Biblical Pronouncements on Homosexuality and Related Topics

[Cerin]

Shirriff Note: this thread continues a discussion that began in the announcement thread regarding new protocols for the Tol Eressëa forum. The discussion in that thread began here:
http://www.thehalloffire.net/forum/view ... 2867#22867
and runs through Cerin's post on page 5 announcing a new thread. Jn
_______________________________________________________

1. I find the view in question disingenuous.

I would say that the idea that one can love a person while hating the sin they commit or practice is fundamental to (my view of) Christianity. So to say that you find this view disingenuous is, I think, to say that you view the fundamental premise of (my brand of) Christianity to be disingenuous?

This is the model that a Christian believes God has shown us; this is the paradigm represented by God loving us while we are yet sinners; this is the paradigm represented by Christ dying for mankind while we were yet sinners. God does loves us (speaking my belief); God does hate our sin.

2. It is my personal belief that history will find the view in question disingenuous - just as, for instance, history now finds the assertion, "Interracial marriages are immoral" not to be a valid/acceptable/nonbigoted/nonhateful religious belief.

yov picked up on the point that struck me here as well.

'Hate the sin, love the sinner' is the Christian model.

The reason it doesn't apply to the interracial marriage example is because there is no scripture (that I know of) that states that interracial marriage is a sin.

Now if we remove the 'hate the sin, love the sinner' perspective from the mix for the moment, I think I understand that you are saying that just as it became accepted that there was nothing morally wrong in interracial marriage, it will become accepted that there is nothing morally wrong with homosexual relationships. The difference, again, is that the scripture admonishing against homosexual activity isn't going to go away, whereas there wasn't (as far as I know) scripture underlying the opposition to interracial marriage. So there is that different factor at play with respect to the homosexual question.

A religious white person in the early 1960s might have stated in all sincerity, "I don't hate people who choose to act on their attraction to members of different races. However, I sincerely believe that God initially placed the races on different continents for a reason, and I believe that they were not meant to intermingle. For this reason, I believe that these people are making an immoral choice, which I hate and view as evil. Indeed, they are doing something that I believe is unnatural - that goes against God's very design for humanity. But still, I feel only the utmost love towards the people involved."

This above person has no biblical grounds for their belief. A belief that isn't based in the Bible is an invalid belief in my book. This person (from my perspective) has no ground to stand on.

In 2006, it's likely that we're all united in thinking two things about such a belief:

1. That's not an acceptable belief, and reformulating it as a "religious" belief does NOT make it any the more acceptable.
2. It has hate-based antecedents. It's racist.

My version:

1. That's not an acceptable belief because it is not supported by scripture.

Guess how I think people are going to view "religious beliefs" that condemn loving, committed homosexual relationships that include physical intimacy as "evil", "immoral", or "sinful" in 2056.

My guess is that people who believe the Bible is God's Word will continue to view homosexual acts as sinful, because there are Bible verses in the accepted translations that say they are.

Well, yes. But, where these people view heterosexual intimacy as something to be celebrated within marriage, at least, they view homosexual intimacy as something to be condemned at all times. That's not an insignificant difference. The woman who is having premarital sex with her boyfriend can choose to transform her relationship into something that these people view as celebration-worthy via marriage and its accompanying commitment. But the woman who is having sex with her girlfriend cannot make any commitment to her girlfriend, in these people's eyes, that validates and legitimizes a physical expression of their love.

Yes, I believe that is correct.

At least to say that these people hate homosexual relationships does not seem to me to be stretching too far. It's not merely "an act" they are condemning, but, again, they are condemning and delegitimizing the most important relationship in a homosexual's life.

As I understand it (that is, speaking from my understanding as a Christian -- I know there are other understandings out there), it is merely the act of engaging in sexual activity that is considered sinful. I don't believe the feelings are considered sinful, I don't believe the orientation is considered sinful, I don't believe a loving commitment to the welfare of another person is considered sinful.

Or as a gay pastor said to me once (paraphrasing), 'I'm not responsible for being gay, but I am responsible for choosing how to deal with it.' He chose to live a celibate life; I believe it was very painful for him. It does seem like a very hard and unfair burden.

To me that seems to be a clear, potent manifestation of hate - one which I understand, as I contended with religion-based homophobia myself even before I had occasion to question my own sexuality.

I guess we'll just have to disagree about that. (I'm not saying there aren't Christians who hate gays, but that believing homosexual activity to be sinful doesn't necessarily mean one hates gays.)

