Misinterpretation: The Bible and Homosexuality

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Freddie,
...In the early part, he lists homosexuality along with other things he is presenting as evidence of man's depraved condition. So I consider it in a different light than Paul's admonishment in another letter about women speaking out in church.

The good news, is that this thread has given me a new way to look at this particular passage, which I felt was the one remaining one that couldn't be easily explained explained away....

But let me reiterate that I am not a Bible literalist by a longshot. Its just that this particular Letter of Paul's is an astonishingly beautiful treatise on God's unconditional Grace. Its bothers me to no end that the reference to homosexuality in Romans is used by so many in their mission of "un-Grace". Someone once said to me that "evil is attracted to the greatest good."
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Grr, my computer just ate my post.

I enjoy these threads, I always pick up a few new gems. It's great to have you back in full gear, Freddie! We are so fortunate to have so many people with so much theological education, it a joy to hear non-fundamentalist Christians who really do love God AND their fellow man.

On an unrelated note, I'm reading "The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot" by Bart D. Ehrman. Although I'm near the beginning, he makes an assertain, and I'm not sure if its fact or opinion. He states that the letters of Paul predate the Gospels- is that true? I'm not a huge fan of Paul, and I think it's a mistake to take his word as if it were Christ's, since admittedly he never met the man. Paul may very well have considered homosexuality an abomination, but Jesus was conspicuously silent on the matter, to my knowledge.

Freddie points out, among other things, that there was a practise going on at the time of prostitutes (both male and female) adorning themselves as pagan gods and having sex with members as part of the worship service. This was an abomination to the traditional Jews, and a threat to the blossoming Christian church, which would have been vulnerable to being infiltrated by "pagans" since it was so new and didn't really have a set standard of ethics codes yet. It has even been speculated that the word used in some places that have been translated as "homosexual" could have actually meant these church prostitutes.

This author underscores that there really wasn't a word for "homosexual" as we know it today, because there just wasn't a concept for a man living with a man in a loving and committed relationship, as happens quite often now. While I am no linguist and don't speak Aramaic or Greek, Danny (DMW) tells me that the word used appears very infrequently in other texts of the time, and is therefore difficult to translate with certainty. He also tells me that he does NOT lay with a man as with a woman- and I know this to be true, because he's slept in my bed. Big shock- nothing happened!

While there are a select few things that could be taken to judge our fellow man (were we to assume the position of God ourselves), there is literally an avalanche of reasons to love. Loving our brothers as ourselves is a commandment, the only actual commandment Jesus gave. Why ignore this to give preference to the personal opinion of Paul? Because it is the nature of human beings to be myopic. No one knew this better than Jesus. We just don't get it, and really, we never did. I seem to remember him being put to death for telling people to love each other.
 

kalipygian

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Posts
1,948
Media
31
Likes
139
Points
193
Age
68
Location
alaska
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
From John Boswell 'Cristianity, social Tolerance, and homosexuality, U. of Chicago press, 1980, he was a professor of history at yale.

'There are three passages in the writings of Paul which have been supposed to deal with homosexual relations. Two words in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and one in 1 Timothy 1:10 have ben taken at least since the early twentieth century to indicate that "homosexuals" will be excluded from heaven.
The first of these two, "malakos" (basicly, "soft,"), is an extremely common greek word; it occurs elsewhere in the new testament with the meaning "sick" and in patristic writings with senses as varied as "liquid," "cowardly," "refined," "weak willed," "delicate," "gentle," and debauched. In a specifically moral sense it very frequently means "licentious," "loose," "wanting in self-control." At a broad level , it might be translated as "unrestrained," or "wanton,' but to assume that either of these concepts necessarily applies to gay people is wholly gratuitous. The word is never used in greek to designate gay people as a group, or even in reference to homosexual acts generically, and it often occurs in writings contemporary with the Pauline epistles in reference to heterosexual persons or activity.
What is more to the point, the unanimous tradition of the church through the reformation, and of Catholicism until well into the twentieth century, has been that this word applied to masturbation. This was the interpretation not only of native greek speakers in the early middle ages but of the very theologians who most contributed to the stigmatization of homosexuality. Since few people any longer regard masturbation as the sort of activity that would preclude entrance to heaven, the condemnation has been transfered to a group so widely despised that their exclusion does not trouble translators or theologians.
The second word "arsenokoitai," is quite rare, and its aplication to homosexuality in particular is more understandible. The best evidence, however, suggests very strongly that it did not connote homosexuality to Paul or his contemporariesbut meant "male prostitute," unitil the fourth century, after which it became confused with a variety of dissaproved sexual behavior and was often equated with homosexuality.'

