Homosexuality and the Bible

Gwyn ap Nudd

Critical Thinker
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
381
I am in the middle of a study to discover exactly what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. This is what I've discovered so far:
  • The Bible does not teach anything about homosexuality. Homosexuality, which affects a person's entire personality and outlook, is a modern concept. The Bible does mention homogenitality, which is actual sex between same-sexed persons.
  • The Bible discourages sex with temple prostitutes of either sex, as this is a form of idolatry.
  • Likewise, incest and adultery concerns do not depend on the sex of the participants (although it is only really considered adultery if at least one of the particpants is an adult male).
  • Rape (non-consentual sex) is a no-no whether the victim is the same sex or not.
  • Otherwise, the Bible only forbids homogenitality when both participants are free adult males who both like sex with women -- who are married to or plan to marry women. Even then, however, there might be an exception for soulmates/swordbrothers.
  • The passages that lead to the last restriction may have been traditionally misunderstood. If it is true that angels and demons can (but shouldn't) mate with humans, then it does not apply, and the Bible does not forbid homogenitality except for the same causes for which it forbids cross-sex sex

I am continuing the study, focusing on what the Bible teaches about angels. If it turns out that they do have sex with humans, then I'll post the good news. There are some who claim that "Flying Saucer abductions" are not done by aliens, but by angels/demons. :)
 
Gwyn ap Nudd said:
Otherwise, the Bible only forbids homogenitality when both participants are free adult males who both like sex with women -- who are married to or plan to marry women. Even then, however, there might be an exception for soulmates/swordbrothers.

I'm sorry but I just can't understand how that "adult males who both like sex with women" bit comes into play with Lev. 18, Lev.22, 1.Cor 6:9, and 1. Tim 1:10.

Especially those New Testament places seem to be quite explicit in condemning all all-male sexual relations as sin.
 
P.S. ( again)

Once you have the Bible all nice and interpreted in a way that you are comfortable with, let us know how you do with getting others to go along with you...

If all else fails, you can always add a little ( or a lot ) of your own stuff..
 
Yes, please share.

True, there’s ways to interpret out of the OT stuff, particularly for lesbians (During the time of Christ I understand their greatest “punishment” was being forbidden from marrying a Rabbi). But, unless you’re just going to ignore early Christian leaders, such as Paul, and focus only on the Gospels, I don’t think the Bible can be made into a gay rights book.

Or is that it? Disregard it as obsolete, as most do with Paul’s views on women.

Come to think of it, Paul probably isn’t the best example as his objections to Homosexuality do seem to be about some sort of paganism, making “God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” Anyway, what are you thinking and what passages are you looking at?
 
no matter what you come up with those who use the bible to justify their bigotry will simply point out the prohibition against lying with a man like a woman (forget the verse).

Therein lies the whole problem with the bible. My opinion based upon past studies is that the reason there is so much doctrinal variation among sects is that the bible teaches different things in different places.

Consider in the NT all the confusion Jesus caused when he told the pharisees what parts of the OT meant. I mean I read those OT passages and don't see how Jesus could have understood those passages the way he did in some cases.

Does the bible teach predestination or free will faith? In my opinion it teaches both depending on what part you read.

Same with many other doctrines.

Trying to make something diffinitive out of it is a lost cause if you ask me.
 
Diogenes-

This is based on several passages conflated.

For example the story of the attempted homogenital gang-rape in Sodom (Gen 19), and the actual cross-sex gang-rape in Gibeah from the remarkably similar story in Judges 19.

There are examples of individual relationships that seem to violate this dictum, (eg Abraham and Hagar) but that is because victim was not the person who had the power to grant or refuse consent: a slave's owner or a virgin's father or other next of kin would be.

LW-

1.Cor 6:9, and 1. Tim 1:10 use the never-before-encountered word arsenokoitos, "man-lying," which is almost certainly a literal translation of a rabbinical abreviation of the leviticus phrase, and therefore refers to the levitical prohibition, which was concerned with ritual purity.

Scot-

It is Paul, in Romans, who suggests that hetero men indulging in homogenitality is a punishment for idolatry, not necessarily a unique sin in itself.

The idea that (hetero/bi) men lusting for (hetero/bi)men is a sin comes from the usual interpretation of Jude 7. But Jude, who quotes from the pseudegryphal books of I Enoch and Jubilees, seems to be referring to Sodom lusting after the "strange" flesh of beings they knew to be angels and not men, rather than lusting after them because they are male.
 
Gwyn ap Nudd said:
...For example the story of the attempted homogenital gang-rape in Sodom (Gen 19), and the actual cross-sex gang-rape in Gibeah from the remarkably similar story in Judges 19.

