(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

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

Comments

Re: sexual molestation of Paul

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I admit it is strongly speculative. It is something I started to suspect over time, after noting certain emotional cues in Paul's writings that resonate with emotions I've experienced in contemplating events that happened to me.

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.