(This author was so pedantic, he gave even hebrew quotes without translation or transliteration.) I would say that the elements of the greek compound word, 'arseno' would mean, strong, manly; 'koiti' is a cognate for our 'coitus'; so 'fucker' would be the closest anglo saxon word. 'Malakoi' is a cognate for botanical latin 'mollis',(one who is) 'soft'.
 

Aplus

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Posts
537
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
163
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Well I'm glad that some are willing to open-their-minds to even consider, but all in all, I don't see these kinds of interpretations coming from the church, or more specifically, any one of the cloth that I know or know of. I had a minister tell me right to my face that he thought homosexuality was a sin and unnatural quite recently. Now admittly the unnatural part initially came from me. I didn't say it because I believed it, because I don't. I thought he was trying to skirt the issue or his real feelings, so I threw-it-out in a very pointed way just to see if he'd come right out and admit it. Needless to say, he didn't let me down. No I have no use for the bible or it's preachers. Interesting thing to me, is that I find some church folk to be the most suspect, and yet they persist in preaching otherwise.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Well I'm glad that some are willing to open-their-minds to even consider, but all in all, I don't see these kinds of interpretations coming from the church, or more specifically, any one of the cloth that I know or know of. ....

Aplus,
Most of what I have seen here about these passages are consistent with how they are regarded at the denomination level of the ELCA Lutherans.

...He states that the letters of Paul predate the Gospels- is that true? ....
Yes, it is pretty universally accepted that Paul's writings predate the Gospels by at least 20 years. Paul was a contemporary of people who were eyewitnesses to Jesus. After his Damascian conversion, he hung around with a few disciples and a brother of Jesus.

While he was frantically trying to propagate and standardize practices amongst the many churches he was writing to, these churches probably had dozens of different "gospels" that they were working from.

Paul's writings come from the mid first century, where the four Gospels we have now come from later on in the century.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
From John Boswell 'Cristianity, social Tolerance, and homosexuality, U. of Chicago press, 1980, he was a professor of history at yale...
kali,
Yes, the Lutheran organization has disseminated information to its member churches that is very similar to what you were quoting. The various words that are translated as simply "homosexual" are used in very different ways throughout the Bible. That is why it is easy (and appropriate) to dismiss many of the passages as referring to something other than consentual same sex practices amongst adults. Many of them are referring to situations where sexuality is used as a form of domination and subjugation such as was the practice with older men and younger boys. In other cases its just a term for promiscuity. And so on.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
98
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
JustAsking, are you aware how many members have stated (recently, repeatedly and emphatically) that I hate you and everything you stand for? Just thought you should know. At least I'm glad they told me. For a frightening couple of years, I thought you and I were on pretty good terms.

(I still think you have most likely the most brilliant mind on this forum)
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Aplus,
Most of what I have seen here about these passages are consistent with how they are regarded at the denomination level of the ELCA Lutherans.

I would just like to add that many who have availed themselves of more information regarding the actual history of the formation of the Bible are less inclined to literal translation, in any denomination. It is the less informed who gravitate toward literalism, which is rampant in Ohio. I myself left a very progressive church because of its stance on homosexuality. Unacceptable, to me.

edit- Still, I am very glad that some, like you, are willing to stay within the church, and continue to bring enlightenment TO the system, which is something of which I personally am incapable.

Yes, it is pretty universally accepted that Paul's writings predate the Gospels by at least 20 years. Paul was a contemporary of people who were eyewitnesses to Jesus. After his Damascian conversion, he hung around with a few disciples and a brother of Jesus.

While he was frantically trying to propagate and standardize practices amongst the many churches he was writing to, these churches probably had dozens of different "gospels" that they were working from.

Paul's writings come from the mid first century, where the four Gospels we have now come from later on in the century.


Thank you so much for your willingness to bring you vast knowledge to us, the unwashed masses!