So if you believe (and I honestly don't even know whether or not you do) that a gay person on this board is a sinner BECAUSE she or he is a practicing homosexual, then that is a different, more targeted assertion than to say that we are all sinners.

I can't see any way around believing that engaging in homosexual activity is a sin, and also that engaging in heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage is a sin. What it means to me, is that it isn't in our best interests to engage in these activities, anymore than it is in our best interests to engage in any activity that the Bible indicates is sinful. This leads me to conclude that our understanding of love is incomplete.

So yes, it is a targeted assertion because we're talking about this subject, just as it would be a targeted assertion if we were talking about our tendency to lose our temper, but it isn't a differentiating assertion. It is no different in the sight of God (speaking my belief) that you sin in one way and I sin in another.

[yovargas]

Jumps ahead of the game...

It is my personal belief that history will find the view [that homosexuality is sinful] disingenuous - just as, for instance, history now finds the assertion, "Interracial marriages are immoral" not to be a valid/acceptable/nonbigoted/nonhateful religious belief.

There is a very important difference between these two things, IMO. To be supported by Christian views, the bible had to be thoroughly twisted to meet their pre-existing prejudices. They were prejudiced and forced the bible into supporting them. This is not necessarily the case with homosexuality - no prejudices, twisting, or forcing are required to read the bible and conclude that homosexuality is a sin. IMO, more twisting and forcing is required to make homosexuality not a sin per the Bible.

[Teremia]

Should we speak of "what the Bible says" as if the Bible spoke with one united voice? Because surely one finds many different things said at various points in the Bible. As I recall, Jesus is nicer than Paul, and neither one of them is as bloodthirsty as God in the old books of the Bible, where cities seem always to be being razed to the ground.

Forgive my lack of scholarship if I'm wrong, but (in the spirit of loopholism) am I right that even the Old Testament says nothing about sex between women?

It is not the Bible that religions are following when they condemn homosexuality, it is those religions' own set of cultural beliefs for which they (picking and choosing) decide to cite Biblical evidence. Certainly there are many laws and admonitions in the Bible that even very conservative proponents of Biblical Law do not follow.

"Picking and choosing" is necessary when confronted with such a vast, complicated, and variegated text as the Bible. Certainly a feminist pacifist can also find things to cite in the Bible that would support HER views! (There are passages I greatly love.) I just so often feel that human quarrels are being conducted AS IF in God's name ("God says X"; "God wants Y" -- just like "My father's bigger than your father"!), and perhaps they should not be.

Nerdanel's analysis in the other thread very much reflected my concerns and hopes.

[yovargas]

That viewpoint reads to me like saying that the Bible says nothing or anything, neither of which I think are true.

[JewelSong]

Everything in the Bible must be taken in context and with an eye to a correct translation. It is unproductive (and often false!) to simply pull a phrase or sentence out of the Bible and wave it around by itself.

The few statements about same-sex relationships in the Bible all had to do with men and the need to build a community.

In the Old Testament, procreation was everything. The newly-named Children of Israel were a small tribe. They needed every sperm they could get. (Back then, women were considered merely the vessel.) If one spilled one's seed on the ground, or deposited it into a non-productive vessel, that was not helping the tribe grow. The Old Testament scriptures against men having sex with men are found in the book of Leviticus, which was a book of very specific laws - rules and regs, as it were, for the Hebrews. Read it sometime, if you haven't done so. Read the entire thing. The rules are so specific, one would think that God's chosen children must have been a bit dim. (Maybe they were...!) Almost none of these rules are followed today, with the possible exception of Hassidic Jews.

Paul's prohibitions against men having sex with men are a little more complex, but still, they had less to do with "morality" and more to do with him trying to make the newly-forming Christian community of simple and ignorant fisherman into something respectable. He was doing this by discouraging all forms of passion, desire, pleasure...which in his mind, would only lead to depravity. Obviously, a man must have sex with his wife to produce offspring. But any other kind of sex did not produce anything, and so should be discouraged, so as not to distract one from God. (I have MAJOR issues with Paul, by the way!)

Anyway, HERE is quite a good synopsis of what I have so clumsily tried to say. At the end of the article, there is this, which I like very much:

The New Testament was written in Greek. At the time, Hebrew, Greek, and the translation between them used the term eunuch two ways: literally, meaning the castrated; and symbolically, meaning those who do not marry and/or bear children.

