The Myth of Sodomy

[Reverend Rick]

Then you would get interpretations like it is a sin for two men to sleep in a woman's bed, (but just fine anywhere else).

Or, homosexuality is just wrong when heterosexuals do it.

Yeah, that's the correct interpretation.

 

[Ðanisty]

Then you would get interpretations like it is a sin for two men to sleep in a woman's bed, (but just fine anywhere else).

Or, homosexuality is just wrong when heterosexuals do it.

Yeah, that's the correct interpretation.

Um, I can't tell who you're responding to.

 

[Aasimar]

Just out of curiosity, doctrine not allowed in response, what is the moral problem with sodomy and homosexuality? What harm does it cause? Who is the victim?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

2) Apparently, the word in Romans that most interpret as a reference to homosexuality was taken as a reference to masturbation for the entirity of the First Millenium. Later, however, it was decided that the Bible's condemnation of masturbation was too harsh, so the book was edited to refer to something else. The antipathy toward homosexuals during this time came at about the same time as rising anti-Semitism and suppression of women, and it was, generally speaking, an ugly time.

The argument that Paul was referring to masturbation is not acceptable. The only reason why it's even questioned is because some readers want to make Paul out to be something that he's obviously not: someone who accepts, affirms, or tolerates homosexality.

Paul's discussion of sexual ethics in Romans and 1 Corinthians place him clearly against homoerotica, a topic debated in his day.

Homsexuality and Cosmology: Nature and Choice Are Irrelevant
Some notes on Paul and homosexuality.
Paul: Sexuality and "Nature"

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Let's hear it, then. The Greek word, malakoi, translates literally as "those who are soft." It doesn't make any sense for Paul to condemn people for being "soft-hearted," does it? Now, unless you would like to speak to controvert that, I submit the possibility that Paul was referring to slothfulness. This interpretation fits in much more logically with talk of thieves, swindlers, perjurers, etc. The word arsenokoitai translates literally as "male-bedders" or "male beds," which is probably a reference to prostitution. However, "arsenokoitai" may also be a reference to brothel owners or pimps, but it is a very vague term. I will research it further, if you wish.

That would certainly be worthwhile.

From Plutarch:

Moralia 751c “But to consort with males whether without consent, in which case it involves violence and bridgandage; or if with consent, there is still weakness (malaki/a // malakia - see 1 Cor 6.9) and effeminacy (qhlu/thti // theluteti) on the part of those who contrary to nature (para\ fu/sin // para fooseen = same terminology in Romans 1.26-27) allow themselves in Plato’s words ‘to be covered and mounted like cattle’ (the whole phrase is “no/mw? tetra/podoj kai\ paidospoei=sqai&#8221 - this is completely ill-favored favor (= a1xarij xa/rij = ungraced grace - the same word for grace in the NT).”

Here's the quote again with no editorial notes:

Moralia 751c “But to consort with males whether without consent, in which case it involves violence and bridgandage; or if with consent, there is still weakness and effeminacy on the part of those who contrary to nature allow themselves in Plato’s words ‘to be covered and mounted like cattle’ - this is completely ill-favored favor.

 

[RUone2]

As an old gay man who was once in a mixed (male female) marriage, I'm finding this whole discussion very interesting and hope it continues. It's also interesting to see that those who believe that homosexuality is sinful seem to post remarks that make it seem that they get word from Gods mouth to their ear. I am not as well educated or able to express myself as well as all of you who have posted, and only want to post my own observations. I look forward to reading and learning more.