I had heard the Gospels, both the ones included in the NT and the ones excluded jokingly referred to as forgeries. I believe it was just being made clear that the Gospels were not written by the men to which they were attributed, since most of the Apostles were basically poorly educated peasants. The Gospels were written (actually penned) by scribes who were interpreting the stories that these men had told of their experiences in the presence of Jesus, but they were penned as much as 75 years later. There is often a misconception among literalists that the Gospels are actual accounts BY the Apostles DURING the life of Jesus, which is certainly untrue since they didn't appear until much later. The peoples of the time would have recognised them more as "The Epic of Mark, Luke, etc." and knew that those men were not themselves responsible for their writing. I'm not actually sure that anyone, other than Paul, is responsible for writing anything in the NT in his own name.
 

D_Herin_Ghan

Account Disabled
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Posts
671
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
I've got an easy answer to that one DC: fear of something different. In the social sphere, and especially with regards to sexuality..there is something inherent in society that fear's something perceived as different in the open forum. I'm a Catholic, I believe in the bible, I believe in Jesus. However, I am also a human, and realize that it is wrong to outcast certain people simply because of something as petty as sexuality. The resistance of others to acknowledging this fact is the same resistance that we saw with racial issues in the 20th century. Complete fear of a change in the way of thinking.

It's unfortunate, but people are inherintly wary of questioning their perceived truth. It's not something humans want to think about, because it scares them. We'd rather be comfortable intolerant and ignorant than to question our truth's and values.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Very nice, LL, and great to see you. You know, you have hit the nail on the head as far as I can see. Youth has the advantage of still being pliable, so I hope more young people find the same answers you have because the older people get, the more they tend to get set in their ways. Fear is a big, ugly monster, and it gets harder to challenge for most of us old fogies. Very few in the "over 30" set are able to do this without having a nervous breakdown. Thanks for bringing some hope, and please keep talking- especially to your peers.
 

scanjock8

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Posts
448
Media
6
Likes
346
Points
283
Age
34
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Well I'm glad that some are willing to open-their-minds to even consider, but all in all, I don't see these kinds of interpretations coming from the church, or more specifically, any one of the cloth that I know or know of. I had a minister tell me right to my face that he thought homosexuality was a sin and unnatural quite recently. Now admittly the unnatural part initially came from me. I didn't say it because I believed it, because I don't. I thought he was trying to skirt the issue or his real feelings, so I threw-it-out in a very pointed way just to see if he'd come right out and admit it. Needless to say, he didn't let me down. No I have no use for the bible or it's preachers. Interesting thing to me, is that I find some church folk to be the most suspect, and yet they persist in preaching otherwise.

One minister does not Christianity make, especially among Protestants. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, Protestant doctrine is diverse and inconsistent. Denominations can vary greatly in practices and beliefs, some more tolerant and inclusive than others. I am a gay Episcopalian, fully accepted by my church community--I can't even begin to tell you how much that means to me.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
98
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I've got an easy answer to that one DC: fear of something different. In the social sphere, and especially with regards to sexuality..there is something inherent in society that fear's something perceived as different in the open forum. I'm a Catholic, I believe in the bible, I believe in Jesus. However, I am also a human, and realize that it is wrong to outcast certain people simply because of something as petty as sexuality. The resistance of others to acknowledging this fact is the same resistance that we saw with racial issues in the 20th century. Complete fear of a change in the way of thinking.

It's unfortunate, but people are inherintly wary of questioning their perceived truth. It's not something humans want to think about, because it scares them. We'd rather be comfortable intolerant and ignorant than to question our truth's and values.
Thank you, LINL. Whenever I compare bigotry against sexual minorities to bigotry against racial minorities, I ALWAYS get flamed. I hope the same does not happen to you. You realize, of course, that you are in the minority within your Roman Catholic faith. That's a good thing, though. Change for the good starts small.

I really was hoping to hear from the literalists on my question though, but I bet I won't get an answer. Maybe some snide remarks, but no answers.
 

Irvy

Expert Member
Joined
May 22, 2005
Posts
308
Media
8
Likes
186
Points
263
Age
49
Location
Peterborough (England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I love these threads, they're even enough to bring me out of seclusion!

I've been studying and reading about this for years, obviously as a gay guy brought up in the church, it was important for me to know for certain if God was really going to turn his back on me because I liked guys to turn their back on me... if ya know what I mean ;)

The problem is, though, that this "law" of homosexuality being a sin has been such an accepted error for so long, I think it will be very hard to change. It would involve a translation of the Bible to be published with a more accurate rendering of the verses, and I think that a Bible that came out and said it was OK to be gay would be instantly outlawed and boycotted, which would make it unprofitable, and therefore probably won't be done.