Jesus was the first to recognize sexual outcasts as worthy of God's kingdom. He and his disciples were discussing marriage and divorce in Matthew 19:12 when he said: "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

This quote from Matthew is the closest biblical reference we have to our current understanding that homosexuality is a psychological identity, rather than just physical acts. For Christ to have known this in biblical times is a testament to his inspired understanding.

NOTE: Jesus never spoke specifically of homosexual acts or relations. Scholars consider this quote one example of the New Testament use of eunuch to mean all sexual outcasts.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

Regardless of whether people pick and choose from the bible what suits their view best, it isn't the same as the bible not saying one thing or another.

It is not the Bible that religions are following when they condemn homosexuality, it is those religions' own set of cultural beliefs for which they (picking and choosing) decide to cite Biblical evidence. Certainly there are many laws and admonitions in the Bible that even very conservative proponents of Biblical Law do not follow.

1 Corinthians 6:9 (Whole Chapter)
Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,

I also know for a fact that leviticus condemns a man who lays with another man, but I have yet to find that passage.

[The Watcher]

Jewel beat me to it!!

There are two specific passages in the NT which are often cited as specific condemnations against homosexuality. The first is in Romans 1:26-27, the second is in I Corinthians 6:9. Both of these passages are from the Letters of Paul.

I also have huge issues with Paul. He obviously was not among the disciples, but indeed was converted after the fact when he saw Christ risen come before him. Prior to Paul's conversion, he was most vehemently ANTI-christian, and was a most devout and extremely orthodox Jew. As Paul was corresponding with the various early communities of Christians, bear in mind that the Gospels per se were not even in written form as far as we know. Thus, Paul is citing back to OT practices in his preachings, NOT necessarily the words of Christ. It is Paul's interpretations of the rabbinic law of the priesthood at the time, the Torah, AND Christ's message. And, in my own opinion, Paul often got it wrong. Paul was very much concerned with orthodoxy, his own little personal spin on things. (edit here to add that I am not singling out Judaism for anything here, just pointing out where Paul's background itself came from. There were MANY many sects of Judaism at this time, Paul just happened to have been one of the adherants to one of the more stringent ones.)

in addition, in many of the more liberal Christian denominations, it is taught that the Bible is not the infallable word of God, but God's word conveyed to men chosen as God's messengers. Thus, not everything is taken literally, but more metaphorically and illustratively in many instances. In any case, the faith I was raised in, the UCC (an outgrowth of Congregationalism) was ordaining gay ministers and recognizing gay unions back as early as the 1980's.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

Whether paul got things wrong or not, his letters have become a part of the bible. I only quoted paul to counter the claim that the bible doesn't say anything, but only the follower's own cultural views are to blame.

The bible was written by many, but it has become a complete book in its own right. There's a reason why it's all together rather than in 40-something separate books.

[The Watcher]

Whether paul got things wrong or not, his letters have become a part of the bible. I only quoted paul to counter the claim that the bible doesn't say anything, but only the follower's own cultural views are to blame.

The bible was written by many, but it has become a complete book in its own right. There's a reason why it's all together rather than in 40-something separate books.

TED

I think I am missing your point. Why should Paul's beliefs be considered infallable words from God? I know your own beliefs, so the question is somewhat rhetorical, but I guess this is more so addressed to those who DO see literal truth in the Bible, and how that position is reconciled, knowing what we do of Paul himself. I may be wrong, but I have never seen it stated or asserted that Paul himself is someone who carries the same conviction of absolute inerrancy that obviously Christ would have had. Nowhere in these passages is Paul claiming to quote Christ. Indeed, where Paul does cite things, it goes back to OT sources, and barely mentions Christ's own words at all. Given Paul's background, I indeed would be surprised to find that he would be overly tolerant of much of anything, and true to form, he is not.

[JewelSong]

As I said before, quoting the Bible can be a tricky business. Anyone can pull a quote from anywhere - but unless you have put it into context, it can be meaningless.

Here's the complete quote from Paul, (I Corinthians 6) that TED cited above:

9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

12 "Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"--but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." 17 But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

The point is, as the Watcher pointed out, Paul didn't much tolerate anything. Especially anything to do with....*gasp*...SEX! In another letter, he tries to convince everyone to stay celibate, but grudgingly says that it's better to be married than to burn. (And I don't think he means "burn in hell" I think he means "burn with desire.") Paul believed that desire itself was sinful.

On the other hand, the Corinthians were a rowdy bunch, given to wild parties and debauchery, having sex with everyone and their table lamp. It's no wonder Paul was tearing his hair out, trying to make them act respectable.

