radically different from our's - it is something we often hold up as some sort of ideal, but we will never reach it - because we are too much like the chimps.



My use of the emoticon is to express my distaste at the prospect of having to discuss the apparent personal perspective you're interjecting into the discussion. Like it or not, you're saying far more about your own viewpoint than factually about males in general and the nature of sexuality in particular.

And yet you have managed to reach a conclusion which is diametrically opposite to the truth in this regard. This leads me to conclude that the chief motivator behind your entire line of argumentation is that you WANT tolerance for homosexuality, and so you WANT the Bible to be tolerant of it as well. And you think I must be like you in this regard, so the reason I argue the Bible is NOT tolerant of homosexuality must mean that I am not tolerant of homosexuality. Hey, maybe I'm wrong, but you are certainly wrong.



Which is it? You need to decide.

Which of what is what? Your reply makes no sense considering it here addresses my contradicting you on the question of sexual orientation, and understanding thereof. You act as if I have contradicted myself on this point, but I have not.



No, I haven't contradicted anything of the sort. I've been posting on this subject for over a decade, and haven't varied on the information presented. That you may have misunderstood me (as you've done more than once on this thread, forcing me to try to re-state what you misunderstood) isn't my fault.

On the one hand you acknowledge that homosexuality has been around for as long as people have been around (and even longer), but on the other hand you claim that people had no concept of sexual orientation until recently. How stupid do you really think people were? When people legislated on same-sex marriage 2000 years ago. They would not do that unless there were people interested in marrying someone their own sex - and realising such people existed, instills knowledge of sexual orientation in all except the functionally dead.



Until the 19th century, it was always understood and discussed in terms of behavior, something anyone might do, instead of an innate nature or preference (now described as 'orientation'). The distinction is critical.

That distinction is mostly fictional. It has always been known that some people preferred it.



Vague allusions to "very early on" will not do here - you will need to be far more specific. Cite the literature. (There's not any.)

My, aren't we cocky.

https://books.google.no/books?id=4Rz9AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA392&lpg=PA392&source=bl&ots=HKTth2Nn3i&sig=n_wu3lfCrdJVo4tcs7mBoRGQCP0&hl=no&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwib8eq69P3RAhVFJpoKHelACBUQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q&f=false
There's a chronology on p. xxvii. 27 BC early enough for you?



There is a distinction between "accepted" and "not criminalized." As I remarked in the thread above, homosexuality has informed Christianity in its formation, and there have been times and places where it was ritually addressed as an acceptable social interaction, or at least not formally recognized or labeled in such a way as to engender public opprobrium.

Yes, you said that it has even been accepted by the Church at times. I asked you for sources, but you didn't provide any.



As I pointed out, the Latin Church did not formally describe or specifically condemn the activity until the 13th century.

What you correctly pointed out was that the Corpus Juris Canonici did not condemn homosexual activity until the 13th century. You now incorrectly conclude that it wasn't condemned before that. If you mean specifically canon law, the sure: the prohibition was "only" aimed at the clergy at first, but condemnation had been present since the time of the gospel writers - and before. At no point has the Church given its blessing to homosexuality - until now, in our time. So I'm not going to let you go on a technicality.



You either don't understand what I'm saying here or you're deliberately avoiding the point. The meanings of the passages have traditionally been based upon who Paul was thought to be.

You mean the time and place in which it was written - in other words, the audience. After all, it is only reasonable to assume that when you address someone, you tailor your words to their background. If you feel they belong to a different culture, you carefully explain things which might otherwise not be clear, or misunderstood.