Unfortunately, it's easier to continue to teach an accepted lie than it is to reteach people the truth. It's a damn shame, I'd love to see my parents come to see the truth that's right there before their eyes, but whilst they've accepted me, and even my partner, they still believe that it's wrong that we're together.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
DC,
Hey man. I don't get this post. Why would you think we are not on good terms? You and I go way back.


He knows better, he's just pointing out that others have accused him (and me too) of being against all religious people. They don't seem to understand that there are more options than fer or agin, one of them being "I respect the hell out of you and love reading every word you write".

*throws her rosepetals in with DC's.*
 
6

68306

Guest
DC_DEEP said:
Thank you, LINL. Whenever I compare bigotry against sexual minorities to bigotry against racial minorities, I ALWAYS get flamed. I hope the same does not happen to you. You realize, of course, that you are in the minority within your Roman Catholic faith. That's a good thing, though. Change for the good starts small.

I really was hoping to hear from the literalists on my question though, but I bet I won't get an answer. Maybe some snide remarks, but no answers.
I follow your statement and agree with much said, but dare you follow mine?
hint: I am an extremely guarded person.


madame_zora said:
Who would ask a fourth-grader for a definitive answer in astrophysics?
Someone very foolish... or very wise.


Vestigial, Great to see you here again. I have missed your nonlinear postings.
Thank you sir, though I can do as the romans do, I would rather hold my light to the darkness.


Now, forgive me turning the world on edge again... but.

Leviticus doesn't seem to be written in the lord's hand.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
98
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
DC,
Hey man. I don't get this post. Why would you think we are not on good terms? You and I go way back.
JA, I was poking a little fun at the 4 or 5 members who routinely accuse me of hating anyone or anything even remotely religious. Your faith is obvious, through your posts, and you are one of the members I most admire. The evangelists who spew such vitriol against me make fools of themselves when they say I'm "anti-religion." I wish more of them were more like you. I think you are awesome.

He knows better, he's just pointing out that others have accused him (and me too) of being against all religious people. They don't seem to understand that there are more options than fer or agin, one of them being "I respect the hell out of you and love reading every word you write".

*throws her rosepetals in with DC's.*
Thank you, love. <gets all gushy and mushy>

I follow your statement and agree with much said, but dare you follow mine?
hint: I am an extremely guarded person.
<...>
Now, forgive me turning the world on edge again... but.

Leviticus doesn't seem to be written in the lord's hand.
Alright, I'm going to be dense here, but the first part I dont' understand. The second part, I do understand, and thank you. That's the obvious answer.

But still, I am hoping that someone who uses Leviticus 18:22 or Leviticus 20:13 as the basis for their condemnation of homosexuality, will explain to me why they choose only these two (maybe a random 3 or 4 other) verses, out of an approximate 859 verses, to quote as applicable law. And why they are conspicuously silent about Leviticus 25, and why they don't observe the year of jubilee. Are chapters 18 and 20 still valid, but chapter 25 is not?
 

Corius

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Posts
669
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
163
Location
Michigan
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Folks who take bits of the Bible and justify their hatreds by them are folks who keep the real treasure of the Bible from ever emerging for them to take in an profit from. The Bible users fall into definite categories. First, those who mine it to support their own positions. Second, are those who somehow suggest that all parts of it are equally useful. (Try reading the whole of the O.T. books of Joshua and I and II Samuel and decide whether the God depicted there is worthy of worship and praise.) Third, are those who accept the Bible for what it is, that is the testimony of men who were writing in their times with the whole background of culture as it had developed to that point. Fourth, are those who can sense the progression of thought through the O.T. into the New Testament. (unfortunately, the N. T. ends with the book of Revelation which has spawned a whole lot of mischief right down to the present time.)
I assume that the God who is worthy of praise and worship from me has to be a whole lot more loving, reasonable, moral, etc. etc. than I could ever be. Therefore I dismiss all the testimony in the Bible that falls short of that and do not apologize for my exercise of freedom. I adore the God who demands of me that I be fair, be kind, and always remember that I could be wrong because I am human not divine. I don't presume to know the mind of the Almighty; that would be arrogance which God would not approve. I dig the Gospel of Jesus Christ which declares that Christ came so that we might have life and have it more abundantly. I like that!
 
6

68306

Guest
rough transcript: Catholic God = universal, with respect to the whole.


I'll accept God for what he is. Because, truth be told, I don't know a damned thing about him.