Where in the Bible is homosexuality prohibited?

[Spensed]

^ There's no point in participating in this forum if you just ignore previous replies and post the same thing again and again.

What is being proscribed in the so called anti-gay passages is disputed, not just on grounds of context, etc., but on linguistic grounds to do with what words are used, how the words are translated and what they mean, etc. It isn't a "soft" argument about how the text should be read. But a "hard" argument about what the text really is.

Do the words refer to homosexuality in a loving retionship between consenting adults with same sex orientation? Clearly not. So you end up researching to see whether the references are to homosexuality as such or gay Temple prostitutes or sexual excess that happens to have a gay expression.

Is lesbianism even mentioned? And, if so, it is proscribed?

And so on.

Maybe deliberately, but, like a far right religious fundamentalist, you just keep coming up with the same narrowly focused spin that ignores all of that.

It's gay bashing gay Christians, many of whom have spend time and energy looking into this issue and concluded that they can believe in the Bible and live gay.

If you think that the Bible is anti-gay because you've considered these lingustic disputes, you need to say that and give, at least, a few examples.

Don't worry. I won't be holding my breath.

 

[Kulindahr]

Spensed, I really appreciate your taking on Angelboy's fundamentalist blindness. Trying to deal with it gets tiresome, and he really does sound like a broken record.

As for objective meaning, most of the Bible is clear. The big problem with the passages allegedly dealing with homosexuality is that Paul invented at least one word, and used words unclear in meaning because they're rare. Since God himself dismissed the whole Levitical moral code, in Acts 15, all we have is those words of Paul, too.
But another difficulty is that the Bible is not a recipe book or shopping list. There is what one professor of mine called "a progression of grace", each succeeding period being used by God to open up the concepts of mercy and love, with older things falling away before newer. So even if Paul did mean homosexuality, does that mean it is still condemned? or is it like slavery, a matter for progressing grace to change?
I'm still banging my head against this... and feeling unhappy no matter which way I go.

 

[Spensed]

^ Thanks. I understand what you're saying and I'm not suggesting that people misread the Bible just to support their pro-gay views any more than that it's ok for the anti-gay fundies to misread the Bible to support their homophobia.

As you may know, I respect it for the good things in it and the power people give it to change their lives, but it's a just a primitive text to me and, not surprisingly, clearly outdated in any number of ways.

That being the case, I occasionally allow myself to wear mixed thread garments and eat shrimp, etc., etc. and hope you do likewise.

 

[Shepherd 2]

That material about conservative v. liberal is so over-simplified that it distorts reality, so I gave up quickly.
The section about To'ebah is darned good, though! Thanks!

Kulindahr, It is correct to say it is over simplified.
My twelve years of higher education makes it clear to me
that many do not wish to understand, but are looking
for a print source that supports whatever point of view
they wish to spout.
Shep+

 

[Kulindahr]

As you may know, I respect it for the good things in it and the power people give it to change their lives, but it's a just a primitive text to me and, not surprisingly, clearly outdated in any number of ways.

That being the case, I occasionally allow myself to wear mixed thread garments and eat shrimp, etc., etc. and hope you do likewise.

It's not a primitive text if you read it as it is meant to be; it's more profound and relevant than most of what is written today, with a depth of thought most people only wade in.

Your second paragraph shows why you see it as outdated: you're reading it more as a shopping list than a real book.
I am ever baffled to why people see the Bible as some manual that just lists things to be done or not. The commands such as what you chose to note are really, in a serious sense, peripheral, just as in the study of history, being able to list names and dates is peripheral. The real message is in the lessons.
Take that thing about shellfish: We can read it as a simple command, like it was a traffic rule or something. Just as most people never see the point behind the traffic rule (neither do most cops or judges, these days), most people never see the point behind the command. The command isn't there for itself, it's there to make a point, to illustrate something -- that's what Paul is talking about when he says "these things were written for our instruction". Being closer to the situation, he understood a lot more than we do, which is why he was able to draw out such insights from Old Testament accounts in his letters.
It's common to read the command about shellfish as a message about health, and thereby a statement about God's concern for His people, since shellfish can cause health problems. But more deeply, it's a lesson that one's life must be disciplined, even down to the details of what one eats. Most "gods" back then cared little for anything but sacrifices, offerings, and temple ceremony; the detailed commands Yahweh gave showed that He wasn't like those, letting His people frolic or slump in sloth most of the time; He meant to be involved in the details of their lives. In the culture, that meant giving rules.
The command about clothing is the same sort of thing. Those two, along with all the other rules, showed that God was concerned with every detail of life. And since He Himself dismissed all the picky rules, as recorded in Acts 15, what we're left with is the lessons of being disciplined and that God is concerned with every little bit of our lives. Of course there's also the message that He wants us to be healthy, but the important thing is that having shown this, He now leaves us free to do pretty much as we please, that is, to be disciplined in whatever way we choose, so long as we remember He is concerned with it all, and so long as we keep ourselves healthy.
And that's not at all outdated, or primitive!


p.s. -- I occasionally allow myself to wear no garments at all, especially when swimming

 

[Spensed]

^ The Bible may or may not have been inspired by God, but it clearly is an ancient text and it clearly was transcribed by human beings.