The homosexual acts described here have nothing to do with two loving committed people. They have to do with depraved, wanton behavior. Which, apparently, the Corinthians were really, really good at!

[The Watcher]

Those Corinthians, they just had to go and spoil it all for the rest of us.....



Seriously, Jewel has it correct in terms of how I at least was taught. Paul also did not have overly kind things to say about women, even though it is known that there were many women deacons and , gasp, even women preaching in the name of Christ at the time. Paul communicated with a few of them.

I often have thought myself how different things might have been for Christianity overall WITHOUT Paul. Leave everything else in, and you get so much of a different message. Also, bear in mind the times Paul was dealing with - Christians were small little enclaves in the midst of the Roman empire and all of the practices that the Romans and Greeks were known for. Poor Paul indeed must have been tearing his hair out, given his own background.

[Jnyusa]

The passage in Leviticus is 18:21 (in my translation by the Jewish Publication Society)

"And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to set them apart to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination."

The next paragraph forbids bestiality to both men and women. But the paragraph above is associated with Molech sacrifices, not with the several other lengthy passages concerning legitimate sexual relations, which is where you might expect to find it. Therein lies a small dilemma about what the Bible is really saying about homosexuality.

There are also passages in Deuteronomy (I think, or possibly Numbers) that forbid two men alone from sharing a booth (temporary living quarters) and forbid one man from living alone when they migrate out to their winter pastures.

It has been suggested (and I find it quite plausible) that these laws, like the most sweeping kashrut laws, did not have to do with sexuality (or food) but had to do with avoiding interaction with the other tribes that lived in the area. Iirc, ritual prostitution, both homo and hetero, was practiced in the region. One man living alone or two men living together out in the wilderness for months at a time would get lonely! They might be drawn to the company of foreign tribes, end up worshipping with them, forming intimate relations with them and perhaps then not returning home to their own people with their flocks.

The sentences that forbid homosexuality always appear in this context of not adopting the practices of other tribes or cohabiting with them, as do the kashrut laws forbidding the mixing of milk and meat. It has been suggested that these laws were established to keep the Jews moving in large groups together during migration, unable to accept food from other Peoples and unable to participate in the social life of others so that they would not end up assimilated and ultimately disseminated among the other Peoples of the region.

It has to be understood that in such a case the law would have to be interpreted as protecting against the dissipation of property and not as protecting sexuality per se.

Leviticus is almost wholly about distribution of property and wealth - who you may marry, how you inherit, protection of the poor, support of the administrative class, etc. (And it is also about prevention of epidemic disease, which gives us added reason to believe that a lot of the laws were aimed at limiting contact between the Jews and the other tribes.) You could not sleep with your brother's wife while your brother was alive, but it he died childless you were required to sleep with his wife until she bore a son, and it was then considered your brother's son. This is not a law about incest, you see, it is a codicil to the inheritance law.

It should come as no surprise that laws governing sexuality are very often property laws in disguise.

I will raise one question about Jewel's post, because it seems obvious to us that early Peoples living a tenuous existence would be concerned to keep their population numbers up. But the opposite argument can also be made, that they had a vested in interest in keeping their population numbers low because the land they were living on was so marginal. Islam has elaborate laws about the number of wives a man may support and how long a woman should nurse a child .... and Judaism has laws about when and how often a man should have sex with his wife ... these laws point as much toward an avoidance of overpopulation as they do towards population maintenance. Probably the people of those days considered it a very fragile balance.

Most of the sabbath laws have to do with the use of fire, i.e. not using it! This is undoubtedly related to resource conservation, as wood was (and is) a scarce resource in the south of Canaan and especially in the Negev where the early Jews seem to have wintered. Conservation, population control, and distributive fairness to keep peace among the Hebrew tribes themselves were all critical to survival. It is likely that every single law had in one way or another to do with these issues specifically. Taken in context, they do not translate literally to the modern world where the nature of our most critical problems is somewhat different.

It is my whimsical speculation that if the bible were being written today with the same intent that it was written 6000 years ago, homosexuality would be honored. It is no longer the gateway to assimilation and constitutes a very effective population control mechanism. Gas-guzzling cars would be the "abomination" and no Jew would be permitted to drive one.

Jn

[yovargas]

I hope I haven't derailed Cerin's intended thread before she even started it...

Read the entire thing.

And what does the entire thing say about sex? It seems very very clear on the point that sex is ONLY okay within marriage. I also makes it quite clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. Even without the NT denunciations, which have questions of interpretation, the Bible's attitude towards sex as a whole makes it clear what they'd think of gay sex.

