CX

For those of you who don't know, my father is an ordained deacon in the Episcopal church. There has recently been considerable controversy regarding the acceptance at the 74th General Convention of the election of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire. As an outside observer it has been fascinating for me to watch the melee and the beginnings of genuine schism in the ECUSA (Episcopal Church, USA) and the Anglican Communion of which it is part. This past weekend my father hosted a priest and his wife from Uganda. Both my father and the gentleman from Uganda are very conservative theologically and strictly adhere to what we would consider orthodoxy very near that of traditional Catholicism.

In any event I have been in numerous discussions about homosexuality and the "biblical understanding" etc. It seems pretty clear to me that, in general, the authors of both the Hebrew torah and the Xian New Testament were homophobic and condemned homosexuality as a sin. That being said, I've seen very little in the gospels with respect to the issue. I think for the purposes of the present discussion we can ignore the levitical injunctions in the Old Testament since the use of such by apologists and opponents of homosexuality are self-serving and inconsistent given the numerous other levitical injunctions and mosaic proscriptions Xians happily ignore because Jesus fulfilled the law (an interesting theological development in ti's own right).

The preceeding being established is the New Testament considered alone inconsistent with respect to the issue of homosexuality. Naturally I'm aware of the position argued in Romans (another popular scripture for opponents of homosexuality). The question is to anyone's knowledge are there other references to homosexuality in the Pauline corpus or the gospels either congruous with the view in Romans or contradictory (i.e. actually supporting homosexuality). To place some parameters on this discussion, this is not intended to be a theological question but rather a text critical approach to the authors' attitudes.

Doctor X

CX:

I do not know how well "Search" works, but I posted a few times portions of a paper published in the JBL which re-evaluates the "homophobia" of the OT--and comes up with an interesting conclusion. If you would like, PM me and I will send you the reference.

--J.D.

Adora

Best Book Ever on the subject- Living In Sin by John Shelby Spong.

*flips it open*

The biggest reference in Paul's works (and the only reference to lesbians anywhere in the Bible) is Roman's 1: 26-27, as you mentioned. Of course, in this, homosexuality is not condemned, it is stated as a punishment for turning away from god. It's accepted by the audience already that it's a sin, a bad thing, something you don't want to do anyway. The passage isn't condemning homosexuality, it's condemning turning away from god.

The 1 Corinthian passage (6. 9) referring to "boy prostitutes or sodomites" is another one, for once actually condemning it by saying "these people won't get into heaven". Of course, 'boy prostitutes' & sodomy was big business in Corinth at the time, the sex capital of the Empire. By why are there no references to female pros or lesbianism again? We'll get to that later.

Timothy again uses the word "sodomite" to refer to people not getting into heaven.

But of course, Paul never goes into why it's bad. Not many do, it's just accepted that it is bad, though in Paul's case it was a "Rage Against the Empire" act of counter-culture. You have to go back to the old-world beliefs to get to the heart of it, and especially to the issues of Gender in early Hebrew society in which this issue first arose.

The accepted cosmological genders in the Abrahamic religions is Men> women. Paul, of course, was an avid advocate of this, and seemed to have a strong hatred of women, unless they were redeeming themselves for being born with boobs by doing god's (ie- his) work. The condemnation of homosexuality is tied to this.

In the perceived homosexual act, or even much straight sex, someone's on the bottom. In a society that has the ingrained "Bigger/Taller/Higher= better than you" psychosis throughout society, if someone is lower than the other, there is a perceived inequality or such going on there. In the homosexual act, it was perceived that one man out of them was the one doing the receiving. Why is this so bad? Because it mean's he's lowering himself to the position of the woman, a horrible sin to a society that placed the divinely-created-male at the top above everything else. Women were property, non-human, to be treated well so that they last & don't die early and give the man lots ot children, and ranked in the commandments somewhere between a man's house and I think his cattle. In the homosexual act, one man was perceived to be receiving somehow, and therefore ended up having the shame and dirtiness preceived with femininity placed upon him.

So damnation of Homosexuality comes back to a perceived inequal and subjugated gender role. There is no logical reason behind it (as there is no logical reason behind any gender/sexuality predjudice). The misogyny that's been ingrained in society since about 10-7 thousand years ago was particularly fervent in early Hebrew/Judaic society since they were defining themselves by opposition to fertility-Goddess cults during most of those formative years. This has been carried on in wholesome fullness by preceeding Christian churches, and well, Paul was a misogynistic bastard, even for his time. He was terrified of anything feminised, anything sexualised, including himself. So yeah, authors attitudes, there you go.

Doctor X

Indeed, that is the argument of the article I mentioned. Properly translated, the Levitical codes condemn "receiving"--taking the "female" position. This is in tune with the practice of other cultures such as the Roman where the inferior--such as a slave--must always be the . . . er . . . "receiver."

Now, about David and Jonathan. . . .

--J.D.

Toto

Here's the last thread on this subject:

Homosexuality, Christianity, and the Law, with a reference to a rebuttal of the idea that Paul only condemned boy prostitutes and not homosexuality per se, from here.

= = = = = = = = = = = =

Living in Sin?: A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality

Comments on Amazon:

Adora

See now, I know this is warped, but if I trawl Amazon and see a quote like that under a book, it would just make me want to buy it more. Do these people even realise what they're doing sometimes?

rlcjhardesty

Note of apology: I've included "Romans" simply for the sake of adding a modern day translation, (New Living Translation) which you may or may not already have.

These include "sexual" sin in general, taken only from the Pauline Epistles. Only one mentions homosexuality directly - 1 Corinthians 6:9.

