What Does the New Testament Say about Homosexuality?

How effective are Christian apologetics?There are two primary places in the New Testament where homosexuality is a condemned practice.

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9–10).

We’ve been here before.

The early Christians weren’t Christian.  They were Jews, and they followed the Scripture (what we call the Old Testament).  As I noted in the last post on this subject, Leviticus categorizes homosexuality as a ritual abomination—that is, something that’s bad by definition, not by its nature.  Leviticus puts gay sex in the same category as eating a ham sandwich or sowing a field with two different crops.

Christians have rejected all of the Old Testament’s ritual abominations (animal sacrifices, kosher laws, and so on), and they can’t now come back to retrieve a few that they’re nostalgic for.

We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine (1 Tim. 1:9–10).

Ritual abominations like homosexuality are mixed in this list with actual crimes such as murder.  This tells us nothing new, so it isn’t much of an attack.  As an aside, however, it may be worth wondering who wrote this book.  Though its first line says that it’s from Paul, this book is widely considered to be pseudepigraphical.  So we have a book of unknown authorship with a wide range of possible dates of authorship.  Though it’s part of the canon, that doesn’t make it much of an authority.

If we’re to find moral advice in these two books, let’s look at a few other things they say.

Women should remain silent in the churches.  They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.  If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church (1 Cor. 14:34–5).

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.  I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner (1 Tim. 2:11–14).

For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man (1 Cor. 11:8–9).

(Yeah, it’s about time we got some old-fashioned Bible values back in society!  Let’s correct society’s lax approach toward women.)

Let me suggest another source of advice.  Romans 14 recommends that we be flexible about others’ ways.  If someone has more or fewer restriction about what he eats, for example, just let it slide.  As Ambrose said, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”  Maybe this advice applies to homosexuality as well.

I’ve heard some Christians say that we should treat homosexuals with sympathy.  This sounds like giving sympathy to those pathetic individuals cursed with left-handedness in society.

The Catholic Church held for over a thousand years that being left handed made you a servant of the Devil and that anything left-handed was evil.  (Source)

Sympathy might have been the best response in a world that saw lefties as evil or demon possessed, but society has gone beyond that.  Left-handedness is irrelevant; no one cares.  We don’t give sympathy because none is necessary.  Shouldn’t that be the goal with homosexuals, another of society’s minorities?

While I know this sympathy is meant as a generous sentiment, it doesn’t come across that way.  “Hate the sin; love the sinner” may be as distasteful for the homosexual as “I love you, but you’re going to hell” aimed at the atheist.  In either situation, being told that you deserve an eternity of torture in hell for living your life in a way that is honest to who you are and that hurts no one else is simply offensive.

The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs delivers a much-needed smackdown to modern-day Pharisees and Levites.  It makes clear that the moral of the parable of the Good Samaritan isn’t “help people in need.”  First, a bit of background: the Pharisee and the Levite in the story were ritually clean as they walked past the beaten man lying in the dirt.  They avoided him because touching blood or a dead person caused ritual uncleanness.  But the Torah didn’t forbid touching such things; it simply stated that you were ritually unclean after doing so and had to cleanse yourself.  The Secret Diary concludes: “Jesus, your big hero, was saying that if you have some rule or conventional wisdom that causes you to do harm to people, violate the goddamn rule.”

Jesus broke lots of rules—going postal on the money changers, harvesting grain and healing on the Sabbath.  Remember “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”?  The prohibition against homosexuality is another that the Christian needs to break.

You can safely assume you’ve created God in your own image
when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
— Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird

Related posts:

I’m Off to the Reason Rally

I’ll be leaving soon for a bit of vacation and then I’ll attend the Reason Rally in Washington D.C. on March 24, “the largest gathering of the secular movement in world history.”

After that, it’s the American Atheists National Convention (March 25–6), also in Washington.

If you’re attending too, I hope to bump into you. Say hello if you see me.

And if you’re in the Seattle area, the Northwest Freethought Conference featuring Richard Dawkins as keynote speaker will be held March 31–April 1.