The result, as one would expect, is that it contains its share of discrepancies and even scientific errors. It also doesn't deal with things then unknown like cloning or sperm doning or lesbians.

None of that to me is an impedient to faith in the Bible, but, whatever else it is, it's clearly also a primitive text.

I like what you say about interpreting the lessons of the Bible and I have not quite heard it put in that way before. But I am familiar with the same technique used by, for example, Shakespeare scholars studying Shakespeare. They likewise use textual analysis to draw principles from the text and, to a greater or lesser extent, give them a contemporary application. So that a Marxist critic will draw Marxist insights from the text and a historical apologist critic will look to explain away anti-Semitic elements, etc.

So that get's back to my point on gay issues, which is the banal one that many people see what they want to see.

Now you said you don't do that and whether you do or you don't isn't my concern.

I'm sure skinny dipping is ok, provided you find a fig leaf, which is big enough.

 

[AngelBoy]

What is being proscribed in the so called anti-gay passages is disputed, not just on grounds of context, etc., but on linguistic grounds to do with what words are used, how the words are translated and what they mean, etc. It isn't a "soft" argument about how the text should be read. But a "hard" argument about what the text really is.

If you think that the Bible is anti-gay because you've considered these lingustic disputes, you need to say that and give, at least, a few examples. - Don't worry. I won't be holding my breath.

The obvious flaw in your argument is that these same passages are interpreted by the majority of Christians to mean what the words actually seem to say.

Hence most mainstream Christian denominations are against homosexuality.

It is possible that the majority of Christians have read the Bible wrong – but you have not put forward a very convincing argument that this is the case.

Errors in translation are a possible explanation. But I haven’t been able to find any evidence that the words of the Bible were mistranslated and don’t mean what they say.

You clearly can’t say the words of the Bible (taken at face value) are not against homosexuality – just that these may have been mistranslated or taken out of context.

I’m not sure how to set about proving that all the current English translations of the Bible are not wrong – so maybe it would be best not to hold your breath if you expect anyone to do that!

As an atheist – what the Bible says is not an issue for me personally

 

[Spensed]

As an atheist – what the Bible says is not an issue for me personally

For some reason, that's not how it sounds.

I'm not going to keep repeating what I and other people have already said. So, if you're looking for more of response, maybe you could try reading the old posts again. LOL.

 

[AngelBoy]

For some reason, that's not how it sounds.

I'm not going to keep repeating what I and other people have already said. So, if you're looking for more of response, maybe you could try reading the old posts again. LOL.

You say that the only reason the Bible appears to justify the homophobia of most maintsream Christian religions is that it's been mistranslated or taken out of context?

I think this is just wishfull thinking on your part - and that you have no evidence to support this

 

[Spensed]

^ It not as simple as that. There is a serious on-going debate about these issues that is largely ignored by the fundamentalists. That's just a fact. It's hardly wishful thinking on my part as I take a lot of what the Bible has to say with considerable skepticism if not disbelief.

As I mentioned on one or more of the other thread, I have to cut back on my time here.

Plus other folk here are better qualified to run with this particular baton so I'll leave you and them to it.

 

[Kulindahr]

It is possible that the majority of Christians have read the Bible wrong – but you have not put forward a very convincing argument that this is the case.

Errors in translation are a possible explanation. But I haven’t been able to find any evidence that the words of the Bible were mistranslated and don’t mean what they say.

You clearly can’t say the words of the Bible (taken at face value) are not against homosexuality – just that these may have been mistranslated or taken out of context.

It hit me that those first two paragraphs I've quoted could have been uttered a few generations back about slavery. Back then, the whole Christian world read the Bible to say not only that slavery was okay, but that it was the proper condition of black folks in a white-dominated society.

As for the third paragraph, the question is about what those words do in fact mean at face value -- when I read "words of the Bible", I think of the original/received text, not of translations, and as has been said, the meanings of the words involved aren't all that certain. It may just be that this is a situation as with slavery, that the words of the Bible are being taken in a way that justifies what people want to believe, without a real search to see what the message is.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm sure skinny dipping is ok, provided you find a fig leaf, which is big enough.

Heh.
We doan need no stinkin' fig leaves.