The Septuagint translation of Leviticus is the only place those two words appear in that context; the author(s) of the 'Pauline' epistles have joined them together as a compound word. In that form, it's an example of a hapax legomenon - a word that exists no place else, and whose context cannot otherwise shed light on its exact meaning. Many commentators acknowledge this about αρσενοκοίτης, and leave it at that - I'm generously throwing you a bone in linking it to the Septuagint version of Leviticus. It's not a given that it's a Jewish readership, because the Jews altogether abandoned the Greek version of the scriptures after the destruction of Jerusalem, and possibly earlier than that, when the cultural gap between Jews and "the nations" widened. The Septuagint achieved continued relevance to Christian sectarians (the proto-orthodox) who decided to appropriate the Jewish scriptures for themselves, regarding them as "fulfilled" in Jesus and in the Church. (Gnostic sectarians did not think of Christ and Christians in this way; they had no need or use for the Jewish Testament.)

Of course the Greek Septaguint is not aimed at Jews. But the Septaguint dates to after Romans, and it was probably precisely because "arsenokoites" was used in Romans that it was also chosen for Leviticus.

That's all I have time for at present. Be back shortly.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


How stupid do you really think people were? When people legislated on same-sex marriage 2000 years ago. They would not do that unless there were people interested in marrying someone their own sex - and realising such people existed, instills knowledge of sexual orientation in all except the functionally dead.
This is wrong. The model of sexual orientation is so common in our own understanding that we tend to think of it as necessary. But there are other models and the fact that ancients had no explicit words that expressed sexual orientation supports that idea.

An alternative to "orientation" is "habituation". The ancients quite happily accepted the idea that people could come to have different tastes, to prefer one type of sex to another by getting used to it and preferring it. That does not involve a notion that people had a hetero- or homosexual "nature", "essence" or "orientation" prior to performing those acts, and which led them to want to do them. The absence of names for different sexual orientations in many (most?) ancient languages confirms that.

So one certainly could discuss same-sex marriage and not have a notion of sexual orientation.


Call me Ishmael...

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


This is wrong. The model of sexual orientation is so common in our own understanding that we tend to think of it as necessary. But there are other models and the fact that ancients had no explicit words that expressed sexual orientation supports that idea.

An alternative to "orientation" is "habituation". The ancients quite happily accepted the idea that people could come to have different tastes, to prefer one type of sex to another by getting used to it and preferring it. That does not involve a notion that people had a hetero- or homosexual "nature", "essence" or "orientation" prior to performing those acts, and which led them to want to do them. The absence of names for different sexual orientations in many (most?) ancient languages confirms that.

So one certainly could discuss same-sex marriage and not have a notion of sexual orientation.

"Habituation", as you call it, is a notion of orientation. Did they understand sexual orientation as we do? No - in all likelihood they did not see it as something we were born with. But were they aware that some people were "like that"? Absolutely. Otherwise, they would never have thought to legislate on - or commonly, against - same-sex marriage, because then they wouldn't know that anyone would even consider it. But they did know.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


"Habituation", as you call it, is a notion of orientation. Did they understand sexual orientation as we do? No
Well, I think you are defining "orientation" too broadly. I think that "orientation" means what it means to us, because we invented the notion. I can't see that it helps to describe the ancients' ideas of habit or taste or pleasure as orientation, only kinda different from our concept of it. It isn't our concept at all.

But legislation explicitly against same-sex marriage was exceedingly rare - not common at all - because same-sex marriage (as opposed to same-sex sex) was itself rare. It didn't need to be legislated against where it never happened, and it hardly did happen.



Call me Ishmael...

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


Well, I think you are defining "orientation" too broadly. I think that "orientation" means what it means to us, because we invented the notion.

The operative word is "notion" - meaning they might not have the same idea of orientation as we do, but they certainly had a notion of orientation. "Notion" is a word that itself implies vagueness.



But legislation explicitly against same-sex marriage was exceedingly rare - not common at all - because same-sex marriage (as opposed to same-sex sex) was itself rare. It didn't need to be legislated against where it never happened, and it hardly did happen.

Indeed, mostly such romantic homosexual relationships would have been kept under the radar, even if homosexual trysts were more or less accepted. Perhaps because these trysts were more accepted than later on, it was easier to live out one's persuasion without the need to formalize the relationship, but I'm speculating.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


"Notion" is a word that itself implies vagueness.
True. But the vagueness was a result of my bad choice of words. Let me replace "notion" with "concept" or "category" or "conceptual category" which is perhaps less vague. We really are indulging in semantic nit-picking now. Alas, how I shall miss it when IMDb is no more.



