(no subject)
Apr. 8th, 2005 08:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
This is to compile in one place a liturgy of arguments I've seen or made that "Biblical teachings against homosexuality" do not refer to modern homosexual life or experience. I have varying degrees of confidence in these arguments, as I will indicate below.
First, there is the general argument that the environment in which the Bible was written reflects ancient moral, social, and economic needs. The question of how relevant the Bible is today is meaningful and must be addressed in a comprehensive way. That is, the burden of proof to demonstrate its relevance as a moral guide in the modern environment falls on those who promote it as such. A strong argument can be made that it fails in this regard, since it reflects the economic needs and social organization of a pre-urban, pre-industrial, pre-overcrowded world.
A similar view takes the Bible as demonstrating the evolution of belief over time, as a reflection of a nation's circumstance. Again, this raises the question of how much specific moral guidance we can realistically take from a 2000 year old document.
In Christ, those who are Christian "died to the old law," and were reborn in the spirit of newness. So in Christian thought, the legal proscriptions of the "Old" Testament do not apply to Christians. Therefore in the Christian context it is not necessary, strictly speaking, to address passages in Leviticus that specifically prohibit men from sleeping with other men as they would with a woman. Many Christians cite them anyway, arguing that that these old laws reflect the attitude of God even if the law itself doesn't apply anymore. This makes me wonder why they would knowingly anger God by eating cheeseburgers and shrimp?
But even if these passages apply, there is reason to consider that they apply only to Jews, and even then only in a particular way. An influential rabbi has argued that the proscription against homosexuality is a rule of ritual cleanliness, a "religious sin" and not a moral or ethical sin.
http://www.livejournal.com/community/challenging_god/195526.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sophiaserpentia/215135.html
There are two passages about homosexuality in the New Testament, both in the Pauline literature. The first, in I Corinthians 6, is probably the most "ironclad." But it depends on precisely what the Greek words "malakos" and "arsenokoite" actually mean. As near as I can tell, the word "malakos" refers to catamites, effeminite boys who were kept as sex slaves by the wealthy. The word "arsenokoite" may (I suspect) refer to men who hire male prostitutes.
http://www.livejournal.com/community/challenging_god/193586.html
I've seen several approaches to the passage in Romans 1. A common observation is that Paul was focusing on the pagan sexual practices of the Romans and Greeks, not homosexuality in general.
http://www.livejournal.com/community/challenging_god/196751.html
Or, alternately, he was decrying the moral bankruptcy of the Roman emperors Caligula and Tiberias.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sophiaserpentia/495591.html?thread=3503847#t3503847
Another possibility that I have been considering, is that Paul may have been molested or sexually abused as a boy. He was possibly a student at the Greek gymnasium in Tarsus, where he would have been exposed to the common Greek practice of paederasty. It was not uncommon for boys to be expected to withstand sexual use by their instructors. If Paul was speaking out against the ancient practice of paederasty, which is distinct from homosexuality, then I can't disagree with him, because this is a treacherous cycle of abuse.
Lastly, there is the argument that our society's enforcement of prohibitions against homosexuality result in the needless pain and suffering of queer people. Queer children suffer in particular, experiencing larger rates of suicide, depression, and family censure than straight children. It can be argued that enforcing the prohibition against homosexuality creates a greater sin than homosexuality itself might be. Christians are charged in the Bible to treat gays and lesbians with compassion and without judgment, because this is how they are told to act towards everyone. Therefore singling out homosexuals for persecution is against Christian teaching.
http://www.livejournal.com/community/challenging_god/379572.html
A large three-part post addressing the issue starts here:
http://www.livejournal.com/community/challenging_god/387124.html
First, there is the general argument that the environment in which the Bible was written reflects ancient moral, social, and economic needs. The question of how relevant the Bible is today is meaningful and must be addressed in a comprehensive way. That is, the burden of proof to demonstrate its relevance as a moral guide in the modern environment falls on those who promote it as such. A strong argument can be made that it fails in this regard, since it reflects the economic needs and social organization of a pre-urban, pre-industrial, pre-overcrowded world.
A similar view takes the Bible as demonstrating the evolution of belief over time, as a reflection of a nation's circumstance. Again, this raises the question of how much specific moral guidance we can realistically take from a 2000 year old document.
In Christ, those who are Christian "died to the old law," and were reborn in the spirit of newness. So in Christian thought, the legal proscriptions of the "Old" Testament do not apply to Christians. Therefore in the Christian context it is not necessary, strictly speaking, to address passages in Leviticus that specifically prohibit men from sleeping with other men as they would with a woman. Many Christians cite them anyway, arguing that that these old laws reflect the attitude of God even if the law itself doesn't apply anymore. This makes me wonder why they would knowingly anger God by eating cheeseburgers and shrimp?