Just a brief note about where I'm coming from: I don't like to simply "pluck" verse, and would prefer to add context. But, this would then become a very long reply. I don't agree with the homosexual movement, or lobby, or whatever you would call it. But I wont condemn, "Bible Slap" or generally "Phobe Out" either. Sometimes, I'm ashamed to call myself a Christian, when these things do happen. So... Read these in context and you'll get a good concept of the intent of the message against sexual sin - not "I hate you because you do this" but rather "please stop destroying yourself because I care for you".

Ro 1:27 -
And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

1Co 5:1 -
I can hardly believe the report about the sexual immorality going on among you, something so evil that even the pagans don't do it. I am told that you have a man in your church who is living in sin with his father's wife.

1Co 5:9 -
When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin.

1Co 5:10 -
But I wasn't talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or who are greedy or are swindlers or idol worshipers. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that.

1Co 5:11 -
What I meant was that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a Christian yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Don't even eat with such people.

1Co 6:9 -
Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,

1Co 6:13 -
You say, "Food is for the stomach, and the stomach is for food." This is true, though someday God will do away with both of them. But our bodies were not made for sexual immorality. They were made for the Lord, and the Lord cares about our bodies.

1Co 6:18 -
Run away from sexual sin! No other sin so clearly affects the body as this one does. For sexual immorality is a sin against your own body.

1Co 7:2 -
But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.

1Co 7:3 -
The husband should not deprive his wife of sexual intimacy, which is her right as a married woman, nor should the wife deprive her husband.

1Co 7:5 -
So do not deprive each other of sexual relations. The only exception to this rule would be the agreement of both husband and wife to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time, so they can give themselves more completely to prayer. Afterward they should come together again so that Satan won't be able to tempt them because of their lack of self-control.

1Co 10:8 -
And we must not engage in sexual immorality as some of them did, causing 23,000 of them to die in one day.

2Co 12:21 -
Yes, I am afraid that when I come, God will humble me again because of you. And I will have to grieve because many of you who sinned earlier have not repented of your impurity, sexual immorality, and eagerness for lustful pleasure.

Ga 5:19 -
When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, your lives will produce these evil results: sexual immorality, impure thoughts, eagerness for lustful pleasure,

Eph 5:3 -
Let there be no sexual immorality, impurity, or greed among you. Such sins have no place among God's people.

Col 3:5 -
So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual sin, impurity, lust, and shameful desires. Don't be greedy for the good things of this life, for that is idolatry.

1Th 4:3 -
God wants you to be holy, so you should keep clear of all sexual sin.

CX

Thanks ever so much for the references. Most I'm familiar with but some of the more general ones I was not. In any event I appreciate all the effort.

From my perspective it seems that tolerance in the 1st centuries of the common era was much less prevalent or valued than today. I think one is safe in assuming that Paul rejected homosexuality since, coming from a Jewish background, homosexual acts were equated with paganism.

That being said the Xian NT, while discussing "sexual purity" at length does not seem to comment on homosexuality per se. Even the Corinthians passage is questionable if we look at the original Greek. Homosexuality is not even mentioned in the Gospels as far as I know. While it may not have been the intent of the original authors, I see nothing in the new testament explicitly condemning a love realtionship between members of the same sex.

Is it sinful to be in a committed loving relationship with a member of the same gender if no sex is involved? Frankly I think people start from a certain presupposition (i.e. "I, personally, think homosexuality is digusting") and find support for their position in their religious texts. I know my father was quite anti-gay before he became born again.

I also think Xianity is one religion, though by no means the only religion, with a salad bar mentality toward theology and religious ethics. It seems pretty clear from the Pauline, Deutero-Pauline and Pseudo-Pauline epistles that Paul, and his close followers, didn't think much of women. At the very least women were viewed as subordinate to men. NO amount of tap dancing around the issue can change that.

Thus we see frequently, Xians, choosing their theology to fit existing ethics. To whit, my parents abhor homosexuality and thus find ample, incontrovertible (in their perception) evidence that St. Paul condemned it vigorously. On the other hand they contend that even though Paul seems to subjugate women what he really means is something else. So in the former case they use a strict literal interpretation because an anti-gay message coincides with their personal agendae while taking a figurative or at least less rigid approach regarding women's rights because they object to inequality of the sexes. The whole thing is fascinating to me as an outside observer.

Vinnie

Three verses are cited,

1) Levitical Law. But some Christians are hesitant to use this passage for the reasons stated by CX. They don't wan't to play.

2) This then leaves Romans passage as the most comonly cited. Paul says it bad. Ergo, its bad.

3) Reference is made to Genesis and Jesus' reference to Genesis and Adam and Eve in the Gospels. In the beginning he made them male and female. THey claim it goes against created order. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

This is undercut by gay acting animals (which is countered back by original sin which supposedly queered up kreashun)) and also by celibicay. If man and women were meant for one another and defying this with man and man or woman and woman (yummy...lesbians..) is bad then I suppose denying the natural order and being celibate would be wrong as well by the same logic. Yet the babble says celibicy is good.

So it really all boils down to Paul.

Vinine

Vinnie

I don't think Paul viewed woman as negatively as his followers. I think he considered man the head of the household type deal but thats the extent. The verse about silence in Corinthians is prollyl an interpolation from a pastorals mindset type guy since it contrdicts what Paul wrote elsewhere a few spots over in the same work about women prophesying (presumably in church).

If Paul doesn't permit a woman to speak in church, how can he permit her to propecy there?

The only thing in Paul along the misogyny is this:

1 Cor 11:

and the head of the woman is man,

8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

But Paul's followers went much further in supressing woman. See the Pastorals. Paul actually praised some women in Romans as doing good work for the Lord and Jesus had female disciples himself... so the stream runs from more egalitarian to a later redaction of Christian expereince towards misogyny.

Vinnie