I think I am missing your point. Why should Paul's beliefs be considered infallable words from God?

This isn't about whether Paul or the bible or anybody else is right. I was addressing tp's statement that religious-supported anti-gay beliefs are similar to religious-supported anti-interracial marriage beliefs. I disagree wholeheartedly because the Bible's views on sex are there whether one holds those prejudices or not, whereas the anti-interracial marriage is only there if you want it to be.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

TW, was paul speaking for god? I don't know. Was paul reiterating the teachings of christ? Not necessarily. Are paul's words considered the words of god? I'd imagine most christians would say yes, if they agree with the idea that the bible is the word of god. If each book of the bible is to be taken alone and as only speaking for itself, it seems to me difficult to gather much from the bible.

(What's my overall point? I'm not exactly sure... this is almost stream of consciousness and not to be taken as some scholarly endeavor by myself.)

The homosexual acts described here have nothing to do with two loving committed people. They have to do with depraved, wanton behavior. Which, apparently, the Corinthians were really, really good at!

What makes you say that? I reread the passages you posted and I can't find that interpretation implicitly stated.

That's interesting about the tribal loyalty, Jn. I never knew that stuff.

[Jnyusa]

It seems very very clear on the point that sex is ONLY okay within marriage.

Yov, Jewish law does not interpret the bible this way. There are a number of sexual relations which are condoned but do not fit that description:
• you are permitted to rape a captive or slave once
• children born of premarital sexual unions are considered legitimate
• if you're a man, you are required to impregnate your brother's widow

There is no law which technically prohibits the molestation of children.

(I interpret the significance of that omission to be that child molestation was rare. Jettisoning the elderly - those too old to work - was probably more common, hence a law against the latter but not the former.)

Jn

[The Watcher]

I hope I haven't derailed Cerin's intended thread before she even started it...

Read the entire thing.

And what does the entire thing say about sex? It seems very very clear on the point that sex is ONLY okay within marriage. I also makes it quite clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. Even without the NT denunciations, which have questions of interpretation, the Bible's attitude towards sex as a whole makes it clear what they'd think of gay sex.

I think I am missing your point. Why should Paul's beliefs be considered infallable words from God?

This isn't about whether Paul or the bible or anybody else is right. I was addressing tp's statement that religious-supported anti-gay beliefs are similar to religious-supported anti-interracial marriage beliefs. I disagree wholeheartedly because the Bible's views on sex are there whether one holds those prejudices or not, whereas the anti-interracial marriage is only there if you want it to be.

See, and I am not trying to be difficult, I think you answered your own question.

The OT clearly had issues with possible homosexual behaviors. One can read them literally, although even most Jewish sects do not do so, except for the most orthodox, and I have often heard explanations such as those Jny provided. The Israelites were a relatively small nomadic people, surrounded on all sides by groups that differed radically in their religious, social, and ethical beliefs. There was a sense of needing to preserve their own identity and prevent outside contact to a large extent.

In any case, if you subscribe to Christian beliefs, Christ was sent to allow for salvation, and now it no longer mattered if you were a Jew or a Gentile, it did not matter if you were a sinner, Christ himself provided that "he was the way." MInd you, I am not one that subscribes to that the meaning that Christ alone by dying and resurrecting atoned for all of our sins, in fact, Christ never makes that claim at all. Only his latter followers claim this. Christ himself offers following his path as the way of love, and a way out of sin and despair, and then being able to find God. Christ himself never condemns homosexuals, prostitutes, the mentally ill (those with demons) or other social pariahs of the time. He loves them, and he wants them to find comfort.

In my (granted limited) understanding, even those who believe in a most fundamental interpretation of the Bible insist that what once held in the OT pretty much was done away with once Christ came to the world and provided for salvation. Thus, what is stated in the OT condemning certain practices no longer would matter to a large degree. Going one step further, since only Paul condemns what he considers deviant sexual practices, along with all sorts of other lewd, lascivious, and wanton behaviors, how does this attribute back to Christ directly? Christ himself never condemns homosexuality, nor does he state the terms of what is considered a valid marriage before the eyes of God, nor does he state in what terms people can live with each other and not be found sinful.

As far as further interpretations that evolved since then, those are not biblical at all in interpretation, such as the decree that priests could only be men, that priests should not marry, etc. etc.

