I've been doing some research on this - what with the plethora of topics donated to this on the forum - and I've come to the conclusion that the only stance the Bible takes on homosexuality is found in the Old Testament, and the stance the Bible takes is unequivocal:

If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. (Lev 20:13) Overall, there are several allusions to homosexuality in the bible, some direct, others more ambiguous. The only New Testament account of homosexuality is in Paul's letters to the Romans. More on that later though - let's look at the Old Testament first.

The first is probably the best known. The attempted rape at Sodom (Gen 19:1-29) accounts a case of what we must presume to be heterosexual men demasculinizing strangers by treating them "like women". Additionally, there is a case (Deu 23:17-18) referring to a heterosexual prostitute that the King James Bible calls a sodomite, which is probably not the accurate translation. Finally, the most ambiguous occurs in Cor 6:9 and Tim 1:10. It is not enitrely clear in how the words "active" and
"passive" are used. Specificially, it doesn't spell out whether or not we are dealing with homosexual relationships, or to male prostitutes. Regardless, none of these instances are expressions of consensual love or sex between two adults, so they don't really strike at the heart of the issue.

However, there are some that come right out and say it. In addition to Lev 20:13 that I listed above that orders death to homosexuals, there is Lev 18:22 stating:

You (that's the masculine you - critical for the interpretation) shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. Like I said earlier, Jesus never speaks of homosexuality at all. The only New Testament reference is in Paul's Letters to the Romans. (Rom 1:26-27):

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. Of interesting note, it also seems that the Bible is for more against male-male homosexual relationships than female-female homosexual relationships. To understand this, I must quote Walter Wink, Professor of Biblical Interpretation, Auburn Theological Seminary:

Such an act was considered an "abomination" for several reasons. The Hebrew prescientific understanding was that male semen contained the whole of nascent life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubating space. Hence the spilling of semen for any procreative purpose - in coitus interruptus (Gen 38:1-11), male homosexual acts or male masterbation - was considered tantamount to abortion or murder. Female homosexual acts and masturbation were consequently not so seriously regarded. To me, we have to step away and look at the whole of the issue, and really question if what the Bible says still holds true today. I'm not saying we should consider executing homosexuals, but rather that the Bible is not a sex manual, and thus the sexual morals and ethics therein do not hold true today. This is to me what is the hardest part of the "moral values" argument to accept. I would like to think that tolerance is also a moral value, yet the bible makes no appeal to tolerance in its view of homosexuality.

Regarding sex in general, there are only four things that the Bible codemns that I feel are still regarded today as being in the best interest to society: incest, rape, adultery, and intercourse with animals.

However, there are several things that the Bible condemns that we don't follow today: intercourse during menstruation, celibacy (outside of marriage and no longer after you can't have children), exogamy (marriage to non-Jews), naming sexual organs, nudity (again outside of husband-wife interactions), masturbation, birth control, and regarding semen and menstrual fluid as "unclean" (well maybe a bit messy, but "unclean" is probably going a bit far).

And what about things the Bible says is OK, but we do not accept today? How about: prostitution, polygamy, levirate marriage (the act by which if a husband died childless one of his brothers would inseminate his wife so she could produce an heir), sex with slaves (or slavery in general), concubinage, treatment of women as property, and marriage of girls as young as 10 or 11.

Heck, regarding sex, there's a whole lot more that modern society DISAGREES with than AGREES with. So why do we reference the Bible as the means of being opposed to homosexual acts and homosexual marriage? I do not think you can pick and choose what you want to accept from the Bible and what you don't. Heck - the RCC uses that exact arguement regarding abortion - that you can't be a "true" Catholic if you accept abortion. So why is it then that you can pick and choose other parts of the Bible? Doesn't this seem self-contradictory?

Umm, all I can say is well, duh!

I mean, making any rules *just* because it says so is the bible makes as much sense as for me to string up some people in a tree to please Oden the all father.

No one is free to interpret the bible to his or her liking - at least not in the context of the Catholic Church (or any other big religion). This is the duty of the "Congregatio pro doctrina fidei", i.e. the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

You see, a religion is typically more than just the writings it is based upon. There have to be a bunch of interpretations and exegeses along with the customs and rites used to complete them.

So, yes, the Catholic Church is free to choose what part of the bible to refer to and what part to ignore. As long as it fits in the big picture. This is not contradictory, because the equation "Catholic Church = Taking the Bible literally" doesn't hold.

So, yes, the Catholic Church is free to choose what part of the bible to refer to and what part to ignore. As long as it fits in the big pictureI would say as long as it justifies church's actions and supports its interests. It's ubelievable how many philosophical theories and interpretations of the "holy" texts have been produced by the clergy and the theologians of all the major religions in order to justisfy their actions.

I would say as long as it justifies church's actions and supports its interests Which is, of course, the same. It's true that the chain of causality for religions in general start with the worldview and then proceed to minor details like foundations and justifications.

No sane leader of any clergy would start with some facts and references, declare them as evidence and work up from there. He would surprise himself with the possible outcome of such tactics.