 

[Flappycat]

Actually, it would also be valuable for the person doing the translating to know something of the historical context. In any case, the main argument behind taking arsenokoitai to mean "homosexuality" is rooted in the speculation that Paul was trying to translate the Levitical term, mishkav zakur. This is the official, deeply researched argument for it, and I contest it. The reason that I can do so is that, as an outside observer, I have less compunction with holding Paul to be as fallible as any other human being, and I feel much more comfortable with treating his letters to Corinth as exactly that. In any case:

1) Arsenokoitai still wouldn't be the most accurate translation of mishkav zakur. I'm not holding Paul to any unreasonable standard here. The Hebrew term itself is difficult, in the first place. For example, a very similar term, mishkan, is a word for "sanctuary." Browsing through several entries in Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, I am sort of getting the impression that mish generally refers to something being seated within a cavity. I get this from the fact that one of the words containing this Hebraic term referred to the setting of a diamond, and other words tend to refer to things like "private study," "place under a cliff," etcetera. I'm a bit worn at the moment for pursuing zakur, but I think that it's safe to say that mishkav zakur can mean either[/i] "performing anal sex on a man," "raping a male slave," (based on the earlier condemnation of male temple prostitutes), or "having secretive, shadowy dealings with other men," (a rebellious cult, for example, many of which rocked Ancient Egypt and nearly tore their civilization to the ground). However, in the context in which it appeared, it's probable that Leviticus was saying "don't put your thingy in a man's rectum. It's filthy." Stronger language is used in most versions, but such strong language is not canon with the remainder of the work. The other types of relationships that were condemned were spoken of with mild, "common sense" type language. The book is just saying "I find this stuff really gross. Take that nasty stuff somewhere else" (Lev. 24-30) In any case, Paul was not clearly trying to make an exact transliteration of the term in Leviticus, and far clearer language was available. An either made-up or local term like arsenokoitai just doesn't convince me that he was terribly eager to condemn gay men.

2) As a Pharisee, Paul was not ignorant as to how Levitical law worked. If you actually read the thing in its entirity instead of treating the whole Bible like a cafeteria, you'll understand what I'm talking about here. If you haven't read it thoroughly and with understanding, you'll just be confused. Paul, as an expert, would have been perfectly aware that Leviticus is highly nuanced. Rather, it is directed strictly at the people of Israel. Read the Lev. 18: 24-30 and the entirity of Lev. 17, and you'll understand that the laws in Leviticus are explicitly for the land of Israel, and Paul (pardon me, but I play on the assumption that the man acted with common sense, rather than moronically. I apologize if you have a sincere and heartfelt belief that he was an imbecile. I don't mean to offend) would have done a great deal more explaining than he did if he had intended to apply a law intended to keep Israel's act clean to all of Mankind. This would have been a strange "change of plans," so it would have called for extensive explanation. Again, it's highly unlikely that he intended to refer to Levitical law.

3) Lastly, even if Paul actually did intend to resurrect Levitical law, he would have been clearly in the wrong. Although I give Paul much more credit for common sense than the Christians do, I also recognize that he was just one of the founding members of the Church. He wasn't there to tell people the law of God. The actual fact of the matter is that Paul was a highly opinionated and strong-minded man, so much so that it often got him into trouble. He would have had to be, or the Church may never have been founded. He had all of the personality traits of someone who was born to lead and to organize. Although it was Paul who proclaimed that the death of Jesus marked the beginning of a New Covenant, a new era of Mankind, he did not have a right to overrule or speak on behalf of Jesus or his Heavenly Father. Paul's letters may have been filled with a great deal of wisdom, but we have to keep in mind that they were also mostly the opinions of a man. You know what a man is, right? It's one of those limited, finite creatures that should be forgiven and expected to make mistakes. Though I find it doubtful that Paul did any such thing, based upon the context of the remarks in which he is alleged to have done so, Paul did not have any business trotting out an old law from Leviticus, particularly since it was originally intended as part of the law of Israel.

Now, Reverend, I know that you, like Paul, are very headstrong. However, I think it's time you put this aside and demonstrated a little humility on this issue. It won't hurt you. There is no clear evidence that Paul was referring to gay men, and, even on the assumption that he was, the remarks you're taking as such do not seem to be intended to have centuries' worth of repercussions. Furthermore, do accept Paul for the man he was, and keep this understanding in mind next time you read what he has to say.

 

[Mister Emu]

You still think the men of Sodom just wanted sex?

