Homosexuality and the Bible: Part 2

[fallingblood]

A while ago I posted an essay examining homosexuality and the Bible. This is a follow up essay on the subject. Both were written for my site Articles « Belzian Educational Foundation.

In my previous essay, I examined the verses in the Old Testament (Leviticus) that has been used in order to condone their own intolerance or justify the persecution of homosexuals. In examining these verses, we saw that they did not necessarily condemn homosexuality but instead the act of male anal intercourse. Since homosexuality is not defined by male anal intercourse (in fact, many homosexuals never engage in the act. The most obvious exception are lesbians), and in fact various heterosexual males are also known to engage in male anal intercourse, those verses in Leviticus do not single out just homosexuals.

As was pointed out in a discussion that I was involved in concerning my previous essay, just because those verses do not deal with specifically nor condemn homosexuality does not mean that there was not prejudices towards homosexuals. We can be fairly certain that in fact there were similar prejudices towards homosexuals in that culture as in our culture. However, when the Bible is examined in regards towards male anal intercourse, we do not see homosexuals being the subject of those passages. Instead we see the act of male anal intercourse being committed by what are most likely heterosexual males for the purpose of humiliation, subjugation, etc. So when we do consult those verses in Leviticus, it is important to not read into them more than there really is. Those verses are in regard to an act, not a sexual orientation.

One does have to wonder why those laws concerning male anal intercourse were formed though. Since we do not have access to the author of those versus or the creator/s of those laws, we can never be completely sure what the background of those laws are.* (discuss in short detail the composition of the Torah). However there are a few possible reasons that we can deduce as to why those laws were created. If we examine the Old Testament passages regarding the act of male anal intercourse, we do see that the act is associated with humiliation, subjugation, etc. That being so, those laws could have been put into place as the act was associated with inhospitality. This does make sense as we can also find a variety of other laws that dealt with how we treat others. This position is strengthened when we examine the story os Sodom and Gomorrah. Many scholars have concluded that the actual sin committed by those cities was inhospitality. This position has been a popular interpretation for quite some time.

A second possible explanation for these verses concerns the commandment regarding be fruitful and multiply. It is obvious that some one who is engaging in male anal intercourse is not being potentially fruitful or multiplying. Building a nation is quite difficult if the males are engaging in male anal intercourse instead of intercourse that lends itself to multiplying.

A third possible explanation is that the Hebrews were trying to differentiate themselves from the other cultures that were surrounding them. We see a few other ways in which they go about doing this, such as the prohibition of eating pig. More than likely though, it was not just one factor that led to these laws but a variety of factors.

This leads to an important realization: the Jewish laws were meant to be followed by Jews. Non-Jews, or Gentiles, were not commanded or expected to follow Jewish law. Thus, verses such as the ones we have been discussing in Leviticus did not apply to Gentiles, which includes, for the most part, Christians. So it is telling when Christians or non-Jews use these verses in order to condemn homosexuals when at the same time they ignore a vast amount of the other Laws mentioned in the Old Testament. Obviously there is something deeper to this intolerance than just a religious idea. And it is that deeper cause that must be examined and recognized in order to help solve this problem of intolerance. We will cover that more in depth shortly.

In the next installment of this series of essays, we will be discussing a New Testament stance towards homosexuality as well as what the underlying problem is that must be dealt with.

[no-body]

I don't want to hi-jack your thread, but when you are discussing what a bunch of goat herders meant on the particulars of male anal sex to figure out whether or not you should discriminate against someone, you know your religion is f'ed.

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by no-body

I don't want to hi-jack your thread, but when you are discussing what a bunch of goat herders meant on the particulars of male anal sex to figure out whether or not you should discriminate against someone, you know your religion is f'ed.

You should actually read the OP carefully before you respond. I put quite a bit of time forming an argument and actually thinking of both the modern and historical context. I expect atleast some of that on the part of people who respond. I at least, at the very least, expect them to have read the OP.

[no-body]

Originally Posted by fallingblood

You should actually read the OP carefully before you respond. I put quite a bit of time forming an argument and actually thinking of both the modern and historical context. I expect atleast some of that on the part of people who respond. I at least, at the very least, expect them to have read the OP.

I read your OP and understand that you are going for scholarly analysis of the passage, I just think the very idea of what you're discussing is so absurd I had to point it out. I realize that wasn't your point which is why I mentioned it was off topic.

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by no-body

I read your OP and understand that you are going for scholarly analysis of the passage, I just think the very idea of what you're discussing is so absurd I had to point it out. I realize that wasn't your point which is why I mentioned it was off topic.

The point though is to spread toleration through information. By finding out that religion is not what is causing anti-homoseuxal stances, but that there is something deeper there, one can do more help. Instead of just singling out the religious, the actual problem can be addressed, instead of creating additional ones.

[KingOfTheJungle]

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Just a word of wisdom for all the readers. Generally speaking, non-Christians like the OP aren't the best sources for authentic Biblical teaching on Christianity.

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by Junglej25

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Just a word of wisdom for all the readers. Generally speaking, non-Christians like the OP aren't the best sources for authentic Biblical teaching on Christianity.

I see that you still can't keep on subject or even read the OP. Please, before you waste more time, please actually read the OP and then remain on topic.

As for keeping all of the laws as Jesus commands, that still doesn't cover being intolerant towards homosexuals as there are no laws against them. Not to mention that most Christians don't even know all of the laws and definitely don't follow them all.

Again though, stay on topic and actually read the OP. Your little attacks on my character really are just tiresome

[KingOfTheJungle]

Originally Posted by fallingblood

I see that you still can't keep on subject or even read the OP. Please, before you waste more time, please actually read the OP and then remain on topic.

As for keeping all of the laws as Jesus commands, that still doesn't cover being intolerant towards homosexuals as there are no laws against them. Not to mention that most Christians don't even know all of the laws and definitely don't follow them all.

Again though, stay on topic and actually read the OP. Your little attacks on my character really are just tiresome

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13).

That appears be condemning alot more than male intercourse

[Tristesse]

Originally Posted by Junglej25

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Just a word of wisdom for all the readers. Generally speaking, non-Christians like the OP aren't the best sources for authentic Biblical teaching on Christianity.

This is a perfect example of how you can find a passage in the bible to support whatever you want. It's the big book of multiple choice.

[angellous_evangellous]

Fallingblood -

Have you ever read Homosexuality, Science, and the Plain Sense of Scripture? It's a compilation of essays edited by David Balch.

I think that while the Bible obviously differs in its own understanding of homosexuality and presents exhortations and teachings from widely differing points of view, I really don't think that there's an argument that the Bible either 1) doesn't prohibit homosexual activity and 2) Paul doesn't have a cosmology that condemns homosexual activity. I've even read stuff that forces Paul to support homosexuality.

I think that it's better to come to terms with the fact Paul even uses words to describe homosexual behavior that Plutarch and Plato use to describe a committed homosexual relationship.

But I don't think that the verses in the Bible that are used to address homosexuality are a very useful tool in determining how Christians should relate to homosexuality and homosexual behavior. We should be inspired instead by compassion, justice, and love.