I am most confused by your stance, as in, I do not understand what your stance is. Are you stating because Paul's opinions in his letters to the early churches were admitted into the bible, that his opinions alone now are to be followed literally? Where is that laid down? I NEVER was taught that in my Christian upbringing. I am most puzzled.

[MithLuin]

I agree that just pulling quotes out of the Bible does not make for a consistent philosophy of life (any more than pulling quotes out of LotR does ).

TED, check out Leviticus 17. I discovered that chapter of the Bible when I decided to read it cover-to-cover at the age of...11, I think. I got bored and quit in Deuteronomy. But at any rate, yes, it is a list of very specific sexual rules, addressed to men. Among the taboos? Other men, your grandmother, your daughter, and animals. I definately remember thinking, "nobody really needed to be told this....did they?" But then, I was 11, and didn't see what the big deal about sex was, anyway .

As Jewel suggested, read this in context with the rest of Leviticus. We don't follow all those other rules....so why did we keep the sex-taboos?

We did, though. Keep them, I mean. That was one of the things they decided on at the Council of Jerusalem. Most of the old law (including the covenant of circumcision) was done away with for non-Jewish converts. But fornication and adultery were specifically mentioned as still not okay (see Acts 21:25).

Again, why? I'll get back to that... But first, St. Paul.

Please don't think Paul missed the point, though:

The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Romans 13:9

I agree with Jewel - his strong words were aimed at the completely inappropriate behaviour of the Corinthians....it was a port town, if that explains anything. Worse, they got the idea that Christianity meant "no rules any more! God forgives all sins! Party-time!" Which wasn't quite in line with making efforts to live a holy life.... So they needed a stern talking to .

Keep in mind that many of the converts to Christianity were women, and that the decisions Paul was making regarding marriage and celibacy reflected (in part) the reality of Roman culture. Christian husbands were not always available.


Taking these passages in context, however, does not mean that one can't develop a very thoughtful, insightful philosophy of human life and sexuality that is founded on and inspired by the Gospels (or the Bible). In fact, this has been done. Several times .

A snippet:

Chastity is the joyous affirmation of someone who knows how to live self-giving, free from any form of self-centred slavery. This presupposes that the person has learnt how to accept other people, to relate with them, while respecting their dignity in diversity. The chaste person is not self-centred, not involved in selfish relationships with other people. Chastity makes the personality harmonious. It matures it and fills it with inner peace. This purity of mind and body helps develop true self-respect and at the same time makes one capable of respecting others, because it makes one see in them persons to reverence, insofar as they are created in the image of God and through grace are children of God, re-created by Christ who "called you out of darkness into his marvellous light" (1 Peter 2:9). The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality
(Note: chastity here applies to all people, married or unmarried.)

As you can see, the idea is based on ideals found in the Bible, it is informed by Biblical teaching...but it is not itself an amalgamation of Bible-quotes.

So, why did the early Christians keep the OT sexual taboos? Why did they establish more rigorous rules about marriage and sexuality than had been in place prior to Christianity? Because....they understood that something about Jesus' teaching made this important. Sex wasn't a sidenote, a triviality - it was the mystery, to explain other mysteries. St. Paul used the love between husband and wife as an analogy for Christ's love for the Church. During the Middle Ages, the monks loved the Song of Songs - obviously a wedding-night poem, they took it as the analogy of the relationship between the soul and God. This analogy wasn't original, of course - in the OT, God frequently referred to his covenant with the Jewish people as a marriage relationship. When they strayed and worshipped other gods, they weren't just committing idolatry - it was adultery. (see poor Hosea)

It is certainly possible to come up with a system that accepts same-sex unions as not sinful....but it would be mistaken to assume that the systems of morality in place that currently condemn such unions will crumble merely because society moves in a direction that accepts them. The Church has been vigorously fighting society's concepts of sex for the past 2000 years, and has no intention of giving up . But this is a very good thing, because it makes the Church articulate her views more meaningfully and more coherently. It is not a list of thou shall not's any longer - it is an explanation of how things work.

Edit: dinner break

So, what did Jesus teach about sex and marriage, anyway? (He said a lot about love - reams and reams - so I'm treating that separately).

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." Matthew 19:3-11; Mark 10:2-12 is similar (ie, nearly identical).

The disciples are great They understand immediately that what Jesus has just said is a lightning bolt, something shocking and difficult...and if that's the standard, it's safer not to try . Jesus acknowledges that marriage isn't for everyone, but does not back down on what he has said. He doesn't say, nah, I was just kidding, marriage isn't really that serious....