But even if these passages apply, there is reason to consider that they apply only to Jews, and even then only in a particular way. An influential rabbi has argued that the proscription against homosexuality is a rule of ritual cleanliness, a "religious sin" and not a moral or ethical sin.
http://www.livejournal.com/community/challenging_god/195526.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sophiaserpentia/215135.html
There are two passages about homosexuality in the New Testament, both in the Pauline literature. The first, in I Corinthians 6, is probably the most "ironclad." But it depends on precisely what the Greek words "malakos" and "arsenokoite" actually mean. As near as I can tell, the word "malakos" refers to catamites, effeminite boys who were kept as sex slaves by the wealthy. The word "arsenokoite" may (I suspect) refer to men who hire male prostitutes.
http://www.livejournal.com/community/challenging_god/193586.html
I've seen several approaches to the passage in Romans 1. A common observation is that Paul was focusing on the pagan sexual practices of the Romans and Greeks, not homosexuality in general.
http://www.livejournal.com/community/challenging_god/196751.html
Or, alternately, he was decrying the moral bankruptcy of the Roman emperors Caligula and Tiberias.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sophiaserpentia/495591.html?thread=3503847#t3503847
Another possibility that I have been considering, is that Paul may have been molested or sexually abused as a boy. He was possibly a student at the Greek gymnasium in Tarsus, where he would have been exposed to the common Greek practice of paederasty. It was not uncommon for boys to be expected to withstand sexual use by their instructors. If Paul was speaking out against the ancient practice of paederasty, which is distinct from homosexuality, then I can't disagree with him, because this is a treacherous cycle of abuse.
Lastly, there is the argument that our society's enforcement of prohibitions against homosexuality result in the needless pain and suffering of queer people. Queer children suffer in particular, experiencing larger rates of suicide, depression, and family censure than straight children. It can be argued that enforcing the prohibition against homosexuality creates a greater sin than homosexuality itself might be. Christians are charged in the Bible to treat gays and lesbians with compassion and without judgment, because this is how they are told to act towards everyone. Therefore singling out homosexuals for persecution is against Christian teaching.
http://www.livejournal.com/community/challenging_god/379572.html
A large three-part post addressing the issue starts here:
http://www.livejournal.com/community/challenging_god/387124.html
no subject
Date: 2005-04-08 01:01 pm (UTC)I'm far from an experts on these matters, but if the opinion of a Catholic in crisis means anything to you, here goes...
My interpretation is that love between men is encouraged, not the opposite. The rub (there's a pun there I think) is that sex for any other purpose than creating children within a marriage is a no-no.
I'm as guilty of having non-procreational sex as anyone. Perhaps more than some :)
So there's my uneducated 2 cents.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-08 01:21 pm (UTC)The tradition of "platonic love" between men is a relic of the Renaissance, when there was an effort to bring Greek philosophy into the Christian fold. (Before then it has been rejected as pagan heresy.) Plato very blatanly depicts flirtation and romance between men... but this was seen as "platonic," you see?
no subject
Date: 2005-04-08 01:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-09 06:12 am (UTC)bl
Is IT Eroticism We All Need Or Affection and Intimacy?
Date: 2005-04-08 03:31 pm (UTC)But then, what is "sex"? Is it only genital contact? Or is it, as I've observed the condemnations of the Fundos against same-sex love, even an embrace, even a kiss? I KISS the heterosexual men I love all the time, and I think, quite frankly that--because I'm sensitive enough not to do it in public, and risk any discomfiture for them--that they actually ENJOY being able to express affection for me BECAUSE it's so "different," and because, in a sense, they're getting to have a sensation they were never able to enjoy with their homophobic fathers.
The need for genital sex really DOES seem to me to be what the Buddhists call "clinging"--and therefore "unskillful" sexually--but the need for expression of physical affection is absolutely primary, and, if denied--at any stage of life--will lead to emotional dysfunction.
Re: Is IT Eroticism We All Need Or Affection and Intimacy?
Date: 2005-04-08 04:10 pm (UTC)Re: Is IT Eroticism We All Need Or Affection and Intimacy?
Date: 2005-04-08 08:41 pm (UTC)Does it bear out in cultures where men are allowed a greater degree of physical affection?
I think so. You can have no idea how uncomfortable young male Peace Corps Volunteers--like those who were with me in Sri Lanka--are made by by males of comparable age, who walk around arm-in-arm and who embrace and kiss in public, but who are also MARRIED or have girlfriends. I, on the other hand, thought it was WONDERFUL!
no subject
Date: 2005-04-08 06:21 pm (UTC)This made me laugh and nudge my girlfriend.
You know, I find it interesting that you speak to the possibility that what Paul taught was influenced by his life experiences. Whenever I read parts of the Bible or other things, I think about what the person could have experienced to cause them to write that or in that way, which I think is important to look at especially with regards to teachings that are repressive and limiting of our human potential. I've never, however, heard anyone else suggest such a thing, which I find interesting. I mean, obviously, in my family the Bible was taken as the WORD OF GOD, like, dictated to folks verbatim. My family can't even conceive that yhwy, Allah, and the Christian God might all be "different names for the same thing." I mean, those three all have basically the same roots, so I don't see how it's such a stretch (aside from our human love to faction ourselves off).
no subject
Date: 2005-04-09 06:16 am (UTC)bl
no subject
Date: 2005-04-09 10:01 pm (UTC)See, there you go straight away using so-called "higher criticism" and trying to put words in context or as metaphor, when the Word of God (tm) is the literal, universal and eternal TRUTH
;-)
sexual molestation of Paul
Date: 2005-04-10 06:57 am (UTC)bl
Re: sexual molestation of Paul
Date: 2005-04-10 07:49 am (UTC)And yes I concede that it is difficult if not impossible to know whether molestation of a boy would have the same meaning or effect then versus now. But since it is an effect we can see in people now, it is certainly one possible response to it; post-traumatic stress disorder is a pretty common pattern in human existence.
Note that I do not say the Bible is not meaningful, just that I question whether its specific moral proclamations are meaningful when plopped into the modern context. In the context of its own time, it is certainly very meaningful -- in fact I would say much more vibrantly meaningful than the meaning fundamentalists give to it by trying to divorce it from first-century context.