I used to think that about three years ago... my views changed, in my opinion the story of Sodom is about depravity of many kinds, including(not exclusively) sexual(Jude 1:7).

It still doesn't make any sense, if the mob was is a xenophobic frenzy, that Lot would offer his daughters. They weren't strangers. If they wanted foreign blood, only the foreigners would sate them.

Why they were going to do it was, in my opinion, to humiliate/be hostile to the strangers(and get some gratification of the flesh), what they were going to do was, again in my understanding, sexual in nature(rape).

 

[Flappycat]

It still doesn't make any sense, if the mob was is a xenophobic frenzy, that Lot would offer his daughters. They weren't strangers. If they wanted foreign blood, only the foreigners would sate them.

He was throwing them a bone. It doesn't make any sense for Lot to put his daughters in a situation that he'd protect strangers from, even strangers as distinguished as the ones he had under his roof. God chastises Jerusalem in Ezekiel for neglecting her own countrymen to have dealings with foreign powers, so the God of the OT probably thinks that family is more important than social status. Lot was offering his daughters to the townspeople because they probably intended to do worse things to the strangers. Remember, warlike tribespeople can be extremely cruel to men from foreign lands. Lot's daughters would have been humiliated, but the strangers would have been crippled and their lives drastically shortened.

As far as your belief that they intended to "bugger" the strangers, this may or may not be the case. My point, however, was that "know" was not being used in the sense of "sexual relations," and the possibility that they had any such intention is not important to the story. It isn't definite that the Sodomites intended to rape the men, though it isn't improbable considering their circumstances and time period. Again, though, Sodom wouldn't have been destroyed for consensual acts. The writers of the OT (most of it, anyway) were a compassionate and humane culture, and they would not have claimed that a city was destroyed for an act that never once brought ill upon another person. They wouldn't have destroyed a city for being "sissies" or for "singing showtunes." They would have found the "showtunes" more amusing than anything else, though displeasingly garish. If you'll for once read these stories with the assumption that the writers of them were decent, caring people, most of the OT will make a ton more sense to you, and you'll probably find it much easier to read. In fact, you might find something in there that would make you a better person.

Buggery, during the time period, was just another disgusting way of abusing a person, and any idiot could understand why a more humane culture would disapprove of it. The writers of the OT didn't just pull their views on this out of bungholios, Mister Emu. Their reasons were very just. There isn't anything mysterious or nonsensical about it. The same people would side with the gay community in modern times for approximately the same reasons: they would see cruelty commited and injustices done against peaceful, hardworking citizens, and they would probably look upon the conservatives with the same revulsion they had for the Sodomites. The reason for this is that the writers of most of the Old Testament were, whether you will face this truth or not, a very humane, caring people. Furthermore, they gave extensive warnings against mammon, which, in fact, is the most pervasive theme throughout the Bible.

Jude is no exception. In fact, Jude 1 seems to spend more time discussing all wanton desires, not just sexual perversity. As in much of the Old Testament, there seems to be this continual abhorrance of excessiveness. Jude 1:10 also gives you the answer as to why people turned against those who were homosexual during the time of the Black Death: frightened people do frightened things, and they revert to instinct when intellect fails them. I suggest that you read the entirity of the New Testament before using it as a basis for your views, and then I suggest you research what passages might not be perfectly true to the original Greek and Aramaic and attempt to mine out their true meanings.

 

[Mister Emu]

A) Why would Lot mention that his daughters hadn't 'known' a man before if what was going on wasn't sexual?

B) When Lot says that his daughters hadn't 'known' a man before, it is the same word that the mob uses when they say they want to 'know' the visitors.

My point, however, was that "know" was not being used in the sense of "sexual relations,"

My point is that it is being used in a sexual sense.

The writers of the OT (most of it, anyway) were a compassionate and humane culture

The OT is full of acts that I would hardly describe as compassionate.

I suggest that you read the entirity of the New Testament before using it as a basis for your views

I have read it, most of it multiple times...