I don't think that it's the same but perhaps I have misunderstood the meaning of your words. I have understood "as long as it fits the big picture" as "as long it is in agreement with the religion's basic principles". The clergy and the theologians have tried to justified actions, which have been in total disagreement with religion's basic principles. Take for example the military orders of the medieval times (templars, hospitaliers ec), where the catholic church tried to prove through various philosophical theories and interpretations of the old and new testament that the idea of the warrior-priest (or warrior-monk if you like) wasn't in disagreement with the principles of christianity.

Frankly I simply ignore anything the Bible says. Sure, it's got the right idea on some things )No stealing, killing, etc.) but certain parts don't cut it today.

I'm simply glad that the western world has thrown out religion as the governing force. In New Zealand religion is the last thing the country considers when passing new laws.

So why is it then that you can pick and choose other parts of the Bible? Doesn't this seem self-contradictory? Because it's easier to blindly accept a few bits and pieces that have been chosen for their hard-line stance than to think for yourself and ponder the subtle intricacies of a well-thought life. :rolleyes: Life is easier when you don't have to justify your beliefs and actions with anything more than "Well, the Bible says so!"

No one is free to interpret the bible to his or her liking - at least not in the context of the Catholic Church (or any other big religion). This is the duty of the "Congregatio pro doctrina fidei", i.e. the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I certainly can't argue this point - it's fact. But the question mainly is not who does it, but why is it selectively interpreted. Why are some teachings enforced strictly, and others ignored altogether. Like I said, I'm not saying we should start executing homosexuals, but why are some sexual mores from the bible still taught as fact, while others they have moved away from. Granted, the ones they've moved away from are moves in the modern direction, but it seems we have a case of selective modernization.

I doubt you will even get an acknowladgement that it is what they do. Just succumb to the fact that religion is fundamentally irrational, hypocritical and arbitrary.

No one is free to interpret the bible to his or her liking - at least not in the context of the Catholic Church (or any other big religion). Actually, that's not entirely true if you count Judaism as a big religion. Many branches of Judaism actually encourage people to read and question the bible, and throw it open to numerous interpretations. That's one of the interesting backdrops that underlies the stereotype of the "Jewish lawyer." Jews in general have a long history of arguing interpretation of EVERYTHING (from the old testament to the Talmud to specific rabbinical writings). While the orthodox are a bit whacky and may not fall into this category, they are outnumbered here in the US by non-orthodox. Thus, that history or arguing and not accpeting anything at face value (even faith is subject to analysis and argument) tends to turn out lawyers -- an unfortunate byproduct, I suppose, even though I am one.

I’ve tried hard to resist joining in, but I’ve always been weak-willed.

I’m not entirely sure of the position of the Church (Catholic or otherwise) on the Old Testament, but there is so much other nonsense in Leviticus that the church can not agree to (Stoning people for growing two crops in a field etc) that I would find it very difficult for people to justify it’s use against homosexuality in today’s society (Not that this stops some people). Furthermore, the New Testament does go some way to stating that the Law from the Old Testament does not necessarily apply after the birth of Christ.

Galatians 3:23-25; 4:4-7
Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian. Romans 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. I believe there are three quotes in the old Testament which are currently used against Homosexuality. Romans, as Aldeth quotes, as well as the ones below.

I Corinthians 6:9 (King James Version)
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind I Timothy 1:10 (King James Version)
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; Now as I tried to explain in a previous thread, this is where translation comes in. The words used in the Greek text (Those which has been used for all other translations) are "malakos" meaning soft and "arsenokoitai" meaning "male-bed." What Paul actually meant them to mean is lost in the annals of time, but an important thing to note is that there were many Greek words for same-sex activity (not surprisingly as the Ancient Greek Spartans accepted homosexuality, as I have mentioned previously) or homosexuals, but Paul did not select them. My immediate interpretation was to mean a male prostitute.

OK, regardless, the Catholic Church currently regards them to mean Homosexuality (Itself a term not popularized before the late 19th Century by Krafft-Ebing). As it happens, my opinion of the Catholic Church is fairly low, (Events like the Albegensian crusade against the Cathars, which at the time destroyed a larger percentage of the worlds population than Hitler managed, or the lies spread in 2003 about condoms not preventing the spread of AIDS http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html_,) but alas that is off topic and I’m never going to be able to persuade the Catholic Church they are wrong.

Personally I find it interesting that all 3 quotes in the New Testament originate from Paul, someone who also had issues with men with long hair. (OK this next bit is just me having fun)

I Corinthians 11:14 (King James Version)
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
Now it is generally recognised that the 12 Apostles were only Human. Judas betrayed Jesus, and Peter denied him three times. Could it be that Paul was only human and therefore subject to human foibles as well? Previously, it has been intimated that thinking of Homosexuality as a mental disease is only wrong as it’s non pc. So I did some research and it was removed from the list of mental diseases in 1973 (In America). But during my trawling, I also found the following:

Psychology of Homophobia
In an ironic twist of fate, several psychological studies have been carried out on the psychology of heterosexism, hate of homosexuals, homophobia and anti-homosexual sentiment. For example, studies have found that
• "lower degrees of anti-homosexual bias in people who know openly homosexual people on a personal basis."http://www.affirmation.org/jeff.htm and that
• homophobic, heterosexual men showed signs of sexual arousal from being shown images of homosexual sex, when a control group of non-homophobic heterosexual men did not. http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html OK, maybe I’m stretching a wee bit here, but in the whole of the New Testament, only one person (Paul) mentions something which is regarded as being anti-homosexual (and therefore homophobic). If you believe this to be the case, then current psychological thinking indicates a possible closet homosexual. Methinks the man doest protest too much!

not surprisingly as the Ancient Greek Spartans accepted homosexuality This is wrong, Sparta was the only city-state, where homosexuality was forbidden by law perhaps due to the militaristic nature of the spartan society.