Call me Ishmael...

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality


Of course the Greek Septaguint is not aimed at Jews. But the Septaguint dates to after Romans
You what?????

For speed, I rely on the dreaded Wikipedia:

The date of the 3rd century BCE is supported (for the Torah translation) by a number of factors, including the Greek being representative of early Koine, citations beginning as early as the 2nd century BCE, and early manuscripts datable to the 2nd century.

The translation of the Septuagint itself began in the 3rd century BCE and was completed by 132 BCE

http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000108/reply/265846016



Call me Ishmael...

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

Well, what can I say. My bad, I guess.

Re: The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

Sorry about that. As I was saying about the Septaguint: There is nothing to suggest the context was that of temple prostitution when Paul (or whoever) addressed the Romans, because that was certainly not made clear in the text of Romans. This remains true even if the translators of the Septaguint connected the dots later on, and even if the Leviticus author was thinking of temple prostitution. The author of Leviticus might well have had that specific image in mind when he wrote about men sleeping with men (although there is precious little to suggest it), but the prohibition is still not in that context: men sleeping with men was still an abomination for the Jews in any context. If it was because of the pagans who did it in their rituals, then the reason it was an abomination for the Jews in any context, precisely because of the association between the act and pagan religion.



I didn't say anything about a priesthood, but about "the service of YHWH," to which all "fit" males of Israel aspired.

I made a mistake, for some reason I remembered Leviticus 18 as being the rules for priests, when in actual fact it was chapter 21.



I argue that the subject shows a definite shift to the ritual because of broaching the topic of the molech. The topic of bestiality immediately follows, and it has been commonly claimed of Canaanite religious observances that it included sex with animals. I, however, would point out that this too is completely explainable in terms of strict Yahwist hyperbolically sexual invective inveighing against non-Yahwist worship and those of other nations (cf. Ezekiel 23:20). From the Yahwist standpoint, all non-Yahwist worship constituted harlotry/whoredom, and the utilization of graven images depicting animals seems to have been considered tantamount to having intercourse with animals.

Taking your own words into consideration... do you really think the prohibition was only in the context of rituals? Like you yourself suggest, the notion of Canaanites having sex with animals in their rituals was probably hyperbole, which in and of itself suggests disapproval by the author. Also, any participation in rituals celebrating other gods would be idolatry, and already covered by other rules. There's hardly a point in legislating things you aren't allowed to do while engaged in illegal activity. Even more silly, banning otherwise legal activities only when engaged in crime. "It is forbidden to wear a wristwatch while robbing a bank. Forbidden!"

Even if we grant that the mention of Molech changes the subject (which is a subjective interpretation), it is extremely obvious that the condemnation is of the act itself, because of that association. What you are trying to tell me is that the Leviticus author said, "Those foreigners, they do all sorts of disgusting things, even having sex with animals! We, however, are better. We shall therefore not do these disgusting things... in our rituals. Only in a purely non-ritual context! Because, you know, I'd be totally fine with that."

Please don't tell me you actually believe that.



Again, the term "abomination" links it with idolatry, which is from our perspective purely a ritual offense.

Yes, an offense against God rather than man. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the goings on in a ritual, and this was never part of Jewish rituals anyway. Ritual cleanliness is whether or not you are clean enough for the ritual to begin with. Like in the Ezekiel verses you refer to in your next paragraph: "in you are those who violate women during their period, when they are ceremonially unclean." These are not women who had their periods while observing some sort of ritual - they are ritually unclean during their periods, no matter how unritualistic the time or place of their period.

