The Bible prohibits anal intercourse, not homosexuality

submitted by Vulptex from self.conspiracy

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]LarrySwinger2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

There's no way they were ALL gay.

Actually, I think none of them were gay because it didn't exist as an identity yet. There were only homosexual acts, and I meant 'homosexuals' earlier to refer to people who partook in them. They were probably interested in heterosexual relationships as well. (It's interesting to note that in both of the examples I mentioned, they preferred raping a man over a woman, but that doesn't have to be because of a sexual orientation. You said it yourself, it could've been a way of putting someone to shame. And indeed, in Judges, they are content with raping a woman instead, showing that heterosexual desires existed equally.)

Details like these do have a deeper significance, considering the depth of the Tanakh in general. The stories were selected for the moral lessons they taught. Combined with the explicit condemnation of homosexual acts in Leviticus, and the lack of any positive words about homosexual acts in the entire document, it shows that they were against homosexuality in general. It's the same set of values from which springs the explicit condemnation in Leviticus, and the selection of only rapist homosexuals in the other documents. These confirm the views of the authors.

Let's evaluate what the point of this discussion is, by the way. You're arguing that Leviticus only prohibits one specific deed (anal intercourse), while permitting homosexuality outside of that. But what would the real-life consequences be if that interpretation was correct? Do you think there were homosexual couples in Ancient Israel who'd appear in public holding each other's hands but who'd be tolerated so long as they assured people they didn't partake in anal sex? I hope we can agree that that's an absurd notion. Once again, the identity didn't exist yet as a notion to individuals, let alone as part of civil society. I think we don't have to dwell on this.

I think you're interested in what the Bible has to say about homosexuality as a sexual orientation in this day and age. That's a bit more complicated, as it isn't entirely coherent. The New Testament ideal is to be celibate, but people aren't expected to live up to that; it's tolerated that people in general will marry. But heterosexual acts are explicitly forbidden, not just in the verses that we've mentioned but also in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11, and since the idea of being a couple is so entwined with sexual relationships, there's no conceiving that the authors would tolerate a homosexual relationship regardless of which specific acts they do and don't perform. The Old Testament is even less tolerant: people were generally expected to marry specifically someone of the opposite sex, with procreation being an essential goal in this. One couldn't choose to instead marry someone of the same sex out of some personal preference. You can try to ignore these values, but you'd just be trying to find a loophole.

Tertullian's treatment of the Apostolikon confirms that Romans 1:19-2:1 is a late interpolation. No one who knows Paul well is shocked, because it's long been noted to have an extremely unusual writing style for him and has nothing to do with anything else in the letter. This is the only place that I think legitimately speaks of homosexuality, and even still not in prohibition, but treating it more as a punishment meant to shame and embarass those afflicted. And it comes from an extremely dubious source, probably someone from the Catholic Church.

Thank you, I wasn't aware of this and I'll look into it. However, the subject is whether or not the Bible condones homosexuality. We can't dynamically pick passages which are and aren't legitimate. If the Bible is taken as scripture, then generally the whole of Romans is seen as inspired by the Holy Spirit regardless of the actual author of specific passages, and it's all authoritative. If it's taken simply as a document, then the fact remains that this passage is included in every single edition of the Bible and is therefore part of it; the author is equally irrelevant. It's the same with the Timothy passage I've mentioned: it doesn't matter that Paul didn't author it. But 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is, as far as I know, actually by Paul.

And let's look more closely at Leviticus 18:22, because I'm contending your initial premise too. How are you inferring that lying "a woman's lying" refers to anal sex? There's nothing particularly feminine about it, as one can partake in anal sex with people of either sex. Vaginal sex is the only type of sex that is properly called "a woman's lying". The phrase is clearly a euphemism, a technique that the Tanakh employs constantly. The distinction is important, because this means that it doesn't prohibit anal sex between a man and a woman. It's specifically the fact that a man takes on a feminine role in sexual relationships which is seen as offensive. You can argue that the scope is limited to anal sex because it says "lying", but if femininity is what offends, then that's equally applicable to oral sex between men. This would be in accord with the views held by people during Antiquity in general, so it's logical to conclude that this is an expression of those views. Can you name a single people from Antiquity that tolerated homosexual acts based on which specific act it was? It's only selectively tolerated in some cultures based on the age of the receptive partner, which confirms emphasis on gender roles. (Adolescent boys and younger were seen as not yet having developed their masculinity, and that's why it was condoned for them to be a receptive partner.)

(By the way, not Conspiracy, but whatever.)

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I doesn't have to be an identity for it to exist. No sexuality was soneone's whole identity until snowflakes needed something to make themselves special. Nor does it matter what society said, because they also killed the prophets.

Since the rapists were after both men and women in confirms they probably weren't even gay. This is guilt by association which is extremely foolish.

No, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 does not have "homosexuals" in it. Your English Bible probably does, but the original Greek has a word with a forgotten meaning...and one which some writers complained about men committing with their wives. There are actually two words, and the other can just as easily mean generally immoral or lazy.

The Bible was given to us by the Catholic Church and is not preserved or guaranteed to be divinely inspired. It iself says so (Jeremiah 8:8).

You close with an argument about gender roles. However, just like today not everyone agreed whether they should exist or not. That's why you end up with it saying two different things. Early Christians leaned toward abolishing thrm despite what your pastor will probably tell you. You mention how the only to lie "as a woman" was through sex in the vagina. Since men don't have a vagina, when they lie as a woman it is through their anus. That's the distinction. It's less likely that someone would've thought of having anal sex in a heterosexual relationship, and perhaps they did and that part of the text was lost.

That it is a euphemism does not make its meaning completely change. It's a euphemism for anal. Otherwise it would speak of "lying fleshly with a male" just like all the other prohibitions in that chapter. It specifically prohibits lying as a woman when you're with a man. Nor does it mention lesbians, for whom this isn't a problem. It's not because it's "feminine", it's because ejaculating into the anus has obvious health complications and spreads disease, which they had no treatment for back then.

[–]LarrySwinger2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sorry, but I feel like we're talking past each other. I recommend you read this article that addresses the matter, that's all I can do at this point.

they also killed the prophets

Which prophets did they kill beside Jesus and Muhammed?

Since the rapists were after both men and women in confirms they probably weren't even gay.

They had a clear preference to rape a man in both cases.

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That article does not address any of my points, and is either wrong or lying in many places. For example it claims lesbians aren't mentioned because it's sexist, and every act is from the male initiator point of view. Clearly this person has not read the one on zoophilia, which specifically says that a woman should not lie down to be fucked by a beast.

As always the only legitimate one is Romans 1:26-27. But check out Against Marcion to see how much of Romans 1:18-32 he had (hint: only the first verse), and while you do that consider that it contains an abundance of language completely unlike Paul's.

Most of the rest of the article has nothing to do with condemnation, but merely disproves stupid woke arguments for every single good character being gay. That proves nothing but neutrality, the most logical position for this matter. If you cannot see this you are subscribing to the foolish modern notion that everyone must be explicitly for or against every single culture war issue, and that disavowing culture wars and identity politics is impossible.