Might some of the biblical Pro-Gay Arguments be Misguided?

[cool_name123]

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 4 by cool_name123]

The why is always important and most cultures throughout history explain the why of something when they can. In fact the bible often explains the why of something.

For example in Genesis YHWH explains why he punishes Adam Eve and the serpent in detail. Most of the commandments in the old testament have the why explained as well.

That is why I say that given the text there is no indication that this culture had a better understanding about sexuality than we do. The lack of a why is indicative that they don't understand male on male sodomy and indiscriminately punished it because of the lack of understanding. We as a species often fear the unknown and the biblical texts are rife with homophobia. That is indicative of ignorance not superior understanding.

This is regardless of how we view the world.

To say that this culture understood sexuality equal to or better than we do is not based on any evidence of any kind. Your whole argument hinges on a worldview outlook. It makes no difference what their worldview is or was compared to ours. There is no evidence to suggest that they had a better understanding of sexuality.

[cool_name123]

[Replying to DanieltheDragon]

You're still missing my point. Forget what I said about them understanding sexuality better than us, I already conceded that I may have been using hyperbole there to make a point. I don't care if they understood Sexuality better than us or to what degree they even understood it. What I'm trying to get at is that maybe this was not deemed an important point to them (regardless of how much they did or did not know about sexuality).

Yes, there are many why's in the bible... but they are why's in a much different sense I feel. It's not generally about function or mechanisms, When a why is expressed it is almost always illustrating how ones relationship will suffer. Which is a very different kind of why.

The lack of a why is indicative that they don't understand male on male sodomy and indiscriminately punished it because of the lack of understanding. We as a species often fear the unknown and the biblical texts are rife with homophobia. That is indicative of ignorance not superior understanding.

I would also disagree with the vast majority of this statement and really this is where I'm trying to go with this. Because of how we read the texts, that is what we see... But what if that's not what they saw. I've argued elsewhere in this forum that the Levitical texts condemn idolatry as do Paul's, yet people still can't help but see a commandment as anything more than 'don't do this' without understanding in any way what the authors 'why' might have been. If the 'why' they imply is idolatry, then is it fair to apply that commandment to all expressions of that sexuality? I don't think so. And as I've stated earlier, I think it's our sneaky efficient brains desperately trying to find the 'get into heaven checklist' that is to blame.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 12 by cool_name123]

Because of how we read the texts, that is what we see... But what if that's not what they saw.

That is the thing though, it is very obvious that we will not have their perspective on the text we only have our own. That is not really what matters. We can only go by the information we have available. I say that the bible is rife with homophobia because the people that wrote it wanted gay males to be stoned to death if caught in the act. Whether they saw that as righteous justice or an externalization of something they feared within themselves is neither here nor there. What is important is that they did think it was important enough to include in their holy text.

What I'm trying to get at is that maybe this was not deemed an important point to them

It was important enough to make it a law within their culture. Just like it was at one point to make it a law(punishable with prison time not death) in our not to distant history. There are lots of things that this culture did not care about enough to write down like child abuse for example or banning the slave trade among its culture.

Maybe it wasn't the most important thing but it was still important enough.

Which is a very different kind of why.

No it's not. There are a whole variety of reasons why we do things and still do this day relationships are part of those reasons. We are social creatures to suggest that
"ones relationship" with god, other people, themselves etc. is not a reason why we do things or write things down today is not based on any evidence of any kind but the imaginative speculation of an ideology that tries to compress the whole of the human spectrum into something distilled and packaged for the consumption of an idle mind.

Do you not feel? Do you not have relationships of your own? Do you not see how actions you take can cause those relationships to grow or diminish? I feel you are stuck in some ideology that you can't reason out of. You seem to be shading everything within this ideology. I to am probably doing the same thing(albeit through a different lens of mine own.) and that is probably where this disconnect is coming from.


Perhaps you can expand on why you feel this is important? Maybe the why of this can help illustrate the point you are trying to make. As it remains nebulous within the confines of our limited means of expression.

[cool_name123]

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 14 by cool_name123]

But how important was this word over that word? Where did the emphasis lie? When they read it what would be the take away for them.

As an example let’s use either of the Levitical texts on homosexuality.
1 - The placement of these particular commandments implies that it is not part of any sort of laws on sexual morality but is rather categorized along with other forms of ritualistic worship implying that the sin being talked about here is one of idolatry, not one of sexual immorality.
2 - Te’ovah is the word we commonly translate as abomination, more accurately though it is better to think of it as Taboo (still bad, but not a monstrously so). And this word is primarily used when talking about idolatry and shrine prostitution (if memory serves, honestly I find point one far more telling as to the intent here so I use it far more frequently).

