Does the Bible really say "homosexuals"?

[Colt]

What do you mean by that?

Example: “if the blind lead the blind they shall both fall in a pit”. That’s true and timeless regardless of who said it. We can all see the wisdom or living truth of such a statement.
Another :
“what does it profit a man to gain the whole world but loose his own soul?”

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So you are trying to make the argument that the bible isn't against "homosexuals" and your "evidence" for that is that the word didn't exist until the 19th century?

Really? That's your case?

Be honest now, do you think this semantic argument really works to support the claim that the bible isn't against homosexuality?

Please..............................

This must be about the weakest excuse I've ever seen anyone make to try and make the bible look not anti-gay.

The bible is in fact pretty explicitly clear about what it thinks of 2 men having sex.
Let's not pretend as if having a (new) word for it changes that.

It isn't. It's against sexual promiscuity. Attraction and sexual orientation is irrelevant to god in the bible. The translators knew nothing about it. The semantics is using that word to describe something translators new nothing about at that time (not even in the 1940s in the US). It's literally not about the word.

Why don't christians get this?

 

[SigurdReginson]

Really? What you mean is that the majority of the people on this earth pick and choose what parts of ancient scriptures (and newer writings like those of and Charles Taze Russel, and Joseph Smith, and Ballulah) to believe and what parts to ignore.

It doesn't matter if they only believe one verse and dismiss the rest or can quote the bible verbatim. As long as they write laws, as long as they vote, as long as they write my paychecks, and as long as they matter to me in my personal life then their beliefs matter to me by proxy.

But I would still ask: Why should any rational person care about what a bunch of old men wrote 2000 or 3000 years ago?

Well, for my case in particular, I have to pretend to be a christian because everyone in my family is one and it would not go over well if they found out I was an atheist. So, yah... I kind of have to care. That's one immediate example I can name off the top of my head. I have others, too. Working at a catholic hospital also has quirks of its own.

Whether I like it or not, it's part of my life. I can either educate myself on their beliefs and not be at a disadvantage, or I can just try to ignore everything and hope for the best. I'd rather just be prepared, especially when I'm forced to face that reality on a consistent basis.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If the Bible doesn't express homosexual behavior codes without using a specific word in Koine Greek, how is it that everyone at RF understands that homosexual practice is condemned throughout the Bible?

Generational bias and/or indoctrination bias. When I came out years ago, I looked up the scientific stuff on sexual orientation and near recently. People are stuck in their ways. The bible does not talk about homosexuality. It takes about sexual immoral behavior between any two people-gay, straight, bi, whoever. Christians are just stuck on that word and not the context in which it is used ---that has no barring on homosexuality from a medical point of view.

The word/definition homosexual=2,000 B.C. bible definition and homosexual=2021 medical definition are totally different. Even if some Christians realize it, they still equate it to sexual behavior, lifestyles, and choice.

 

[Kooky]

If the Bible doesn't express homosexual behavior codes without using a specific word in Koine Greek, how is it that everyone at RF understands that homosexual practice is condemned throughout the Bible?

Because we project our modern understanding onto ancient texts. For similar reasons, people see anti-abortion messages in a holy text that had nothing to say on the subject.

 

[McBell]

Often, on Christian message boards, they cite Bible verses that, for some reason, put the word "homosexuality" in some verses.
And yet, homosexuals can't reply. At least in one big Christian message board. The usual bullying...

Well now to the question:

Does it make sense to attribute this word to a Bible verse, when the concept of what homosexuality really is... did not emerge until the late 19th century? If I am informed right?

In my opinion it does not.

Here's a list of versions that use "homosexuality":
1 Timothy 1:10 for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave traders and liars and perjurers, and for anyone else who is averse to sound teaching
Quite a few.

Some versions also use that word for the OT.

Out of curiosity....
What concept do you think is being replaced by the concept of homosexuality?

 

[Trailblazer]

“what does it profit a man to gain the whole world but loose his own soul?”

