Kul...
maybe you can help me out with this
i have read that outside of leviticus, there is little said against homosexuality in the bible
is this true?
As far as the Old Testament, the only actual prohibitions that may be directed against homosexuality are in the Pentateuch (Five Books of Moses), specifically in Leviticus. Other possible mention is made in a number of books, though mostly these are acts of rape, a general condemnation of detested behavior, or warnings against cult/temple prostitution or ritual. As has been noted before, some stories are often taken to refer to homosexual activity when that is not the point, e.g the Sodom and Gomorrah account.
A big problem, as the material in Spensed's link points out, is that words in English have changed their meaning, leaving them referring to something they didn't originally mean. This sort of linguistic drift of meaning is common, and just as common is the confusion it causes. My favorite example is from one of the earliest English translations of the New Testament, where it says that "Jesus prevented them into Jerusalem". On the face of it, to us, it sounds like He kept them from going in -- but what it actually meant is that He went in first: pre = before, vent, from venir = went. It's a Latin word that began with its Latin meaning but over decades in English usage took on another. Another great example is "suffer", as in "suffer the little children to come unto Me" -- it meant "permit"!
So when we have "sodomite", for example, in older translations, or in newer ones that just copy them, we have to unload the linguistic baggage and get back to the original concept -- and doing that cuts out a lot of verses from consideration.
A sideline on that: male-male temple/cult prostitution was rare, if even present, in the Ancient Near East in the Old Testament times, so references to male temple prostitutes are best taken as meaning men who 'serviced' women (during, generally, fertility rituals). Only once Greek and Roman cultures came on the scene did male-male temple sex become a real issue -- and at that point, the Roman/Hellenistic culture influenced translations and interpretations via a backlash that over time dropped out of the picture other cult sex, focusing on male-to-male acts, and then broadened the focus again to cover all male-to-male sex acts. Thus a lot of meaning, i.e. all cult/temple sex, was dropped, and new content, i.e. other male-to-male sex, was added.
For the New Testament, then, the question is to what extent Paul and others have bought into the culturally-changed concept. For my part, having written some heavy research on Paul's thought, I'm inclined to believe that Paul, as a very highly educated (and genius) Saul of Tarsus was sufficiently steeped in the ancient Torah and commentaries that unless evidence indicates otherwise his meaning should be taken in line with the original understanding.
That leads to the New Testament, where hardly a word is said which could possibly refer to homosexuality, that doesn't come from Paul's pen (or mouth, since he dictated more than wrote). Rather than turn this into a long treatise, I'll just generalize by saying that some of what Paul wrote can clearly fit into the ancient view of things, some also seems to buy into the Roman/Hellenistic reaction.
and i also read that the original writings are much more clear in that they dictate the way that homosexuals conduct themselves more than outlaw it
is this true?
Urk.
I can see how some of it could be read that way, but I think it's simpler (Occam's Razor) to conclude that in the Old Testament, anyway, there just wasn't any broad or clear concept of homosexuality. Except for one verse, all the prohibitions fall easily into the category of ritual cleanliness and standards for worship. Taken out of context, they can look pretty powerful, but just as with the prohibition of a priest leading worship doing so without underwear is no prohibition of nudity in general, so are they no prohibition of homosexuality in general.
The issue, once again, isn't as clear in the New Testament. Roman/Hellenistic culture, from which to a large degree Western civilization descends, blurs things. But, on the assumption that Paul really is talking about homosexuality
per se, there's not really much that can be taken as admonitions for conduct, except those directed to all Christians.
There's another problem I think should be addressed, and that is the Puritan pollution and distortion of the concept of sexuality pervasive in today's Western society, especially American society. Puritanism paints stark boundaries, and leaves no shades of grey. As a result -- and with help from Madison Avenue -- almost any sort of activity that is not clearly non-sexual has become considered sexual, even to extremes the original Puritans might be surprised at. As one example, the Puritan emphasis on fully covering the body to inhibit sexual temptation has come to us as a notion that nudity implies sex. Even three generations ago, most swimming out in the countryside was done nude, some even in mixed company, but the rolling wave of Puritan heritage has instilled in us the belief that even a bunch of guys skinny-dipping together is somehow perverted or sexual.
As a result, same-sex physical affection had to fall into the "forbidden!" category, because it came to be seen as sexual. Indeed, a great deal of behavior that was normal and accepted -- consider that in Jesus' day, many slaves went about naked! -- has been swept into one big bin and labeled "homosexual". This big-bin type of thought has made it easy, and seemingly natural, to classify all sorts of things in the Bible as homosexual (e.g. David and Jonathan) which aren't.
That's helped along, of course, by the human tendency to react to some things with revulsion. Personally I'm revolted by the eating of chilled monkey brains; I know people who are revolted by bananas. Feeling revulsion at things that seem contrary to nature comes easily, and that revulsion is easily transferred to whatever one considers a source of authority -- in this context, the Bible.
Enough for now.