 

[Flappycat]

A) Why would Lot mention that his daughters hadn't 'known' a man before if what was going on wasn't sexual?

To appease the mob.

B) When Lot says that his daughters hadn't 'known' a man before, it is the same word that the mob uses when they say they want to 'know' the visitors.

You're making the assumption that it is always used euphemistically. Read the passages for yourself, and please try to understand where I'm coming from here. If you can honestly see anything unreasonable about how I'm reading it, explain it out, but show enough recognition for how much I research this thing to at least try to grasp my reasoning. You don't have to stop holding your own beliefs to understand why others come to different assessments:

4But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. 5And they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them." 6Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, 7and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." 9But they said, "Stand back!" And they said, "This fellow came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them." Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down.

When Lot said that his daughters "have not known any man," he's not using "know" so much as a euphemism as he's using it idiomatically. He's saying that they have never known the company (in bed) of any man. It actually makes a lot more sense this way. When the men of Sodom surrounded his house, though, there was evident hostility, and they obviously intended more general cruelty against the visitors. In this case, "know" is being used completely in its literal sense, but be careful: it's still a bit tricky here because the men of Sodom may have been speaking sarcastically. That is, they were probably making it clear that they didn't have any intention of giving these men a fair hearing. However, since the men of Sodom were generally depraved, Lot held out some hope that his daughters could give the mob enough amusement to buy time to make an effort at reason.

Now, I'd like to posit an interesting perspective on the issue. Being an atheist gives me this privileged perspective, allowing me to see things in the passages that you might be blind to. Let's just play on the assumption that Lot's visitors actually did smite the mob with blindness. Now, you may assume that there was divine intervention here, but I'm not buying that explanation. What it sounds like to me is that the men had thrown some chemical at their faces, which leads me to suspect that these were men of science. Now, why would a bunch of scientists have travelled into a city like Sodom? Well, one possible explanation was that they were geologists. You see, one modern theory is that Sodom had been built in a spot on the shore of the Dead Sea in which there was a great deal of tectonic activity, evidenced by effects similar to the activity you could see on a trip to Yellowstone. Lot apparently already knew who these wise men were when they came, and what I'd like to submit is the possibility that there had been ongoing research into the safety of where Sodom had been built. If Lot and other concerned citizens had been trying to persuade the Sodomites to leave the city, this would explain the rather odd hostility the people of Sodom were showing toward Lot's company.

My point is that it is being used in a sexual sense.

And my point is that the destruction of Sodom was justified, rather than completely unjustified, and that the men of Sodom didn't need to go to Lot's house if all they wanted was manlove. For that matter, Sodom was a wealthy city; if it was sex they were after, they could probably have all taken a trip to the town brothel.

The OT is full of acts that I would hardly describe as compassionate.

It depends upon the book you're reading in, actually. Some of them are historical documentaries, some of them are war fables. Yes, some of them actually show God instructing his followers to commit atrocities, but I don't think that you are worshipping a god who commits atrocities. If you are, I have to wonder if there is something wrong with your own morals. I am quite certain that there is little in the Old Testament that doesn't make sense if you actually read it as it was originally penned.

I have read it, most of it multiple times...

As have I, and I've spent a great deal of time researching much of it. Please consider the possibility that I've hit on something that hasn't occurred to you yet. It seems to me that you are dismissing what I have to say about this out of hand. I've thought this through quite thoroughly, and I assure you that my reasoning is sound. You are wrong not to give it the fullness of your consideration. I've spent a great deal of time on this matter, and I take quite a bit of pride in how much I have managed to glean about this particular subject.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Flappycat,

I'd appreciate comments on my posts.

 

[Ðanisty]

A) Why would Lot mention that his daughters hadn't 'known' a man before if what was going on wasn't sexual?

B) When Lot says that his daughters hadn't 'known' a man before, it is the same word that the mob uses when they say they want to 'know' the visitors.