So, among other things, Jesus takes marriage very seriously. He says that the Mosaic Law is compromised, and that the fundamental truth about marriage goes deeper than that. He goes back to Genesis.

Later on in this chapter, after making the statement about it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven, it says: "Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." If he's going to set the standards high, he's also going to offer the help to get there. He isn't going to demand things beyond our strength.

More along the "I'm being more rigorous than the Mosaic Law" line is found in Matthew 5 (the chapter with the Beatitudes):

You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 5: 27-32

He likewise puts restrictions on oaths, murder and treatment of enemies that are much more restrictive (ie, call your brother a fool and merit hellfire). He is not recommending mutilation, but rather stressing the importance of dealing with these issues. Cardinal Arinze once said "read your Bible 15 min. every day. If you do not have a Bible, sell your shoes and buy one." The message is clear - shoes may be important, but this is moreso. Your eyes may be important, but what Jesus is talking about is even more important. He values it greatly....because it is goodness.

He also (as has been pointed out already) does not condemn. He is quite compassionate to the Samaritan woman who had five husbands (and was now living with a man). He made her the messenger of good news to her whole village, and offered her living water. (see John 4:7-42) Ang recently quoted this passage on another thread:

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." John 8:3-11

At no point does Jesus suggest that what the woman did was okay or acceptable....but he does not condemn the woman, and he does not allow others to do so. He is not passive in his defence of her! Rather than punish her, he would like to give her the opportunity to live a new life. Tradition has often identified this woman with Mary of Magdala, though there is no basis for that. I like one aspect of that identity - it lets us know what happened to her afterwards! So many people in the gospels wander in and out, and we never hear the rest of their stories. To know that this woman bravely followed Jesus to the cross, and was the 'apostle to the apostles' would be a great 'rest of the story'...even if it is just fan-fiction .

Oh, right, marriage...

Jesus chose to perform his first miracle at a wedding feast (John 2). He used the image of a bridegroom and a wedding feast in explaining the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 25:1-13; 22:2-12). He referred to himself as the 'bridegroom' and his disciples as the 'guests' directly in Matthew 9:15 [Mark 2:19-20; Luke 5:34-35]. John the Baptist refers to Christ as the bridegroom and himself as the friend (ie, guest), but in analogy (John 3:28-30). The book of Revelation takes up this imagery of Christ as the bridegroom and the Church as the bride (for instance, Rev 21:9-10, Rev 22:17). What does all this mean? Most likely, it means that there is a spiritual reality that is best understood by analogy to marriage - the joy of that union is like (and yet very different from) the joy of union with God. No, not something so crass as "God wants to have sex with you" (sorry, I've heard it put that way, and that is just, well....wrong). But the choice of that imagery is not arbitrary or accidental...there is a mystery there. And it isn't just the joy of sex that I am referring to - it is all of marriage. Jesus made a point of doing away with the legalisms and technicalities to get back to the heart of the matter - what marriage was meant to be. And he goes all the way back to Adam and Eve to explain it.

The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.
So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
The man said,

• "This is now bone of my bones,
  And flesh of my flesh;
  She shall be called Woman,
  Because she was taken out of Man."

For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

What is happening there? If we could understand that, I think we would get it.

What do I see there? I see Adam restless and longing...but he doesn't know what for. He sees a lot of wonderful things in the world, but he is still incomplete, not fulfilled. Then...he finds what truly completes him, and it is who, not what. He recognizes their kinship (ie, both human), but also recognizes that she is part of him. (He was asleep during the operation, so presumably ignorant that his words mirror the literal story as well ) They are joined, so that the two become one...I have no idea how or why that should happen, or how two people can be joined as one and yet distinct as two. And yet...it whispers to me of what I do not understand about God being one and yet three persons. And she is his wife, they know each other fully, are naked before each other - and there is no shame. Why? Is it because they have nothing to be afraid of? Because they trust one another fully? Do they just like their naked-time? Do they even understand that they are naked? I haven't got that one figured out either, but I think a relationship with no shame in it is very intriguing. There is something there.

I've said way too much. I am sorry. I just....I can't say just a little on this topic - it's too big!

[JewelSong]

And what does the entire thing say about sex? It seems very very clear on the point that sex is ONLY okay within marriage. I also makes it quite clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Actually, it is quite clear that sex is meant ONLY for procreation. Anything else is superfluous.