Like Luther outlined, you have crimes against man and crimes against God. Crimes against God is what goes against ritual cleanliness, and is as such a ritual offence. They are punished in a different way and are considered more heinous. Luther provided a very good explanation of the difference in his Small Cathecism, where he compares a thief who steals something of high value, versus a thief who steals something insignificant. The thief who steals the valuable object has sinned more grievously against man than the thief who stole the worthless thing - but the thief who stole the worthless thing had sinned far more grievously against God, because he had violated God's sacred commandments for something trivial.



The mention of the molech is a purely ritual offense (incidentally, that's not a foreign god - it was a ritual performed on firstborn in the name of YHWH, which is why Leviticus 18:21 states that it profanes the name of YHWH).

And which concludes the ritualistic context. There is no cause to read ritualism in the following verses. If they were in the same context, why did the author not wait until the very end of the list within that context to say it profanes the name og God?



The entire chapter can be seen as a halakhic meditation on Ezekiel 22-23 (especially 22:10-11), where most of the greatest hits of Leviticus 18 play out as a string of condemnations against political alliances with the nations as invaders. Again, the cited sexual offenses are metaphorical, a function of hyperbolic invective. What was metaphorical in Ezekiel is spelled out as commandments against literal sexual offenses. But reading them this way is to misunderstand.

This all plays into my hand, as it agrees perfectly with what I have said - but is incongruent with your argument that the Israelites only condemned the acts under specific circumstances. If they did not find the prohibited acts offensive in general, you would not find them used as insults in Ezekiel.



No, what it says is that 'males shall not lie with males the lyings of women,' whatever that last expression means. It's not as clear as one might think.

Even the direct translation there sounds pretty straight-forward to me. And the Jews, who actually knew (and know) the language, agree with me.



Only males are singled out in Leviticus because, in the time/context in which Leviticus was written, YHWH worship had become a males-only religion.

Then why are women prohibited from offering themselves to beasts in the same supposedly "male only" context?



I'm speaking of "too young/too old" being used as a means of well-poisoning against an interpretation, as you appear to be doing when you say that the interpretation is only 30 years old. (So what?)

If you take a deconstructionistic approach to the Bible - whereby the authors' intent matters little - then it certainly doesn't matter that the interpretation is a young one. But if author intent is valued, then one cannot disregard historical understanding of the text, nor the culture in which it was written.



But you haven't offered any "early" interpretations; you've been reaching into the Middle Ages, at later points when the culture had radically changed, and religious concepts had further developed.

3rd-4th century is not the Middle Ages.



It is inappropriate as an example of "early" views. Just as it's inappropriate when Catholics try to read the Trinity or Mariolatry into early Christianity, when these were innovations of the early Middle Ages.

You are the one who has from the beginning insisted that the modern interpretation is in line with the original intent of the text, in which case you believe it to be appropriate as an example of early views. If I cannot dismiss 30 year old interpretation with no historical precedent as being too young, then you certainly cannot dismiss an 800 year old view with long oral tradition and historical precedents besides on those very grounds.



Untrue; they held all sorts of religious assumptions tied to a traditionalist reading of the bible: that Moses wrote the first five books, that the texts were authored in the order in which they appear, etc. (once one understands that the Pentateuch was written after the rest of them, not before, it profoundly alters one's perspective of which text could be commentary on which text). A lot of passages were inscrutable to the medieval Talmudists, like Deuteronomy 14:21d.

So they were unfamiliar with the language because of the above? I don't think you read what I wrote right, because you have offered a non-sequitur.



You gather incorrectly. Conservative Christians certainly don't like his work, and have made no secret of it; it makes their inner Jayby Beezus cry. But there has been no general scholarly refutation of his work;

If you ignore the ones mentioned in the Wikipedia article, that is.



in scholarly circles, it still stands. (Boswell is the author of several works on related subject matter; all are pertinent to the subject, and relate different facets of it.)

Historical peer review isn't like scientific peer review. It takes quite a lot to dismantle an entire theory in history, because almost every theory will be acknowledged to have some merit. Gordon Childe's works are still on the archaeological curriculum, even though no one today really follows the theory of Marxist archaeology much. So in a sense, Gordon Childe still "stands", even though not really. Likewise, Boswell is not without critics.