That is one of my very favorite verses:

Matthew 16:24-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Here are some other favorites of mine:

John 12:24-26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

Matthew 6:19-21 Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal;but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

 

[firedragon]

It isn't. It's against sexual promiscuity. Attraction and sexual orientation is irrelevant to god in the bible. The translators knew nothing about it. The semantics is using that word to describe something translators new nothing about at that time (not even in the 1940s in the US). It's literally not about the word.

Why don't christians get this?

1. So what does Arsonokoitus mean?
2. Why is it used in that context?

Please explain.

 

[thomas t]

Sin is not the question. Its the meaning of a word.

Tell me mate. Why would Paul embed "Menbedder's" with all kinds of sinners? A simple question.

I don't have the answer.
There are many things I don't have the answer for. Anyway, as I don't plan to have sex with men, so I don't care.

Note that this menbedding took peculiar forms..
In Sodom, all the men of the town wanted to have sex with the two strangers... They weren't all gay, I think.
Same things happened in the Book of Judges, when the men of a town also wanted to have sex with that Levite...

 

[thomas t]

Out of curiosity....
What concept do you think is being replaced by the concept of homosexuality?

In my opinion, there was a lack of concepts.
They said "men having sex with men", and now it could mean anything that matches that description.
Gay men having sex with gay men.
One gay, one straight.
One straight, the other straight.
Note that in Sodom for instance... all the men of the town wanted to have sex with the strangers. Possibly, they can't all have been gay, I think.

 

[firedragon]

I don't have the answer.
There are many things I don't have the answer for. Anyway, as I don't plan to have sex with men, so I don't care.

Note that this menbedding took peculiar forms..
In Sodom, all the men of the town wanted to have sex with the two strangers... They weren't all gay, I think.
Same things happened in the Book of Judges, when the men of a town also wanted to have sex with that Levite...

Well, its fair to say that all of Sodom were not "Gay". And its right I believe to think that all men who do coitus with other men are not gay either. But that's not the issue discussed.

You should read the verses in Pauls writing pertaining to the subject. It is not about those who perform random acts. It is referring to people who do this as a whole. Thieves, drunkards, soft men, and homosexuals.

If one tries to say that homosexual as a word is new, and is not in the Bible, that is absolutely absurd. Because the Bible is written in a different language, and the explanation is referring to homosexuals.

You used the word Gay. What does that mean? It means happy? Does it mean bright as in referring to Gay colours? You remember Sir Walter Scotts poem that says "Gentle lord and ladies Gay"? Does it mean Gay as you know now? Does it mean all those lords and ladies spoken in his poem are homosexual?

Nope. But still, I understand that you referring to homosexuals when you say Gay. Thats an evolved word. That does not mean I can tell you "Gay? What do you mean? You mean happy?".

 

[Colt]

Do we also have to parse drunkards and thieves?

 

[BilliardsBall]

if it's all so utterly clear, why don't they let homosexuals post in their debates?
Are they afraid of something?
You and I had a long debate in a major Christian forum.
At least that was a poster also called "Billiards Ball"
And yet, homosexuals couldn't reply.
They can't post there, if they identify as gay and want to keep their behavior.
If everything is so very clear, why the need to be afraid of an honest debate. ?

? I've long threads with gays and lesbians here and elsewhere. I do not participate in forums where any people are banned or unwelcome.

It is clear that the Bible condemns homosexuality without using the equivalent for the modern term "homosexuality".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Generational bias and/or indoctrination bias. When I came out years ago, I looked up the scientific stuff on sexual orientation and near recently. People are stuck in their ways. The bible does not talk about homosexuality. It takes about sexual immoral behavior between any two people-gay, straight, bi, whoever. Christians are just stuck on that word and not the context in which it is used ---that has no barring on homosexuality from a medical point of view.

The word/definition homosexual=2,000 B.C. bible definition and homosexual=2021 medical definition are totally different. Even if some Christians realize it, they still equate it to sexual behavior, lifestyles, and choice.