An alternative explanation of this story is that it is about the responsibility one has toward one's guests. Homosexuality aside, it is better to let the mob rape your daughters than to let your guests come to harm.

Reinforcement of this interpretation is found throughout the Bible and the Koran. (Lv 19:34, for example)
 
While I would agree with your assertion that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality, a challenge before you is to come up with anything it says exactly so.

Many (otherwise) skeptical people can and do find meaning in the Bible. It can come from appreciating it as an inspirational work containing beauty and ugliness, points and counterpoints, lesser and greater truths and even 'untruths' somehow blending together into a coherent understanding of the nature of (a) god, or what (a) god would want of us.

To pursue a study of the Bible as you describe is to say "it says exactly this or that". Like insisting we love a certain painting or artist for a certain reason. Not only that, all other renderings are false when compared to this one standard.

So a dilemma: Why should we encourage this kind of Biblical study at all? No matter how liberally the Bible is interpreted, at the core it persists in attracting extremists who would meld us to their own shape.
 
I thought Leviticus was pretty clear about the point:

Lv 20:13 - 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.

Doesn't leave a lot of room for negotiation or acceptance there...
 
Zep said:
I thought Leviticus was pretty clear about the point:

Lv 20:13 - 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.

Doesn't leave a lot of room for negotiation or acceptance there...

Ah. The key word is "lieth".

You can have all the gay sex you want, provided you do it standing up. Or doggy style, I guess. As long as nobody's reclining, it's okay.
 
Zep said:
I thought Leviticus was pretty clear about the point:

Lv 20:13 - 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.

Doesn't leave a lot of room for negotiation or acceptance there...

Actually, It means that men can't lie with mankind (meaning all men) like he does with one woman- it would break the bed. But this was a case of biblical exaggeration. What it's really prohibiting is a man having sex with more than one other man at a time.

However, those two guys can sleep with as many women as they can fit in the room.
 
I WAS going to say "That doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room", but knowing you guys, that would have been an open invitation to ride the Punderosa far and wide.
 
P.S. Please share with us if you discover exactly what the Bible teaches about anything...

Trying to make something diffinitive out of it is a lost cause if you ask me.
While I would agree with your assertion that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality, a challenge before you is to come up with anything it says exactly so.

While there may be some debate over my use of the word exactly, I am using established procedures to attempt to determine the best understanding, based on the way the original languages and the various words, phrases and concepts and how the would have been understood in the original time and place.

Once you have the Bible all nice and interpreted in a way that you are comfortable with, let us know how you do with getting others to go along with you...
No matter how liberally the Bible is interpreted, at the core it persists in attracting extremists who would meld us to their own shape.
no matter what you come up with those who use the bible to justify their bigotry will simply point out the prohibition against lying with a man like a woman (forget the verse).
Case in point:
I thought Leviticus was pretty clear about the point:

Lv 20:13 - 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.

Doesn't leave a lot of room for negotiation or acceptance there...

I realize that there are those who will continue to believe as they will despite all evidence. And that many of them will "prove" their point by quoting isolated passages of english translations without regard for the message the original author intended.

But I am not doing this study to confront them. I am doing it for my own understanding. I'm posting here only because I thought some of you might become curious enough to investigate on your own and others might challenge me to dig even deeper. (Not in a pissing contest way, or "OK, I dare you to explain this..." but with your own insights.

To address the Levitcus verses: Lev 18-20 compares common religious practices (including fertility rites) of the surrounding nations (particularly mentioning Egypt and Canaan) to what is expected of the Israelites. In the other cultures, incest and adultery taboos were sometimes relaxed when the sex act was done in honor of the gods, or by their representatives (priests and kings). Leviticus says that to honor Adonai, it is, instead, necessary to adhere all the more strictly to the various sexual taboos.

Originally posted by Gwyn ap Nudd
...For example the story of the attempted homogenital gang-rape in Sodom (Gen 19), and the actual cross-sex gang-rape in Gibeah from the remarkably similar story in Judges 19.

An alternative explanation of this story is that it is about the responsibility one has toward one's guests. Homosexuality aside, it is better to let the mob rape your daughters than to let your guests come to harm.

Reinforcement of this interpretation is found throughout the Bible and the Koran. (Lv 19:34, for example)

I don't consider it alternative to my interpretation, but supplemental. My mentioning Sodom and Gibeah in this context focussed on the question of whether they spoke to the question of homogenitality. It was enough to show that they do not. In oanother study where I would seek to determine what it is they do teach, I would be looking at the hospitality laws and customs.

But this is the sort of thing I mean when I said I was hoping that someone would challenge me. Thank you.