What I’m saying here is, yes it is in their texts... But where did they place importance when they read the text? Was it a simple case of ‘if caught sleeping with other’s of the same sex you’re out’?

Well lets start with the highlighted green.

1. There is significant research among biblical scholars, anthropologists, and archaeologists on this subject.

2. Biblical scholars very much focus on this and leverage what is gleamed from archaeology and anthropology on the matters of culture and interpersonal relationships of the ancient world. Peoples lives are literally devoted to understanding these concepts.

To the highlighted red.

I don't see how you can jump to this conclusion Leviticus chapter 20 where verse 13 is located indeed opens up with idolatry and child sacrifice(depending on your translation) as it pertains to verses 1-8. However there is a distinct grammatical shift that one should pay attention to. In 7-8 we end the discussion on Idolatry and shift to the commandments.

Ending the focus on idolatry we have verse 7.

7 “‘Sanctify yourselves therefore and be ye holy, for I am the Lord your God.

Starting the next set of focus is verse 8.

8 “‘And ye shall keep My statutes and do them: I am the Lord who sanctify you.

Then it goes on to the statutes that he wants kept. 1 statute relating to appropriate behavior of a child to parent then 12 statutes related to sexual immorality. Concluding this focus in verse 22.

22 “‘Ye shall therefore keep all My statutes and all My judgments, and do them, that the land whither I bring you to dwell therein spew you not out.

Here is a list of sexual immoral statutes found in this section(punishments highlighted):

10 “‘And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

11 And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness. Both of them shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them.

12 And if a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. They have wrought confusion: their blood shall be upon them.

13 “‘If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them.

14 “‘And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness. They shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there be no wickedness among you.

15 “‘And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death; and ye shall slay the beast.

16 And if a woman approach unto any beast and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman and the beast. They shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them.

17 “‘And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness and she see his nakedness, it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people. He hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness: he shall bear his iniquity.

18 “‘And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness and shall uncover her nakedness, he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood; and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister nor of thy father’s sister, for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.

20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle’s wife, he hath uncovered his uncle’s nakedness. They shall bear their sin: they shall die childless.

21 And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing. He hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness: they shall be childless

_________________________________________________________________

Now if you are asking to yourself why on earth did I just publish that whole list well it was to get to the last part of your quote.

"Was it a simple case of ‘if caught sleeping with other’s of the same sex you’re out’"

If you carefully read the text you can see what is a simple case of your're out whom would be childless those that only had to bear their shame and those that would be put to death. A simple case of getting you thrown out would require you to either sleep with your father's sister or sleep with your wife while she has menstrual pains.

A careful examination of the text can reveal some of the questions you are asking.

[cool_name123]

[Replying to DanieltheDragon]

This is not the argument I am trying to have. I am not a biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination. Again, those examples were just, examples, to speak to my primary point of societal influences. I will happily debate this issue of what the texts say elsewhere. But what I am significantly more interested in here/what the entirety of this post has been about is how our particular social context, situated within this technological society affects how we engage in scripture... Which the road you're attempting to lead me down does not seem in any way interested in addressing.

I was never trying to offer a pro-gay interpretation of the texts (though I think a case could be made for one). Just questioning some of the assumptions that both sides bring to the table... Assumptions that I too am guilty of.

If you'd like to speak to that, I'm all ears... But if what you want to speak about whether or not the bible can be seen as pro-gay in some light, or whether that is just ludicrous... let's do that elsewhere. That is not the focus of this post.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 16 by cool_name123]

what I am significantly more interested in here/what the entirety of this post has been about is how our particular social context, situated within this technological society affects how we engage in scripture

sure I will grant you that. The same problem exists for every subsequent generation that reads or hears the text(via oral tradition). As society and the context from which we and previous generations live or lived in is fluid and dynamic as water in a river. The authors of the new testament for example lived in a vastly different society than those that wrote Leviticus. The further one of course gets at least on the axis of time from the authorship of said texts the wider the gap in social context grows.

How wide that gap is really depends on the society. I don't think that gap is so wide it is unbridgeable. Like I said the work done in various fields significantly helps us narrow that gap. We probably have are probably closer today(at least among biblical scholars) to what the original authorship was than say in the 1000's to 1900's.