I understand, please interpret this Bible verse so I understand it:

"A man who lies with a man the way he would lie with a woman [and is caught with witness in a public place doing so] is to be executed."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because we project our modern understanding onto ancient texts. For similar reasons, people see anti-abortion messages in a holy text that had nothing to say on the subject.

I can give a more specific example, for which I'd ask you to help me not project such a presentist bias--please tell me the interpretation of "If a man lies with a man as he lies with a woman, it is a sin deserving of capital punishment."

I've interpreted that as two men having sex or homosexual practice. Please explain the better interpretation so I understand.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I understand, please interpret this Bible verse so I understand it:

"A man who lies with a man the way he would lie with a woman [and is caught with witness in a public place doing so] is to be executed."

Is the man gay? Straight?

What's his orientation?

Did he love the guy he slept with or was it based on lust?

I've read all "homosexual" verses but this proves my point. It's not about who a person has sex with. So the bible is irrelevant when talking about homosexual people. It's only relevant if Any person regardless the sex and attraction have immoral sex.

Homosexuality (heterosexuality, etc) has nothing to do with sex.

Do you believe you're straight cause you (case in point) had sex with the opposite sex or did you know already before asking the person out?

 

[Kooky]

I can give a more specific example, for which I'd ask you to help me not project such a presentist bias--please tell me the interpretation of "If a man lies with a man as he lies with a woman, it is a sin deserving of capital punishment."

I've interpreted that as two men having sex or homosexual practice. Please explain the better interpretation so I understand.

Well, before we open that particular can of worms, we could start with the issue of modern Christians interpreting a set of laws that were, in all likelihood, historically intended to be applied to the Judaic priesthood (hence the name leviticus or torat kohanim, "laws of the priests") as broadly applicable social mores. What's the point in hewing so strongly to the strictures of an ancient priesthood when very few other regulations from that book are being taken seriously by modern day Christians?


EDIT: Once we're past that first barrier, @Unveiled Artist already pointed out a few key issues here. Homosexuality, in modern parlance, tends to be understood as the exclusive attraction to people of one's own gender, but this passage is entirely about specific sexual practices being reserved only for male-on-female couplings, with the strange turn of phrase, "as he lies with a woman", which could be interpreted as all forms of erotic intimacy, or only specific forms of sexual practices that the ancient Jews considered appropriate only for male-on-female encounters.

So not only does this passage not talk about homosexuality by our modern understanding of the phenomenon, it's not even clear what its actual subject matter is without proper historical context.

Can you see how this gets iffier and iffier the further we go into detail about this? It's far from being as pat as "the Bible wants to punish homosexual practice", and in fact a close reading suggests several possible interpretations that have nothing to do with homosexuality as us modern folks understand it.

And any deeper knowledge of the actual historical and cultural context of these items - which, I want to stress again, we do not have - could throw any possible interpretation only further out of sync with the commonly accepted interpretation that is currently popular among modern Christian fundamentalists.

 

[Kooky]

Sorry for the repeated edits, but this is actually a very interesting passage with layers upon layers of possible meaning.
I forgot how enjoyable such close readings of ancient texts can be.

 

[McBell]

In my opinion, there was a lack of concepts.
They said "men having sex with men", and now it could mean anything that matches that description.
Gay men having sex with gay men.
One gay, one straight.
One straight, the other straight.
Note that in Sodom for instance... all the men of the town wanted to have sex with the strangers. Possibly, they can't all have been gay, I think.

Except that gay men having sex with gay men is in fact a concept.
Even back then.
As well as one gay, one straight, and both straight.
All concepts even back then.

The only difference from back then and today is what the concepts were/are called.

 

[Kooky]

Except that gay men having sex with gay men is in fact a concept.
Even back then.
As well as one gay, one straight, and both straight.
All concepts even back then.

The only difference from back then and today is what the concepts were/are called.

Can you support your claims with evidence? I am unaware of there existing an ancient belief in the existence of exclusive attraction to the same gender - especially in light of arranged male-female pairings being commonplace everywhere in the ancient Mediterranean.