 

[KennyD]

Hey Folks ... How about going to http://gayxjw.org/bible.html and try reading that article ... "A Different View of Homosexuality ... according to the Bible" This is A Common Bond's response to how Watchtower talks 'n believes .. etc ... still good for all traditional Christians as well ?
I believe that this will explain a lot to the believers and non-believers alike .... If anything .. it will make you THINK ...

 

[Kulindahr]

Hey Folks ... How about going to http://gayxjw.org/bible.html and try reading that article ... "A Different View of Homosexuality ... according to the Bible" This is A Common Bond's response to how Watchtower talks 'n believes .. etc ... still good for all traditional Christians as well ?
I believe that this will explain a lot to the believers and non-believers alike .... If anything .. it will make you THINK ...

Wow.
I'm impressed enough to say it again: wow.


The Old Testament exegesis is, as far as I can check, right on target; the work with the Sodom and Gomorrah story is outstanding!

I'm more than a little dubious about the treatment of arsenokoites, from Paul in Romans; getting "lift bed" is stretching things, as is getting arsen from the root ar. But the rest of it is good.

Thanks MUCH for that link!

 

[BulgingWranglers]

i have read that outside of leviticus, there is little said against homosexuality in the bible

Outside of Leviticus, I found these three:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New American Standard Bible)

(9) Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, (10) nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

---------------------

1 Timothy 1:8-11 (New American Standard Bible)

( 8 ) But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, (9) realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers (10) and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, (11) according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

---------------------

Romans 1:27 (New American Standard Bible)

(27) and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is one of those situations that show just why no person should be a priest, pastor, minister, deacon, or whatver unless he can read the original languages -- and not just enough to look things up in a lexicon, rather enough to follow scholarly articles on the subject.
Entrenched interests and entrenched views will always have adherents. But when scholarship begins to show doubt about certain words or phrases, too many with no grounding in the languages, who therefore can't follow the arguments, get stubborn and cling -- as many did to slavery -- to what they've been taught, regardless of what others tell them. This is a situation in which the phrase "the words of the Bible" have to mean the original languages, and nothing else.
Some of the argument turns not just on words, but on the derivation of words, that is, where they come from. What the root is for a word becomes important, as does its use elsewhere -- and if, as with Paul, a word seems to have been invented... well, things get a lot more difficult.
After reading the article posted by KennyD, and doing some checking in the original tongue, and doing some pondering, I'm convinced that none of the traditionally cited Old Testament passages is talking about homosexuality. As one who has always been a conservative Christian, I find that unsettling.
On the other hand, just what does "conservative" mean in this context? The root means "to conserve", that is, to hold to what was so from the beginning. If indeed the words and passages mean what that author shows, then the true conservative is the one who abandons long-held tradition in favor of the original truth. That's what Martin Luther did in his battle against the corrupt Roman church of his day -- his was a conservative movement. So in seeking the actual meaning, in insisting on cleaving to what the passages meant to the original listeners, I am in fact being a conservative.
And now to a key passage in the New Testament: Acts 15:20. There, observance of the entire Old Testament law and commandments is done away with, except for a few items: to abstain for things sacrificed to idols, from sexual immorality, from things that have been strangled, and from blood(shed). Remembering that these were Jews, some of them quite strict, we know that what they considered "sexual immorality" was defined by the Old Testament. And if, as we've seen, those passages didn't in fact speak of homosexuality, then it is not part of "sexual immorality".
That leads to Paul. He was at that Council, and knew of the decree of the apostles and elders. Whatever he says after that will not contradict the Council's edict. From there we must conclude that if the Old Testament passages do not refer to homosexuality, neither do those statements of Paul!
I feel very, very uncomfortable with that, after years of believing that the translations were correct, but that's where logic and the best information lead me.

+ + +
Soli Deo gloria​

 

[darcey]

GOD loves, mankind tries to judge! The Bible isn't meant to seperate us from our Creator, but to offer a pathway to reunion. Just focus on the LOVE that Jesus practiced & one can find no condemnation unless one seeks division. Mankind is the greatest separation fm it's Creator's LOVE. Don't blame our Father, but blame one's self if one can't find LOVE & support

 

[jonnie]

It isn't prohibited at all. Read "Christianity, Social Intolerance and Homosexuality" by John Boswell. There were same-sex marriges perform in the early church until the middle ages - he prints some of the ceremonies in the book.

 

[Nick4444]

Actually homosexuality as we understand it, per se,isn't prohibited.

The passages that do refer to men lying with men are mostly passages prohibiting participation and subscription to ancient Middle Eastern cults that practiced homosexual acts as part of their cult practices and doctrines.

 

[TX-Beau]

HOLY Zombie threads Batman!