Also, history is a field which is full of conjecture. The synopsis of Boswell's book indicates very loudly that it is no exception. And yes, both you and I have used conjecture in our arguments here as well. History without it is very empty. What we are doing is trying to convince each other that our respective bits of conjecture is more sound than the other's. And I dare say we are probably equally unsuccessful in this.



It depends on the society and its culture. Although Christians invented the term "pagan" as a haughty, classist, all-around term of derogation meaning anything 'non-Christian,' the peoples it denoted were not all one unified thing.

Indeed not. The Germans seem to have been the most tolerant in Europe, at least by Christian accounts (though they used other words than "tolerant"). The Romans became less tolerant of homosexual acts once they adopted Christianity, and that is rather telling.



It was outlawed in certain communions. Just because various Christian emperors criminalized it did not mean that it was outlawed everywhere, or in all forms of Christianity. Roman Catholic Christianity had many competitor sects, even up into the High Middle Ages.

Certainly - the Roman Empire stretched far and wide, and it all depended on the local culture. It is clear, however, that the most tolerant places were not the birthplace of Christianity or Judaism - which makes it unlikely that a tolerant interpretation of either Leviticus or Romans is in keeping with the authors' intent.



Untrue; you simply lack historical perspective. Your assertions are more true of Latin Roman Catholicism than Christianity in general, but even then, not in all times and in all places.

So now you are inclined to agree that the Latin Church did formally describe or specifically condemn the activity until the 13th century? And let's not forget: It was not the fringe groups who first wrote the Bible. They all evolved from the Latin Church, which first codified the religion. Yes, the Latin Church did itself come from Early Christians and the Church Fathers, but where Christianity was tolerant of homosexual acts - this tolerance came from the pagan backdrop. Tolerance for homosexual acts were never introduced by Christianity.



No, it's not the "too late" thing - it's simply a recognition that Christianity changed and developed across the centuries; that a 2nd century Christian perspective is not at all the same thing as a 13th century Christian perspective.

And I agree with you. However, the Mishneh Torah is Jewish, not Christian, and builds on an oral tradition which goes way back. What's more, the Talmud is specific that sodomy is forbidden with boys aged 9 or older. And we can also glean the values of a society by looking at the laws, and in the areas where the books of Bible were written, the times they were written, laws were rarely good to adult, passive homosexuals.



But you lack the basis to say this, being unaware of greater visibility/organization of groups of same-sex practitioners congregating in cosmopolitan areas like Florence during those centuries, which is how it began to come to the attention of Catholic society in Italy. Greater visibility led to greater public awareness, and hence into law; the Middle Ages equivalent of a flap. Political unrest and instability were also a factor in fanning the flames of such fears; these were the centuries of the Crusades as well.

Yes, many things are not written into law until they manifest themselves in society; become visible. Why were they not visible before, though?

One reason why canon law had not bothered officially condemning homosexual acts is because it was already covered by secular law - the first death penalty for homosexual acts was entered into law in 390 AD. If, by the 13th century, secular law no longer prosecuted or deterred homosexuality, and/or there was a "surge" of homosexual activity in the culture of the time, it is understandable if the Church decided to do something about it, such as spelling it out in canon law.



You speak of "Christianity" as if it were a single unified body of belief. It has never been that.

No, I did not speak of Christianity that way. I said:

"If the ban on homosexuality did not come from Christianity, whence did it come?"

I could qualify it further by adding "any sect of" in there, but that strikes me as rather redundant.

But by all means, if you think the ban only came from specific sects, and not "true" Christianity, you are good to do so. As far as I see it, though, you are stuck with one of two alternatives: either homosexual intolerance came from pagan-influenced interpretation of scripture, or it came from Judaeo-Christian tradition. The former presents a problem if you wish to stand by the very first thing you said to me in this thread.
Top