This is wrong, Sparta was the only city-state, where homosexuality was forbidden by law perhaps due to the militaristic nature of the spartan society.Forbidden, yet not upheld. The Spartans did not uphold these laws while an army was 'away from home'. In fact they found homosexuality to be quite useful in warfare. How much harder would one fight if their loved one fought beside them?

I believe it was the Thracians who had an entire company composed of homosexuals - and these men were feared for being just as tough as Spartans or Macedonians.

In other Greek-related homosexuality. The most famous Greek, Alexander the Great, was also a homosexual, or at least a bisexual.

Because it's easier to blindly accept a few bits and pieces that have been chosen for their hard-line stance than to think for yourself and ponder the subtle intricacies of a well-thought life. Life is easier when you don't have to justify your beliefs and actions with anything more than "Well, the Bible says so!" :thumb: /me applauds Rallymama

Sadly, this is too frequently true, and not just in Christianity. There are many exceptions, but too many people use the Bible as a crutch to avoid having to think about difficult issues, rather than having their faith inform their own points of view.

And Chev, you're squarely in the "thinking" category. :)

Aldeth, your research is bit incomplete. The bible has a lot of "do as I say, not as I do" stuff in it.

The story of Isreal makes adultry okay if the wife approves (he had twelve sons from two wives and two servants) -- not to mention bigotry.

God did not punish Lot for committing incest with his daughters -- they got him drunk and slept with him because he had no male heirs.

The total destruction of all enemies of Isreal (e.g., Jerico and others) allows for genocide.

There are many other examples in the old testiment of such atrocities, that people would hold to these "lessons" to validate their own criminal acts I find appalling. This would be a far better world if people just followed the teaching of Christ (whether or not they believed him to be the son of God) and put aside the old testament.

"Rabbi, what is the greatest commandment?"

And Jesus answered, "To love the lord thy God with all thy heart, mind, might and soul. And to love thy neighbor as thyself."

And I am not even a believer.....

@T2B - I think you're supporting my point more than debunking it. I'm talking about how the Bible is not a fit moral compass for us to judge our actions on because there are many things in the Bible that are supposedly "bad" though very few people consider them bad today, and also many things that are "OK" though very few people consider them OK today.

Your post contains additional hypocricies so I don't see how that isn't in keeping with my original point.

True, just listing a few examples that you stated the bible condemned but actually gives mixed signals. I guess I should have phrased it slightly differently.

I'm very tired of the whole belief that man is, at his/her soul, basically evil and left to vices with "follow the will of Satan." Give me the buddist philosophy that man is basically good and must be taught to be evil. It's far more optimistic....

@Abomination

I didn't claim that it wasn't happening, I wrote that it was forbidden, which means that if they got caught, they were punished, something that wasn't happening in the other greek cities.

This military unit was the Thebean "Ieros Lochos" (trans. Sacred Company). It was an elite force of 300 warriors, comrades and lovers in the same time, who, like the spartans, were not allowed to retreat or surrender.

I knew it started with T :) and I knew the company was "Sacred <something>". There's a monument to them somewhere isn't there? It's hung around for 2400 odd years.

The Persians and Greeks weren't very nice to each other in victory, there are recordings of them sodomising captured Greeks or Persians (depending on who won). Oh well, off topic yet interesting information always pops up eh? Don't be calling homosexuals 'poofters' because history has proven that sometimes they are tougher than most hetrosexuals.

The monument is the lion of Chaironia. In 338 BC a united force of Thebeans and Athenians tried to stop the advance of Phillip II of Macedonia and his son Alexander in Chaironia. When the battle turned in favour of the Macedonians and the rest allied army was retreating, the warriors of Ieros Lochos remained in their position and fought to the last man.

God did not punish Lot for committing incest with his daughters -- they got him drunk and slept with him because he had no male heirs.Well, they forced themself upon him, I don't actually hold him responsible.

Hmmm... I would hope Caleb is being a little sarcastic there. Unfortunately, the example of Lot (being such a pious and rightous man) has been used for a very long time to justify things such as date rape, statutory rape and incest.

The implication that Lot was too drunk to know his daughters were lying with him, yet still sober enough for the proper equipment to work is ludicrous. Such an act is criminal and there is no justification for it. The story of Lot is one of the reasons why women are on trial during a rape case -- a large part of society still believes that a man can't control himself after some imaginary line is crossed. And that's just wrong.