Homosexuality.

[phishphan47]

Okay, guys. I'm a newbie at phatmass, but a regular on www.bolt.com, which is a very secularized board. Here's one post i received and have yet to be able to respond to it difinitively. I've pulled a few inconsistanceies out, and pointed to as much tradition as i am privy to, but i cannot give a sufficient answer.

It's also very long, and i apologize for that...but HELP!?!?

[quote]Again, I keep seeing people (even regs!) saying homosexuality is declared sinful by the Bible. A few of those times, I posted this article, NONE of it gets refuted, and whoever said homosexuality is a sin goes on to say it again in another thread. So, you know what? I'm posting this as a thread for the 3rd time I can remember. If you believe homosexuality is a sin, go ahead, try to refute the article. If you can't, flooping drop it already! So, from transguy's journal, 2 July 2001, in its entirety:

Here it is, the really long article about translations/interpretations of Biblical passages commonly used to condemn homosexuality . I saved this ages ago, I have no idea where it came from originally.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, I was going to stay out of this one... But, what the hell, this is getting interesting and I think that most of you haven't read the following which is a compilation information I've found on books and websites regarding the bible and sexuality. On Microsoft Word in a 10 pt font, it's six pages... and a good portion of the information is rather technical from a language point of view... But if you can get past that, I'm sure you will see the point. Oh, and has anyone seen Jenara around here later? I've missed most of you (you know who you are), but the move came a bit earlier than expected due to unforeseen circumstances and I am now happily ensconced in Texas!!! Enjoy... and keep an open mind!

*******

Please read the following things I have compiled on sexuality and the Bible. I think you may be suprised at what the original text and context of the verses that are commonly quoted as anti-homosexuality in actuality say and mean, when you read the original language - not the most common translations. Please note that those people I quote are much more versed and studied in the Bible than I am - that is the reason I quote them. I will address the verses referenced in the order they are referenced.

*******

- 1 Corinthians 6:9,10

The full text of the American Standard Version reads:

"Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God."

Myself: You read this verse as saying homosexuality is wrong and yet I read it and I do not even begin to see where you get that inference. Perhaps you could explain it to me?

J. Nelson: "Paul used the Greek word malakoi. They translate it as effeminate and so on. It could mean that; it might not. It can mean soft. Paul was a Jewish theologian. Someone from a Jewish background would consider that behavior unacceptable. Many Greeks did not."

K. Stendahl: "When people come to me -- deeply Christian people -- and say, `This is the way I am created. This is how God made me, how He makes me feel love,' I have to respect that. We know many things people [like Paul] did not know at that time. One should read the Bible with some kind of reason."

Further interpretation: The original Greek text describes the two behaviors as malakoi and arsenokoitai. Although this is often translated by modern Bibles as "homosexual," we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste." That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from male-male adult sex.

"Malakoi" is translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. It could also mean "loose" as in the phrase "loose morals," implying "unethical behavior." In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards.

"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." The Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 as "arsenokoitai." They were referring to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought that it meant temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire. One source refers to other writings which contained the word "arsenokoitai:" (Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John; Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum). They suggest that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but no necessarily homosexual sex)." 8 Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations.

Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was universally used. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.

Many would consider catamites, (a boy or young male who engaged in sexual activities with men) to be a likely valid translation for the first behavior; the second term might then refer to the men who engaged in sex with the catamites. The New American Bible (3) contains a footnote which reads:
"The Greek word translated as 'boy prostitutes' [in 1 Cor. 6:9] designated catamites, i.e. boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world....The term translated 'practicing homosexuals' refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys."

Harper's Bible Commentary (1998) comments that the passage refers to "both the effeminate male prostitute and his partner who hires him to satisfy sexual needs. The two terms used here for homosexuality...specify a special form of pederasty that was generally disapproved of in Greco-Roman and Jewish Literature."

Many might agree that the center portion of 6:9 might be accurately translated as: "male child abusers and the boys that they sexually abuse." i.e. the two behaviors probably relate to that small minority of pedophiles who are child rapists, and the male children that they victimize. The verse would then refer to the crime of child sexual abuse and has no relation to homosexuality in the normal sense of the term: i.e. consensual sexual relations between adults of the same gender.

*******

-Leviticus 18:22 (By far the most popular verse I have ever heard referenced.)

English translations of this verse vary. Some are:

KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination"

LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"

NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable"

NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin

RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination

Some English translations condemn only gay sex, whereas other versions of the Bible condemn all homosexuality, presumably including both gay and lesbian sexual relationships. They often point out that this passage does not refer to homosexuality generally, but only to a form of homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples -- a common practice in the rest of the Middle East at that time. Many would regard "abomination," "enormous sin", etc. as particularly poor translations of the original Hebrew word which really means "ritually unclean" within an ancient Israelite era. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BCE) translated "to'ebah" into Greek as "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity. If the writer(s) of Leviticus wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word zimah.