Ah. The key word is "lieth".

You can have all the gay sex you want, provided you do it standing up. Or doggy style, I guess. As long as nobody's reclining, it's okay.

In studying some other exegses of this verse, I found one that claimed, apparently in all seriousness, that it referred to the woman's actual bed. That as long as you did not bring the other man home to your wife's bed, it doesn't matter where else you were.
 
Hi

I'm an atheist - I used to be a Christian, spent two years in Bible College, read three different Bibles and read tons of material that only a fellow Bible nerd would've ever heard of.

Having said that; the Bible categorically, specifically and clearly condemns homosexuality. There is no question. No wiggle room. No other way to read the passages. Your studies are apparently from a politically correct movement that cares nothing about facts or evidence and are simply trying to prove their current crusade with massive, towering piles of misinformation.

To address the Levitcus verses: Lev 18-20 compares common religious practices (including fertility rites) of the surrounding nations

READ the passages. Chapter 20: 10-21 specifically addresses universal sexual malpractices including adultery, homosexuality and bestiality. There is NO Hebrew scholar that would interpret these passages any differently!

You need to drop these ridiculous studies by PC conmen and just read a recent translation of the Bible. Or better yet, don't - I wasted my time on this book - no reason you should!
 
TragicMonkey said:

You can have all the gay sex you want, provided you do it standing up. Or doggy style, I guess. As long as nobody's reclining, it's okay.

I think it means as long as you do different things with da ladies and da gents, you're good to go. So if you're a guy, I guess there are seven possibilities (not to be too explicit). Just choose which gender you wanna do each of the two that are the same for both genders of partner, and stick to that decision.

--Terry.
 
Templar said:

READ the passages. Chapter 20: 10-21 specifically addresses universal sexual malpractices including adultery, homosexuality and bestiality. There is NO Hebrew scholar that would interpret these passages any differently!

You need to drop these ridiculous studies by PC conmen and just read a recent translation of the Bible. Or better yet, don't - I wasted my time on this book - no reason you should!

I concur. There are several passages from the OT to the new where there are strong and clear condemnations of homosexuality.

I think at this point I have heard just about every conceivable attempt to explain those passages as meaning something else, but they all fail the common sense test. The alternate explanations don't even make sense within the context of the passage. The case of Lot is the weakest example of God's dislike for same sex couplings, but the others are pretty strong.

I also concur that reading the bible for the purpose of learning most anything is a waste of time. It is your time to use as you see fit though.

I also am an atheist who spent the forst 20 something years of life worshipping a nonexistent being that if it did exist wouldn't be worthy of worship.
 
LOL We're a sorry lot, a bunch of atheists discussing the Bible. :D

There are at least six different views that Christians have about homosexuality.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

Galatians 1:

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

I am inclined to agree that the Bible is more consistent about what it say about homosexuals than many other things. It still fails the 'just so' test though. If there is a different interpretation, there is a sect somewhere that believes it.

Galatians above is a simple passage that makes my point. The bible 'clearly' says all kinds of things about women too. Yet here we have an idea that is in stark contrast. And if things like male and female fall into insignificance compared to being one in Christ, what basis does anyone have for proclaiming sexual orientation is all that important?

Even without doing a Google search I'd bet there is a wide spectrum of belief on this single topic.

A polite way to put it, is to say that the Bible (or any other scripture for that matter) is a record of humanity's attempt to communicate an understanding of something they call 'God'.


I used to have a geometry teacher that loved to give a test that was a page full of complicated equations. Most of the class would groan and pound through it for most of an hour. But a few would laugh, get up, turn their paper in and leave early. It turns out that buried in the middle was a "zero times", which made everything that followed equal zero. The Bible seems a little like that to me. Look long enough and you will find something that is a negation of something else.
 
Having said that; the Bible categorically, specifically and clearly condemns homosexuality.

There are several passages from the OT to the new where there are strong and clear condemnations of homosexuality.

No, The Bible does not condemn homosexuality. At worst, it condemns certain homogenital acts, between "real men."

Middle Eastern culture recognized what the Greeks called "the third sex." (http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/cardiff.htm) (See also Matt 19:12) They were not seen as "whole men" and the same word was used of them as was used of those other less than complete men, whose genitals were damaged. In Hebrew, the word was saris, in English saris is usually translated "eunuch."

There are no prohibitions against sex with a "eunuch" or between "eunuchs." And such sex was common enough, and those who engaged in it were sophist enough*, that the law would have had to have been clearly spelled out if it were forbidden.

* "I did not have sex with that man. Fellatio is not sex, and besides, he is a eunuch, not a man at all. " --Billamus Clintonius
 

Back
Top Bottom