Whose to say that he's using the word the same way twice? If a word can mean more than one thing, why would somebody be obligated to only use one of those definitions?

 

[Flappycat]

Flappycat,

I'd appreciate comments on my posts.

I'm sorry, Angellous. I've been too busy trying to explain my reasoning to people I thought actually wanted to understand. I'm just being treated like vermin again. Just try to read what I'm saying. I've thought it out very thoroughly, and it's a very impressive and innovative perspective on the books. I worked really hard on it. True art is wasted, though, on those who have invested much in security and convention. I'll try looking up that guy tomorrow afternoon. I'll be doing some physical work, and this will give my mind an opportunity for rest. I can't right now. Sorry.

 

[Mister Emu]

To appease the mob.

To appease what Lot believed to be the mob's sexual desire.

You're making the assumption that it is always used euphemistically.

I worded that statement badly... I believe it is the most reasonable understanding to read them both the same, not because it is the same word, but because of the context.

If you can honestly see anything unreasonable about how I'm reading it, explain it out, but show enough recognition for how much I research this thing to at least try to grasp my reasoning.

I don't believe it is unreasonable, but that it is not the most reasonable understanding.

When Lot said that his daughters "have not known any man," he's not using "know" so much as a euphemism as he's using it idiomatically. He's saying that they have never known the company (in bed) of any man. It actually makes a lot more sense this way.

This is understood, he means they are virgins.

Now, I'd like to posit an interesting perspective on the issue...

It is interesting.

And my point is that the destruction of Sodom was justified, rather than completely unjustified

We concur.

and that the men of Sodom didn't need to go to Lot's house if all they wanted was manlove.

Concur again.

For that matter, Sodom was a wealthy city; if it was sex they were after, they could probably have all taken a trip to the town brothel.

Most probably.

Yes, some of them actually show God instructing his followers to commit atrocities, but I don't think that you are worshipping a god who commits atrocities.

I worship the God of the whole Bible, from front to back.

Please consider the possibility that I've hit on something that hasn't occurred to you yet.

Of course that is always a possibility.

I've thought this through quite thoroughly, and I assure you that my reasoning is sound.

I just don't agree with it

It seems to me that you are dismissing what I have to say about this out of hand. I've thought this through quite thoroughly, and I assure you that my reasoning is sound. You are wrong not to give it the fullness of your consideration

I'm sorry it seems that way, and I understand why. We have had this debate before, about what the intention of the Sodom mob were.

I have read the ideas you have before, so I already have considered them. Maybe I'm just not getting it, but I haven't read why you understand the story the way you do(I just went back through the thread again, and I still didn't see it), perhaps this would help me better understand where you are coming from. Maybe I need it in simpler terms

those who have invested much in security and convention.

Just as a note, I don't have a dog here, it doesn't affect me one way or the other why Sodom was destroyed, and if you could present compelling reasoning behind your ideas I would easily change my view(as I have before on this subject).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm sorry, Angellous. I've been too busy trying to explain my reasoning to people I thought actually wanted to understand. I'm just being treated like vermin again. Just try to read what I'm saying. I've thought it out very thoroughly, and it's a very impressive and innovative perspective on the books. I worked really hard on it. True art is wasted, though, on those who have invested much in security and convention. I'll try looking up that guy tomorrow afternoon. I'll be doing some physical work, and this will give my mind an opportunity for rest. I can't right now. Sorry.

Let me know if you have trouble finding it. I want your comments because I think that you've been doing a fine job articulating your position, but I don't think that you can support any of your claims for Paul and the New Testament. It's better to argue for homosexuality from Christian ethics rather from the language of the NT regarding homosexuality and sexual ethics. I think that the NT is essentially bankrupt, if not destructive regarding sexual ethics. However, the command to love sacrificially calls Christians to have mercy and encourage people rather than beat them down with ideals from a bygone era.

Besides, the attitude towards homosexuality in the NT is not its only fault. The NT does not address pederasty and sex with slaves, and its silence in this regard is made even more odious when other philosophers of the time (and before...) preached against these practices. The slave institution was also supported.