A word-for-word translation of this verse from the original Hebrew would be:

"And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination.

In modern day English this could be translated as:

"Men may not engage in homosexual sex while on a woman's bed; it is an abomination"

That is, "rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply restricts where it may occur." This may seem a strange prohibition to us today, but was quite consistent with other instructions in Leviticus which involve improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. e.g. ancient Israelites were not allowed to mix two crops in the same field, or make cloth out of two different raw materials. or plow a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together. A woman's bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement.

A liberal Jewish writer points out that: "The whole structure of sexuality in Torah assumes a dominant male and a subordinate woman." In a male homosexual act, one partner may be viewed as taking a passive role - that normally played by a woman. Thus gay sex would be as improper as a workplace situation in which a woman supervised a man. Also, because woman were considered to play such an inferior role in society, sex between two lesbians are not condemned in the Old Testament. All women were subordinate and thus neither would be changed from a dominant to a subservient role during sexual encounters.

The same liberal Jewish writer cites two alternate meanings to the passage: "Do not lie with a man as if it were the same thing as lying with a woman."

That is, when two gay males have a sexual encounter, they should continuously be aware that it is different from a male-female coupling. It might be interpreted to mean:

"Set up a parallel set of institutions for dealing with this kind of sexual relationship, different from those that apply to sexual relationships between a man and a woman."

"Do not sleep with a man as it were with a woman"
That is, if two males engage in a sexual act, neither should pretend that the passive partner is like a woman. They should be fully aware of their sexual orientation and maleness. i.e. they should come out of the "closet" and recognize their gayness.

He concludes that if this passage condemns some forms of homosexual behavior, it may refer only to the ancient Israelites, not to North America today. Perhaps: "at one time of human and Jewish history the path avoided gay male sexuality, and at a later time this avoidance might be null and void? Can the circle of the beloved community widen as we mature?"

Traditional Jewish and Christian belief is that God dictated the Torah to Moses. Thus every word was included for a specific reason. If God wished to ban all gay homosexual acts then it could be argued that the passage would have read "You shall not lie with a male." The addition of the phrase "as with a woman" must have been included for a specific reason. Perhaps it was added to give the passage one of the above meanings.

**ME: It should also be noted that this verse is: 1) within the "old law", which, when Jesus came and died for our sins, was discarded because not one of us is perfect enough to keep it; & 2) in the same context as the restrictions against tattoos, shrimp, pork, rare meat, the wearing of polyester-cotton blends, seeding lawns with a grass mixture, and cutting hair. But homosexuality is somehow taboo. There is no logical explanation that would justify retaining these two laws against homosexuality while abandoning most of the rest. This is inconsistency and hypocrisy at it's worst.

*******

-Leviticus 20:13

In various translation it states:

KJV: (King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

LB: (Living Bible): "The penalty for homosexuality acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves."

NIV: (New International Version) "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

NLT: (New Living Translation): "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act, and are guilty of a capital offense."

RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."

This verse is essentially identical to Leviticus 18:22 discussed above, except the death penalty is added.

Death is often the punishment ordered by the Hebrew Scriptures for purely ritual transgressions. These included the worshiping of other Gods, gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), improper eating of offerings (Numbers 18:32), ineligible persons acting as priests (Num 3:10).

J. Nelson: "It is grounded in the old Jewish understanding that women are less worthy than men. For a man to have sex with another man 'as with a woman' insults the other man, because women are to be treated as property." She added that this passage is not part of the 10 Commandments, but merely part of 600 additional rules put forth via Israel's religious leaders.

D. Bartlett: "Nobody I know, even the most conservative, is saying homosexuals should be executed. I think people who think they take the Bible literally don't take it so literally as to want to execute people."

Stendahl: "If you look at the whole chapter, a lot of things come in for capital punishment that no Southern Baptist would argue that capital punishment is appropriate for. So their reading is a little *selective*." [my emphasis]

Many generally believe that this passage does not refer to all homosexual behavior, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution - that performed in a Pagan temple. One source disagrees, and interprets the prohibition as relating to two gay males having sex on a woman's bed. Their word-for-word translation of the original Hebrew is: "And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is upon them." In modern English, this could be translated as: It is an abomination for two men to have sex on a woman's bed. They are to be executed; it is their own fault."

*******

-Romans 1:24-27,32

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another, Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

The translators are showing their biases again. The Greek phrase para physin is commonly translated into the English word "unnatural". This is an error. Unnatural implies that the act is morally condemned. In Greek, the phrase really means "that which is beyond the ordinary and usual." "Unconventional" would have been a good word to use. In 1 Corinthians 11:14, when Paul refers to long hair on men as unusual and not ordinary, he used the same two words.