I have blog posts queued up for the next couple of weeks while I’m gone, so come back often, but I won’t be able to respond to comments very well.

I’m looking forward to telling you about it when I return!

Faith is superstition disguised as virtue
— Pat Condell

Does the Old Testament Condemn Homosexuality? (2 of 2)

Did Jesus exist?Last time we looked at the Sodom and Gomorrah story.  Let’s move on to the book of Leviticus.

You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22).

Sounds pretty damning, but the word “abomination” also describes eating forbidden food (Deut. 14:3), sacrificing blemished animals (Deut. 17:1), performing divination and similar magic (Deut. 18:12), and women wearing men’s clothing (Deut. 22:5).  Clearly, these are ritual abominations.

Mary Douglas makes sense out of the confusing purity laws in Leviticus, where things are clean or unclean seemingly arbitrarily.  She argues that clean things are proper members of their category.  A proper fish has fins and scales, so that makes it an abomination to eat improper sea animals like clams and shrimp.  A proper land animal—one that is part of civilized society—is cloven hoofed and cud chewing like a cow or goat.  To be clean, any animal or wild game must share these characteristics—hence no rabbits (not cloven hoofed) or pigs (not cud chewers).  “Unclean” means “imperfect members of its class.”

A sacrifice must be a perfect animal, hence no blemishes.  A priest must be a perfect man, hence he can’t be blind or lame.  Don’t mix seeds in a field; don’t mix textiles in a garment.

Homosexuality fits easily into this taxonomy—proper sex is man with woman, so man/man or man/animal sex is explicitly forbidden.  But it’s ritually forbidden, not forbidden because of any innate harm.

Here’s another popular bludgeon:

If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination.  They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves (Lev. 20:13).

First, note that this again is nothing more than ritual abomination.

Second, note the punishment.  Don’t point to the Bible to identify the crime but then ignore its penalty.  Do modern Christians truly think that the appropriate response to male homosexuality is death?

Third, note what else this chapter demands: unclean animals can’t be eaten (20:25), exile for a couple that has sex during the woman’s period (:18), death to spiritual mediums (:27), death for adultery (:10), and death for anyone who curses his father or mother (:9).  It comes as a package of out-of-date tribal customs—with what justification can one select the anti-homosexual verse and ignore the rest?

If Jesus was the once-and-for-all sacrifice that did away with the need for the Old Testament ritual laws (Heb. 7:11–12 and 8:6–13), then get rid of them all.

God said, “I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you” (Gen. 17:7).  Verses like this would saddle Christians with all the Old Testament customs, from the sacrifices to the crazy stuff like genocide that they’d like to distance themselves from, and they’ll say that they apply to Jews only.  Fair enough—then stop cherry picking Old Testament passages if the Old Testament doesn’t apply to you.

This selective reading reminds me of Rev. O’Neal Dozier, in the news because he’s a Rick Santorum backer, saying that homosexuality is the “paramount of sins” and that it is “something so nasty and disgusting that it makes God want to vomit.”  My first impulse to this energetic condemnation is to wonder if Haggard’s Law applies, but more to the point, why is homosexuality at the top of the list?  Why should it be any worse than any other “abomination” such as eating shrimp, telling a fortune, or a woman wearing pants?  (Unless, of course, Rev. Dozier is simply using the Bible as a sock puppet to have it speak his opinions.)

Apologists like Dozier who say that the Bible is clear in its rejection of homosexuality won’t say the same thing about the Bible’s support for genocide, slavery, and polygamy.  They’ll say, “Okay, slow down and let me tell you why the surface reading isn’t correct.”  The predicament for today’s Christian is the clash between modern morality and the warlike culture of the early Jews.

A common response to God’s embarrassing actions in the Old Testament is to say that he is mysterious and inscrutable to our simple human minds.  But then these same Christians will contradict themselves and say with certainty that God is against homosexuality, abortion, and taxes.

We at least are largely in agreement on where the problems lie, but apologists who pick and choose which commandments must be taken literally are beating the copper of the Bible against the anvil of their faith.  Shouldn’t it be the other way around?  Shouldn’t the Bible speak for itself?  Why is the atheist the one interpreting the Bible literally?