IMO, we should accept these faults and try to move on instead of forcing the text to say something that is better suited to our ears.

 

[Flappycat]

IMO, we should accept these faults and try to move on instead of forcing the text to say something that is better suited to our ears.

"Forcing," you say? I'm just going back to a more literal translation, Angellous. I'm not forcing anything. I'm stripping away a shabby artifice. Sorry, but it's kind of stupid to try to tie arsenokoitai to Leviticus. It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Try to get this through your head: gays ended up being scapegoated along with the Jews back during the Black Death, and a lot of clergy went around promoting strict chastity in hopes of stemming it. St. Bernadino of Siena, himself, was once quoted as saying, "O, Italy, how much more than any other province have you become contaminated! Go to the Germans, and hear what lovely things they say about the Italians! They say there is no people in this world that are greater sodomites than the Italians." The clergy were laying down their lives trying to slow down the plague, so you can't really hate them for trying something desperate in hopes of saving a few more lives. I can unflinchingly hate the later clergy who kept up the persecution of gays and Jews after the crisis had passed, and I wish nothing but ill health and bad luck on those remaining who continue with this originally well intentioned heresy. I'm not doing anything other than taking the most direct translation, Angellous.

 

[Flappycat]

Mister Emu: I'm saying that the men of Sodom meant exactly what they said. Read the text literally instead of imposing schooled reinterpretations upon it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

"Forcing," you say? I'm just going back to a more literal translation, Angellous. I'm not forcing anything. I'm stripping away a shabby artifice. Sorry, but it's kind of stupid to try to tie arsenokoitai to Leviticus. It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Try to get this through your head: gays ended up being scapegoated along with the Jews back during the Black Death, and a lot of clergy went around promoting strict chastity in hopes of stemming it. St. Bernadino of Siena, himself, was once quoted as saying, "O, Italy, how much more than any other province have you become contaminated! Go to the Germans, and hear what lovely things they say about the Italians! They say there is no people in this world that are greater sodomites than the Italians." The clergy were laying down their lives trying to slow down the plague, so you can't really hate them for trying something desperate in hopes of saving a few more lives. I can unflinchingly hate the later clergy who kept up the persecution of gays and Jews after the crisis had passed, and I wish nothing but ill health and bad luck on those remaining who continue with this originally well intentioned heresy. I'm not doing anything other than taking the most direct translation, Angellous.

I didn't present an argument concerning arsenokoitai, but malakai and para fusin. For Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6, the meaning is perfectly clear, and the most natural translation/interpretation does concern homoerotic behavior.

Why you think that the Church did not preach against homosexuality before the Darkness in Europe truly is beyond me. Paul's teachings against homosexuality are and have been abused, but that is no reason to ignore what he says.

 

[anders]

That's a fast-moving thread! I can't quote and comment on everything, but as a general statement, I agree with Flappycat.

I have spent a couple of weeks on the Lot stuff. The protest that (quoted freely) Lot's daughters weren't strangers isn't quite true. Lot & Co. were recent immigrants. And in threads on this Bible chapter, I always point out that all the citizens of Sodom (meaning men and women, young and old; the latter part mentioned twice for effect) were there. In what society would grandmas, grandpas and parents allow sexual abuse in front of children? I'm sad to say that I find it more probable that murder would be less of a problem to them.

As mentioned, the Bible as well as the Talmud contain several accusations against Sodom, none of which can be interpreted as sex abuse. Inhospitability to strangers and wronging weak persons are the main points.

On Leviticus, the first thing to note is that it is clearly rules for ancient Hebrews, any way you interpret it. Some interpretations like the 'a couple of guys using the bed of a woman' may sound strange and will be rejected by some, but at least show how difficult it is to translate the old book for a contemporary society.

I know even less Greek than Bible Hebrew, but I have read many explanations of arsenokoitai etc. that make me think that homosexuality is a very poor choice for a translation.