And marriage is a man and women. And his wive's servants were considered an extension of the wife, so if the wife couldn't bear children (or, one might assume, had a headache on "her" night) the man was free to go in to the servant woman. In the story of Rachel and Leah, Rachel got all ticked off that she couldn't have kids and Leah just seemed to pop them out with no trouble. So she gave her maidservant to Jacob so she (Rachel) could have children, too. Not to be undone, Leah gave her maidsevant to Jacob, too. So Jacob had two wives and two maidservants to please. All this was presumably condoned and even encouraged by law.

It all had to do with sowing your seed. THAT was everything...in fact, the word "testament" has the same root as "testicle." When Abraham has his servant place his hand under his thigh to swear, he is swearing by his testicles - by his future progeny. (Yes, my father told me that, too. My father knew many things! )

The whole story of Jacob and his wives and all those trials and tribulations is a great story, by the way. It has everything - deception, jealousy, cunning, a nasty father-in-law, a sly son-in-law and two sisters who just couldn't get along, but nevertheless, bore the forefathers of the 12 tribes of Israel. The book "The Red Tent" touches on some of it (although it is more a story of Dinah, the one daughter of Jacob mentioned in the Bible.)

Genesis 30:
1 When Rachel saw that she was not bearing Jacob any children, she became jealous of her sister. So she said to Jacob, "Give me children, or I'll die!" 2 Jacob became angry with her and said, "Am I in the place of God, who has kept you from having children?" 3 Then she said, "Here is Bilhah, my maidservant. Sleep with her so that she can bear children for me and that through her I too can build a family." 4 So she gave him her servant Bilhah as a wife. Jacob slept with her, 5 and she became pregnant and bore him a son. 6 Then Rachel said, "God has vindicated me; he has listened to my plea and given me a son." Because of this she named him Dan. 7 Rachel's servant Bilhah conceived again and bore Jacob a second son. 8 Then Rachel said, "I have had a great struggle with my sister, and I have won." So she named him Naphtali. 9 When Leah saw that she had stopped having children, she took her maidservant Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as a wife. 10 Leah's servant Zilpah bore Jacob a son. 11 Then Leah said, "What good fortune!" So she named him Gad. 12 Leah's servant Zilpah bore Jacob a second son. 13 Then Leah said, "How happy I am! The women will call me happy." So she named him Asher.

14 During wheat harvest, Reuben went out into the fields and found some mandrake plants, which he brought to his mother Leah. Rachel said to Leah, "Please give me some of your son's mandrakes." 15 But she said to her, "Wasn't it enough that you took away my husband? Will you take my son's mandrakes too?" "Very well," Rachel said, "he can sleep with you tonight in return for your son's mandrakes." 16 So when Jacob came in from the fields that evening, Leah went out to meet him. "You must sleep with me," she said. "I have hired you with my son's mandrakes." So he slept with her that night. 17 God listened to Leah, and she became pregnant and bore Jacob a fifth son. 18 Then Leah said, "God has rewarded me for giving my maidservant to my husband." So she named him Issachar. 19 Leah conceived again and bore Jacob a sixth son. 20 Then Leah said, "God has presented me with a precious gift. This time my husband will treat me with honor, because I have borne him six sons." So she named him Zebulun. 21 Some time later she gave birth to a daughter and named her Dinah. 22 Then God remembered Rachel; he listened to her and opened her womb. 23 She became pregnant and gave birth to a son and said, "God has taken away my disgrace." 24 She named him Joseph, and said, "May the Lord add to me another son."

[Cerin]

I've only had time for a quick read through. I have no desired outcome for this thread, just that it follow whatever course it finds and everyone feel welcome to participate.

Actually, it is quite clear that sex is meant ONLY for procreation. Anything else is superfluous.

Do you have any verses to support this idea, Jewel? Because I have never encountered it before, and what I know of the Bible doesn't support it. I agree that the New Testament indicates that sex is appropriate only within marriage, but I don't see anything that indicates it is to be engaged in for procreative purposes only.

[JewelSong]

]Actually, it is quite clear that sex is meant ONLY for procreation. Anything else is superfluous.

Do you have any verses to support this idea, Jewel? Because I have never encountered it before, and what I know of the Bible doesn't support it.

I was speaking specifically of the Old Testament verses that we were discussing, Cerin. I haven't really delved into the New Testament sexy bits. But the peoples of the OT were primarily concerned with propagation and keeping the different tribes "pure," as Jny said.

Jesus preached faithfulness to one's spouse(s) as far as I recall. However, Paul preached no sex at all unless you absolutely couldn't help it. In that case, better get married. (And I can almost hear him grumbling about that as he wrote it!)