The preceding verses are important to consider. Together with verses 26 and 27, the full sequence is:

Verses 21-23: The people had once been Christians. But they had fallen away from the faith. They made images of Pagan gods in the form of men, birds, animals and reptiles for their religious rituals. These were probably held in Pagan temples.

Verse 24: Next, they engaged in heterosexual orgies with each other as part of these pagan fertility rituals.

Verse 25: Next, they worshipped the images that they had made, instead of God, the creator.

Verse 26: Because of these forbidden practices, God intervened in these fertility sex-rituals and changed the people's behavior so that women started to engage in sexual activities with other women.

Verse 27: describes how God had the men also engage in same-sex ritual activities. They (presumably both the men and women) were then punished in some way for their error. (The NIV substitutes "perversion" for "error.")

Verse 28: Again, because they did not acknowledge God, then He "gave them up" to many different unethical activities and attitudes: evil. covetousness, malice, envy, murder, etc.

J. Nelson: "Paul didn't write it as a condemnation of homosexuality, but as a criticism of Greek behavior in temple worship. Greeks often incorporated sexual behavior in temple worship."

Other interpretations include: The complete passage describes how the ex-Christians engaged in orgiastic, presumably heterosexual sexual activities. Later God "gave them over" to something new: homosexual behavior. This implies that throughout their lifetime they had had a heterosexual orientation and had engaged only in heterosexual sex. God influenced them so that they engaged in homosexual sex. This was, for them, an unnatural activity. They were criticized because they were engaged in sexual activity which was unnatural for them. For a person with a heterosexual orientation, homosexual behavior is "shameful," "unnatural," "indecent," and a "perversion." The passage in Romans is not a condemnation of homosexual behavior. Rather, it disapproves of sexual behavior that is against a person's nature (i.e. homosexual behaviors by people whose orientation is heterosexual). Presumably this would condemn heterosexual behavior by gays and lesbians -- activity which is equally against their nature.

Some question whether the word "perversion" in Verse 27, and "such things" in Verse 30 are related to only certain gay and lesbian behavior. e.g.: casual homosexual activities outside of a committed, monogamous two person relationship, or group homosexual practices of any type, or group homosexual practices in a religious setting. This was a common practice among Pagans at the time; e.g. in the temples dedicated to the Goddess Aphrodite)

You could conclude that Paul may well have not been thinking of gays and lesbians in committed relationships when he wrote this passage. He never referred to such couples in his writings, and probably never encountered any during his lifetime. He might simply have been condemning homosexual orgies in Pagan sexual rituals.

Many English translations render the end of Verse 27 as "due penalty of their error." Their basic error was to leave Pauline Christianity, and engage in idolatry. That is the main theme of the argument. From the idolatry flowed sexual orgies, sexual behavior against their nature, wickedness, greed, murder, etc. The intent of the passage is to show how idolatry leads to complete degeneration of behavior: to evil, envy, treachery, spite, gossiping, etc. The reference to what was, for them, unnatural homosexual behavior seems almost incidental, to the story. It was merely one symptom of the results of Pagan idolatry.

In Greek and Roman society of the time, bisexuality was regarded as quite natural; people in some walks of society were expected to engage in bisexual relations. Since most of them were heterosexual, bisexual activity would be against their personal nature. This behavior would be condemned because it is against their nature. One source states

"...God created each of us with a sexual orientation. To attempt to change it is, in effect, telling God that He created us wrong. The creation (us) does not have the right to 're-create' itself."

Some interpret the "men...with other men" clause to be a translation of the original Greek word for "pederasty" which was commonly practiced at the time by adult males with male children (often slaves). Thus Paul might have been criticizing child sexual abuse.

From Paul's era, until today, many people have believed that the only natural, normal sexual activity was between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation. Thus "unnatural" sex would include: anyone engaging in sex for pure enjoyment; married couples who engaged in intercourse even though one partner was sterile; married couples who had sex even though the woman was not in the fertile part of her cycle, or was past childbearing years.

Perhaps Paul's use of the phrase "para physin" simply meant that the people engaged in same-sex practices that had no procreative function.

Writer Richard Summerbell suggests that this passage may refer to men who are predominantly heterosexual, but who are involved in "dominant/submissive relationships or casual sex with younger men or older teens...Most of the men taking up such relations are married and actively heterosexual at the same time. The male-male relationships are diversions or, when taken up by single men, substitutes for heterosexuality. It became clear to me that surrogate heterosexuality, a type of male- male sex which in our societies is common in prisons but nowhere else (it is sometimes referred to as "prison homosexuality") can become so common in some societies that its practitioners greatly outnumber and also influence the behaviour of those who are actually of a homosexual orientation." Thus, St. Paul may be writing of men involved in dominant/submissive relationships and/or of heterosexuals involved in sex with male youths. Neither has any connection to consensual, committed gay or lesbian relationships.

*******

In conclusion, I would like to give you a verse that I find myself frequently referring to:

- Romans 14:13-14 & 16-19 & 22

'Therefore let us stop passing judgement on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that *nothing* [my emphasis] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.' 'Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.' 'So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.'

And also, per my bible: "For you created my inmost being; you knit together in my mother's womb. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." (David, speaking of God, Psalm 139: 13, 15-16)

I don't know what your religion has taught you, but I believe that God is omnipotent - that is all knowing - which would mean that God knew exactly how everyone of us would/will turn out before we ever did. Seems to me that if we weren't meant to be gay, God is powerful enough to prevent it from happening - especially if God knew me before I was born. Think about it! [All bible references are from the New International Version.]

I await your response!

Peace, Love, Honesty, & Open-Mindedness
[/quote]

Any new light you could shed would be very helpful.

[Adeodatus]

Dear phishphan,

Personally I do not see any merit in engaging in slinging Bible verses back and forth with people who probably aren't all that interested in what the Bible has to say anyway. You could end up doing just that till the cows come home... if ever. An appeal to the Church's teaching authority will presumably have little effect either on your sparring partner. So what's left?

Well, good sound hermeneutics. I haven't the space to engage in a detailed answer here, and also I should let you do some of your own homework, so an excellent book to read is Robert A.J. Gagnon's "The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics". It's well worth the read. My primary answer to you is: read that book. The secondary answer follows.

Briefly,
1) 1 Corinthians 6.9-10
There's a lot of wishful translation going on here. But in reality, those words are translated:
Malakos = ‘soft one’, i.e. a catamite, the passive partner in a homosexual sex act
Arsenokoites = ‘man-bedder’, i.e. a sodomite, the active partner in a homosexual sex act

The attempt to link these with exploitative sex being condemned is highly suspect.

2) Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13
These verses are, interestingly, where the neologism 'arsenokoites' is probably coined from.

[quote]That is, if two males engage in a sexual act, neither should pretend that the passive partner is like a woman.
[/quote]

Hmmm..... the usual thing is to sneak in the bogeyman of 'anti-woman' attitudes of the Old Testament. Hogwash. Leviticus goes on to condemn various permutations of bestiality, i.e. man or woman with beast. This is about sex [i]contra naturam[/i], i.e. against nature, not about women being inferior.

3) Romans 1.24-32
‘para phusin’ = ‘against nature’. Making it mean 'extraordinary' or 'unusual' is more than stretching the truth. More wishful translation going on here than honesty.

4) [quote]I am fully convinced that *nothing* [my emphasis] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.' 'Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. [/quote]

It's no use taking verses out of their context (dietary habits) and applying it to all sorts of other things. If this chap is serious, then he's found himself a justification for anything he wants to do, like say pedophilia, for example. Madness.

5) [quote]I don't know what your religion has taught you, but I believe that God is omnipotent - that is all knowing - which would mean that God knew exactly how everyone of us would/will turn out before we ever did. Seems to me that if we weren't meant to be gay, God is powerful enough to prevent it from happening - especially if God knew me before I was born. Think about it! [/quote]

The conflation and confusion of different issues going on here.
i. If the omnipotence of God is supposed to stop every evil, then why is there evil at all? The old 'problem of evil' chestnut. Well, for one thing we should stop anthropomorphising God and stop pretending we know better than Him.

ii. Omnipotent means 'all-powerful'. Omniscient means 'all-knowing'.

iii. He/she assumes that they were 'meant to be' they were they've turned out to be. That's highly problematic. Were we 'meant' to die? No. Were we 'meant' to sin? No. Were we 'meant' to suffer? No. Again the assumption is that he or she is at least as wise as God to understand His purposes. The obvious conclusion is to attribute sin to rational creatures, but that's exactly what they don't want to do.

iv. He/she assumes they were created 'gay'. We don't know that. In fact we have good reasons to think that 'nurture' provides the decisive factor, rather than 'nature' (e.g. identical twin studies, one heterosexual, one homosexual----since they have the same genetic make up, how can they have different sexual orientations unless sexual orientation is formed later in life through experiences and growing up?).

6) I'm surprised your interlocuter hasn't brought up the over-used example of the 'men of Sodom', that their sin consisted in being inhospitable. Like a friend of mine remarked, to say the Sodomites were destroyed for inhospitableness is like saying that Auschwitz was bad hotel management.

Anyway, read Gagnon's book. And God bless you!