Or if the Bible is simply the sock puppet used to give an argument credibility, I’d appreciate Christians dropping the middleman, admitting that their beliefs come from their innate moral sense, and defending them.

Morality is doing what is right regardless of what we are told. 
Religious dogma is doing what we are told regardless of what is right.
— Unknown

Photo credit: Wikimedia

Related posts:

Related links:

Word of the Day: Bronze Age Collapse

Can God and atheism coexist?The Trojan War of roughly 1200 BCE and the destruction of the city of Troy, about which Homer wrote the epic Iliad, was monumental enough in itself, but that period also marked the end of the Mycenaean Greek civilization.  The Linear B writing system of the time was abandoned, never to be revived, and most of Greek cities of the time were destroyed or abandoned.  Only after centuries of relative barbarism did the Greek city-states of Sparta, Corinth, Athens, and so on appear.

The Hittite empire in Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) also collapsed at the same time.  So did the New Kingdom in Egypt.

Experts speculate on many possible causes of this Bronze Age Collapse—a meteor, drought, the eruption of an Icelandic volcano that caused climate change, the spread of iron weapons, and other causes.  Certainly invasion was a factor, but does this explain everything or were these just opportunistic invasions after the existing empires were weakened?  The cause(s) are still disputed and none explains all the facts.

Like a global extinction event that opens up niches for new species to invade, this collapse allowed new civilizations, technologies, and writing systems to emerge.

What happened to Israel, in the middle of these collapsing empires?  The historical record is unclear—the traditional date for the Israelite conquest of Canaan had been about 1400 BCE, but the modern consensus is 1250.  Perhaps the Bronze Age Collapse was a factor in jump-starting Jewish civilization.  If nothing else, this setback for the nearby empires must’ve provided some breathing room for the people in the Levant.

Photo credit: Wikimedia

Related posts:

Related links:

Does the Old Testament Condemn Homosexuality?

Atheism can critique Christianity's social impactThe Sodom and Gomorrah story is where many Christians point when arguing that God rejects homosexuality.  That’s a lot to place on just six verses.  Let’s look at them:

All the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them [literally: so that we can know them].”

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing.  Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man.  Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them.  But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

“Get out of our way,” they replied.  “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.  (Gen. 19:4–9, NET Bible)

There are a couple of interpretations of this story beyond the typical conclusion that homosexuality is so bad that it gets your town destroyed.

We’re so familiar with to “know” in the Bible meaning “to have sex with” that we forget that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  The Hebrew word in question is used 947 times in the King James Version, most of which have nothing to do with sex.  For example, “When you eat from [the fruit] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5), “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:22), and so on.

If that’s the interpretation, what might the townspeople have wanted to know?  Bob Price suggested that the idea of supernatural visitors wouldn’t have been too surprising within that culture.  It was a violent time, and any military advantage for their town would have been helpful.  Angels could have provided important information.

What to me undercuts this is Lot’s response, “Don’t do this wicked thing,” which isn’t in keeping with a request for knowledge.  But if we conclude that gang rape is commonplace for this community, why is this godly man still living there?  The story leaves this unclear.

Let’s consider a second interpretation: if the townsmen were homosexual, why would Lot have offered them his daughters?  Perhaps instead they were simply violent bullies who wanted to use rape for domination or humiliation.  Isn’t this how rape is sometimes used in prison?

(That Lot volunteered his virgin daughters as if they were merely expensive possessions raises other issues, but let’s not go there.)

One unambiguous conclusion is that gang rape is bad.  Okay, no disagreement there.  But what critique does this give of a loving homosexual relationship?  If good/harm is the factor to use in evaluating actions, that makes rape bad and the loving relationship good.

Next time: Does the Old Testament Condemn Homosexuality? (2 of 2)

Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western religion,
rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western science. 
— Gary Zukav

Photo credit: Wikimedia

Related posts:

The first post in this series is here: Homosexuality v. Christianity

Related links: