Homosexuality and Christianity

From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.

The millennial debate about the varieties of human sexual desire, records of which can be found starting with some of the earliest writings surviving from antiquity, has also been preserved in some of the texts later gathered and included in the Christian Bible.

Their possible interpretations are still being debated, and the question of whether homosexuality is moral or a sin has become a matter of intense theological debate among Christians. Many sects have experienced deep divisions over the topic, most notably the Anglican Communion upon the ordination of Gene Robinson as the first openly gay bishop in the world's third largest Christian denomination.

Conversely, resistance to religion-related condemnation of and "spiritual violence" (as it is termed by groups such as Soulforce) against non-straight people has grown from the few isolated voices of past centuries into a social movement defending the right of each person to express their sexuality in a manner that is natural to that person.

Although the historically prevalent view among Christians was to regard homosexual intercourse as sinful, it is likewise true that they did not have the concept of a natural homosexual orientation. The belief in most previous societies was that most people were attracted to both genders, a view that has been confirmed by modern science, indicated by studies implying a "sexual continuum" with the majority of homo sapiens being bisexual to varying degrees and minorities being exclusively homosexual and heterosexual.

Christians such as the Anglican Communion's leader, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, regard same-sex relationships as moral since the Bible does not mention a homosexual orientation, arguing that the denunciations, often under the presumption of it being unnatural are applicable to heterosexuals. Those who believe homosexuality is sinful believe the passages condemning same-sex intercourse are relevant to all, often equating all homosexuality as unnatural or intrinsically disordered, has argued by the Roman Catholic Church's leader, Pope Benedict XVI.

Overview

The majority of Christian denominations hold that homosexuality is and always has been a sin. Most Christians would emphasise that they only condemn homosexual intercourse. Such sex (as opposed to the persons themselves) was condemned in Christian writings such as the "Summa Theologica", and in the revelations of saints such as (for example) St. Hildegard von Bingen (Bingen, 278-279), whose book "Scivias" includes quotes which she said were from God, in which any sexual acts between two men or between two women are condemned. Hence the traditional views on the subject, which are still adhered to by most denominations.

Other Christians dissent from the traditional condemnation of homosexuality. Among Protestants, the more fundamentalist view is generally strongest in the United States and Africa, while American Catholics are typically more liberal than Catholics elsewhere.

Christian theologians who do not believe homosexuality to be a sin argue that the fundamentalists have misinterpreted the pertinent Bible passages or quoted them selectively. For example, they consider the original Hebrew in Leviticus to be ambiguous as to whether "male" means adult man or little boy. They also point out that Leviticus also condemns many other things that modern Christians do, including getting haircuts, eating shellfish, wearing fabrics made from two different fibers (e.g., wool/cotton blends), and planting two crops in a single field.

Some apologists make a distinction between "moral" codes and "purity" (or "ritual") codes in Leviticus and say that the purity codes no longer apply but that the moral codes (including the prohibition against homosexuality) remain binding. Jews hold the Bible actually makes no distinction between morality and purity, and that the rules were generated in such a way that following the purity laws would lead to ethical behavior. However, Christians do not believe that the purity code prohibitions apply to them because these codes have been superseded by the sacrifice of Jesus. On the other hand, Christians do believe that the moral codes still apply. Thus much of the debate centers on whether homosexuality falls within the category of a purity code or a moral code. Liberal Christians argue that since the prohibition against homosexuality appears in a list of purity codes, this prohibition is equally irrelevant to Christians. Traditional Christians, on the other hand, consider the Levitical condemnation of homosexuality to remain in force, because they believe it is reinforced elsewhere in the Bible, including the New Testament, as well as in the later revelations to the mystic-saints. Conservative Christians often argue that while the Law of Moses as a whole is not binding today, many of the commands, such as against murder, adultery, theft are also in the Law of Christ, which is binding today, as is the command against homosexuality.Answers in Genesis article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2004/0206.asp) (This is a non neutral source)

There is criticism of this stance within the ranks of Christians themselves. These critics point out the case of the Southern Baptist Convention for example, one of the most conservative denominations in the United States. The church came into existence in 1845 and was against abolition of slavery in the 19th century, citing biblical support for slave ownership. The church was against universal suffrage in the 20th century, citing biblical support for male ascendancy over women. In the 21st century, the church stands against gay rights. All of these positions are criticized as being based on a narrow interpretation of the Bible, obeying the letter while going against the spirit of the Christian teachings. However, conservatives argue that the above line of reasoning could be used to dismiss literally every prohibition and commandment found in the Bible, and therefore has no place in the present debate. Conservatives also argue that it's a selective interpretation of history, and point out that one of the strongest proponents of women's suffrage in the USA was the fundamentalist and Democrat William Jennings Bryan, while evangelicals such as William Wilberforce were the leaders of slavery abolition in the UK. Proponents of the view that homosexuality is not a sin would likewise argue that those views started as minority movements that grew into a majority and draw analogy between their support of gay-rights to previous leaders against slavery among others.

History of the debate

In previous centuries, especially during the Renaissance, there were a few published critics of the Christian teachings on homosexuality, despite the fact that criticism of the Church was considered heretical and sometimes punished by various penalties.

An early - and anonymously published - Italian text, L'Alcibiade fanciullo a scola, published in 1652, denounces the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as a fiction made up by the Hebrew elders. In France, a similar text, Histoire de Dom Bougre, Portier des Chartreux, written in 1741, mocks biblical injunctions and extols same-sex love, as does Voltaire's The Bible finally explained, in 1776. It was followed by the Marquis de Sade who in his Dialogue entre un prêtre et un moribond of 1782 denounces religious (and other morality codes) as "man-made." In England, the pseudo-Byronian poem Don Leon (written in the voice of Byron but of uncertain authorship, published in 1866) vehemently denounced the abusive treatment inflicted on homosexuals as based on a dubious tale,

I grant that casuists the Bible quote,

And tell us how God’s tardy vengeance smote

Lot’s native town with brimstone from the sky,

To punish this impure delinquency,

Unmindful that the drunkard’s kiss defiled

(Whilst yet the embers smoked), his virgin child.

But reason doubts the Jewish prophet’s tale.

Biblical passages referenced in the debate

(The NRSV (http://www.devotions.net/bible/00bible.htm) translation is used throughout for academic consistency where possible)

Each passage is quoted in the form of:

• Verse (with link to other Biocrawler sections, where applicable)
  • Text (if there is no such link)
  • Argument
    • Rebuttal to argument

Disputed passages

Saints Sergius and Bacchus. Circa 700 AD. Officers of the Roman Army in Syria who were tortured to death for their refusal to worship Roman gods. Yale historian John Boswell argues, on the basis of his translation of a single 9th century (hence much later) manuscript which has Sergius seeing a vision of Bacchus, which Boswell translates as:
*"Why do you morn and grieve, beloved? I have been taken from you bodily, but in the bond of our love, I am with you still."
This is one translation, in which terms like "beloved" are being used in place of "friend". Boswell also asserts this icon depicts a religious same-sex marriage with Jesus as "best man" stating that the two were male lovers. Other scholars regard it as a typical dual portrait of two saints who were martyred together, asserting that there is no indication that it depicts a wedding, and that the image of Christ which appears above the two is something found in religious artwork throughout Christian history, such as in the icon of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste (http://web.mit.edu/ocf/www/images/sebaste_martyrs.gif), or the icon showingthe Virgin Mary, angels, and members of the Church (http://www.pitt.edu/AFShome/s/o/sorc/public/html/ocfellow/icons/jsorrow.jpg) and numerous other paintings: These scholars argue that Christ's presence above the scene does not mean that Christ was serving as "best man" at a wedding unless one is arguing that the large crowds of people depicted in the above icons were also being married as a group.

• The Story of Sodom and Gomorrah
  • God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexuality. Jude 7 explicitly says, "Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion". In response to the liberal argument that Christ allegedly contradicted this interpretation in the statement "it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement", conservatives point out that this quote does not contradict the above interpretation, and in fact does not address the reasons for the cities' destruction at all. In response to the argument (cited below) that these cities must have been bisexual and therefore were destroyed for promiscuity, conservatives would point out that this argument hinges upon the idea that God would make a distinction between promiscuous versus monogamous homosexual sex, which is contradicted by the fact that no such distinction is made either in Leviticus nor in other revealed sources such as St. Hildegard's writings. (Bingen, 278-279)
    • God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their exceedingly grave sins (Gen 18:20), including attempted homosexual rape (Gen 19:5). In the earliest versions of the story their gravest sin was inhospitality, greed and contempt for the misfortuned not sexual immorality. Ezekiel 16:49–50, ancient Jewish oral traditions and Christ's words: "it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement" (Matthew 10:15; Mark 6:11; Luke 10:12) Furthermore if the cities truly were homosexual they would not exist due to the lack of procreation, thus their sexual immorality was being promiscuous since the men would have had heterosexual intercourse and homosexual, meaning more than one partner, thus this passage says nothing about monogamous homosexual relationships and is irrelevant when condemning them. (Crompton, Louis)
• The chapters of Leviticus 18 (verse 22) and 20:13
  • "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
  • If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
  • God condemns sexual intercourse between men, in conformance with the Biblical ordinance that marriage should be between one man and one woman (Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, cited by Jesus himself in Matthew 19:3–6 and Mark 10:5–9. This principle is also stated bluntly in other revealed sources which forbid sex between two men or between two women. In response to the liberal interpretation (below), conservatives would say that such speculation cannot be used to contradict the clarifications of the matter in the above mentioned sources; moreover, the idea that Leviticus is only condemning people who act contrary to the inclinations of their flesh (i.e., heterosexuals having homosexual sex) would contradict one of the Bible's main themes - the inherent sinfulness of most of our physical impulses and the need to overcome them. Nowhere does the Bible ever claim that such impulses reflect God's will, but rather quite the opposite.
    It is requested that references or sources be provided for the information in this section.
    • The literal translation may not refer to homosexual intercourse, and even if it is, it is a revoked cleanliness law. The passage does not mention either procreation or marriage. It states that a man is not to lie with another man as he would with a woman. The prohibition is based on gender behavior, for example one of the men emulating a female gender role. (Gagnon, page 136) Furthermore a true homosexual has no attraction to women therefore he would not lie with one and is thus irrelevant, if anything this passage condemns heterosexuals having homosexual intercourse out of their nature because it would be promiscuous as in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

• Matthew 15:19–20
  • For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.
  • Adultery - sexual intercourse outside of marriage is condemned — since homosexuals are not wed their actions are sinful. In response to the liberal rebuttal (below), conservatives say that human decisions to bless same-sex marriages cannot change the Divine law: the Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman. [Genesis 1:27 and 2:24; Matthew 19:3–6 and Mark 10:5–9]
    It is requested that references or sources be provided for the information in this section.
    • If this argument is ever used against same-sex marriage, it becomes a catch-22 and many denominations bless same-sex unions or facilitate same-sex marriages thus these relationships are not adultery making this passage irrelevant
      It is requested that references or sources be provided for the information in this section.

• Romans 1:26–27
  • For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
  • Homosexual intercourse is unnatural, and is a degrading passion. For Paul the natural thing was heterosexual intercourse, so all other forms are unnatural
    It is requested that references or sources be provided for the information in this section.
    • This passage condemns acting against one's nature. It is not in a homosexual person’s nature to have heterosexual intercourse because they have no attraction to the opposite sex. Heterosexuals acting out of their nature and being promiscuous by having homosexual intercourse for pleasure even though they have no homosexual attractions are what this passage condemns not homosexuals.
      It is requested that references or sources be provided for the information in this section.

• 1 Corinthians 6:9–10
  • Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers — none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.
  • Homosexuals are condemned to Hell for being adulterers and sodomites. Paul used a most unusual word, αρσενοκοιτης arsenokoitēs, meaning ‘male who has coitus with a male’ (Greek αρρην/αρσην arrhēn/arsēn = male), rather than the normal terms from the Greek culture. Rather, Paul's source is the Greek (Septuagint) translation of Leviticus 18:22: και μετα αρσενος ου κοιμηθηση κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα γαρ εστιν (kai meta arsenos ou koimēthēsē koitēn gunaikos bdelugma gar estin) = You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. In response to the rebuttal (below), conservatives point out that a human construct such as the modern blessing of same-sex marriages cannot override the Divine Law, and these "marriages" are therefore null and any associated sex is sodomy and therefore sinful: the Bible defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. [Genesis 1:27 and 2:24; Matthew 19:3–6 and Mark 10:5–9]
    • Many denominations bless same-sex unions or facilitate same-sex marriages thus these relationships are not adultery making this passage irrelevant. The residents of Sodom had homosexual intercourse and heterosexual intercourse which would make their "sexual immorality" being promiscuous since the men had more than one partner, thus this passage is irrelevant when condemning monogamous homosexual relationships. The reference to Leviticus is likewise irrelevant since a homosexual has no attraction to women and therefore would not lie with one in the first place.
      It is requested that references or sources be provided for the information in this section.

• The Story of Jonathan and David, from 1 Samuel.
  • This passage contains many euphemisms. It states that their love was stronger than that between any women they had contact with. Intimate sexual love is generally considered stronger than the platonic variant therefore Jonathan and David had a sexual relationship. It is true that David also had multiple wives, but with the acceptance of polygamy this would not automatically exclude any relationship with Jonathan. King Saul, Jonathan’s father even made David the next King which is usually reserved for hereditary lines suggesting a close relationship between David and Jonathan. King Saul also states that David will become his son-in-law again when he offered one of his daughters hand in marriage – this was before David had any wives – this would suggest that Saul recognized Jonathan and David’s relationship on a martial level. Other passages within the tale have David naked in front of Jonathan – highly unusual for it to occur between men at the time outside of bathing. (Religious Tolerance) (Crompton, Louis)
    • The love was not sexual: unlike the account of David's adultery with Bathsheba, there is no explicit mention of sex, and the word used for "love" ['abahah in the original Hebrew) was a general term for any type of love. 1 Samuel
• Matthew 8:5–13 — the Story of the Centurion
  • (This section is lengthy, and will not be quoted in full.)
  • The term translated from the Greek as “servant” is Pais. Textural analysis shows that this word was often used to denote a man’s gay lover. The text even goes so far as to use the term “Slave or Servant” (Gr. Doulos) in the same passage making the distinction even more clear. This would have been a perfect time for Christ to condemn homosexuality, but rather he aids the Centurion, allowing him to continue his homosexual relationship.
    • The homosexuality reference is purely innuendo, and it is quite possible that the servant was not a homosexual love-slave at all; moreover, this is an argument from silence.
• 1 Peter 4:8
  • Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.
  • If a modern homosexual relationship actually contains legitimate love, it cannot be condemned.
    • The Greek word here is not eros, but agape. Agape refers to a nonsexual/brotherly platonic love, not a sexual sort of love. Hence, the passage does not apply to the homosexuality debate.
• Matthew 5:21–22
  • ...I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, "Raca", is answerable to the Sanhedrin.
  • Here Jesus criticizes the usage of the inflammatory term “raca” to describe effeminate homosexuals. The term according to an ancient Egyptian papyrus ca. 257 BC was on par with the Roman word "kinaidos" for "faggot". This drew a sharp contrast to the Romans and Greeks, such as Aristophanes, who openly criticized effeminate homosexuals holding only masculine homosexuals as the acceptable form. Since Jesus openly criticized the Roman insult for one specific type of homosexuality he surely would have opposed the Roman Catholic Churches Inquisitions in which all homosexuals; not just one type were subjected to physical violence let alone insults. Furthermore Jesus never attacked homosexuality in any of his sermons or speeches.
    It is requested that references or sources be provided for the information in this section.
    • The meaning of the term "raca" is unknown; and while Christ's compassion for all persons is not disputed, it would not logically follow that Christ was defending homosexual intercourse here even if "raca" was an insult used for effeminate men - forbidding someone to use an insulting term does not imply endorsement of whatever the term refers to, just as forbidding the use of the vulgar term "whore" would not imply endorsement of prostitution. Concerning Christ's lack of any specific denunciation of homosexuality, it was also the case that Christ's recorded sermons never specifically condemned pedophilia, rape, kidnapping, or any number of other sins, but that doesn't mean that Christ approved of these things. Since Jewish society in that era already condemned homosexual intercourse and these other actions, there was presumably no need to specifically condemn them all one by one.
      It is requested that references or sources be provided for the information in this section.

Homosexuality and choice in Christianity

Many Fundamentalists view homosexuality as a choice, making a distinction between homosexual intercourse and homosexual attractions. They believe that homosexual orientation is also a choice or unnatural and changeable. Most argue that everyone is of a heterosexual orientation by nature and that homosexuals do not exist. For some fundamentalists this point is crucial to their position, believing that if homosexual orientation is not a choice then it should be accepted according to Galatians 3:28. They argue that this verse refers to attributes that are not freely chosen. This idea has found its expression in the Christian ex-gay movement, which publicizes cases of people who have "walked away from homosexuality".

Other Fundamentalists, on the other hand, have revised their view in recognition of the fact that gay teenagers are three times as likely to commit suicide as other teenagers, and that many gay teenagers come from Christian homes (see Teach Ministries (http://www.teach-ministries.org)). Many further recognize that so-called "ex-gay" persons are frequently of bisexual orientation, and that because of their erotic attraction to both genders, they are sometimes able to live in a heterosexual relationship.

Some fundamentalists feel it is essential to distinguish between intercourse and attraction. If there is free will, an important idea in Christian Theology, people do have a choice about who they are attracted to. As for most traditional Christians it is homosexual intercourse rather than attraction that is sinful. Many argue that homosexual people can change or be "healed" of their homosexuality.

Of course one can argue that if the orientation is not a choice then it is part of God's design for humans and therefore the act of two men or women loving one another must also be part of that plan. It would be highly illogical to imagine God making homosexuals but then forbidding them from acting on their orientation. It would make no more sense for homosexual persons to choose to be heterosexual than it would be for heterosexual persons to choose to be homosexual. Both choices would be against their true nature, whether the orientation is "chosen" or a result of a combination of factors (discussed in more detail below). They argue that since the Bible condemns acting against one's own nature that it would be sinful for a homosexual person to have heterosexual intercourse and that the Bible is silent on homosexual orientation as well as homosexuals having homosexual intercourse. Opponents argue that since in the Christian viewpoint the way people are born is not necessarily a perfect state. People can be born, or grow up with, strong urges to steal or lie compulsively, and these traits are not to be encouraged.

The idea of homosexual orientation being a free choice is rejected by most psychologists, as well as most other scientists and most homosexual people. The best evidence suggests that homosexual attractions are present in some people in early childhood (see genetics and sexual orientation and causes of sexual orientation). They further argue that to deny people the right to express sexual love with another human being in the manner with which God endowed them is not an act of compassionate love and unnatural. Many theologically liberal Christians agree and believe that God wishes for each person who has a desire for a consensual romantic and sexual relationship to fulfill it. There are even conservative Christians who have come to a new understanding that homosexual relationships that are loving and empowering are within God's design (From Wounded Hearts (http://www.glbtcoach.com/RobertaKreider)).

Based on Sigmund Freud's work, some notable psychologists, for example Robin Skinner in "Families and How to Survive Them", agree that homosexual attractions are present in children, but argue that there is a developmental progression in children from homosexuality to heterosexuality, and that homosexuality in adults can be the result of developmental problems encountered in making this transition in childhood. Freud's "Letter to an American Mother" of 1935 contains this idea - he writes: "Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. " Freud went on to say that in some cases, this might be reversible "By asking me if I can help, you mean, I suppose, if I can abolish homosexuality and make normal heterosexuality take its place. The answer is, in a general way, we cannot promise to achieve it. In a certain number of cases we succeed in developing the blighted germs of heterosexual tendencies which are present in every homosexual, in the majority of cases it is no more possible. It is a question of the quality and the age of the individual. The result of treatment cannot be predicted." Mainstream modern psychologist have rejected this early view in light of new research.

Other traditionalists accept that homosexual orientation is not a choice, but argue that acting on that orientation is nevertheless sinful. In these cases, most Christians who condemn homosexual intercourse would not condemn homosexual orientation, but would advocate a life of celibacy for those who have that orientation. An anti-gay counterargument would be to point out that in Matthew 5:28, Jesus condemns not only the act of adultery but also adulterous sexual desire that is not acted upon. By extension, it could be argued that (for example) a man who looks lustfully at another man (i.e. has homosexual orientation) has already committed homosexual sin in his heart. The same restriction would also apply of course to a heterosexual man looking at a woman with lust in his heart.

Further debate

Issues of interpretation

Liberal Christians argue that Jesus explicitly condemned divorce—equating it with adultery in the Sermon on the Mount—but never forbade homosexuality; so they call it hypocritical for fundamentalist to criticize homosexuality more based on vague passages when it is clear that divorce is a sin. Also, rather than interpreting the term "adultery" in the Ten Commandments to mean any sex outside of marriage, they interpret it to mean sexual betrayal of a spouse, which would make the prohibition irrelevant to sex between unmarried persons, including unmarried homosexuals.

It is worth noting that the Leviticus passages only specifically mention male homosexual intercourse. Paul's letter to the Romans is the only place in the Bible where female homosexual intercourse is specifically mentioned. It should also be observed that in respect of sexual conduct, Leviticus passages tend to speak euphemistically, rather than offering explicit reference to physical postures and actions. For example, Lev 18:6-17 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=03&ch=018&l=6-17) repeats with each verse the phrase uncover the nakedness of, rather than explain exactly what is meant.

Modern readers often understand Leviticus as prohibiting homosexuality as such. But homosexual orientation denoting same-sex love, homoerotic feelings and sexual intercourse at the same time, is not a concern of Leviticus at all. The biblical expression "lie with someone" may be a euphemism for the act of penetration. Therefore, non-penetrative sex was never considered to be unlawful by the Jewish law. "The Talmud understands the Torah’s interdiction in Leviticus 18 and 20 to be limited to male/male anal intercourse. Other male/male non-penetrative sexual practices, such as intercrural intercourse, are included in the category of masturbation—a category that is condemned instead as "destruction of seed." To phrase the matter in contemporary language, the issue at stake in Leviticus and its later Talmudic interpretation is proper gender-role differentiation, not orientation or object choice. The text does not address the issue of homosexuality as that issue typically is framed in our conversations today" (Daniel Boyarin “Are there any Jews in ‘The History of Sexuality’?”, Journal of the History of Sexuality, vol. 5 no. 3 (1995) 337-39).

Resistance to human rights and science

A protester (at right) attends a pride parade in Ottawa, Ontario, with a sign with a quotation from 1 Corinthians 6. Several neo-pagan parade attendees express their amusement.

Controversy over biblical terminology

The term most often alleged to be associated with homosexuals in the Bible is “arsenokoitai” (greek: "αρσενοκοίτες", literally "male-bed" ). There is a strong argument over the ambiguity of its meaning. In textural analysis it is usual to find examples of the word in other extant texts of the same period and to confirm their definition by comparing its usage among such texts. It is possible that the first usage of the word comes from the apocryphal Sibylline Oracles (Oracula Sibyllina - 2 BCE) if, in fact, the text actually predates the letters of St. Paul; otherwise, St. Paul invented word as most scholars agree. The Oracula Sibyllina states that the "arsenokoitai" will come from the north and steal the children. Comparing it with St. Paul it is quite possible that the term was referring to kidnappers, child molesters or the ancient Greek religious pederast tale of Zeus abducting his boy lover, Ganymede. Had St. Paul wished to condemn homosexuality in general, it is possibly more likely that he would have used already existing terminology. To imagine that he had no such terminology in his vocabulary is unfounded since Greek literature of the period abounds in homoerotic expressions and diction.

However, as mentioned above in the section "Opposed to same-sex behavior", conservatives argue that Paul chose this word deliberately to be comparable to the Greek version of Leviticus 18.

St. John Chrysostom, in the 4th century, does tend to use the term arsenokoitai to mean "child molester" or "pederast," and St. John the faster, Patriarch of Constantinople (John IV, 582-595) makes the statement: "some men even commit the sin of arsenokoitai with their wives", which adds even more ambiguity to its supposed meaning. The translators of the King James Bible in 1600, had they believed this term to mean homosexual would have been inclined to translate the term as "Invert". They chose rather to translate it as "abusers of themselves with mankind", a frankly odd expression since "mankind" refers to women as well as men. All things considered, another possibility is that the term means "Rape". In some cultures, in order to obtain a mate, the man often kidnapped and raped his chosen bride. The elements that are present are both abduction and forced sexual encounter, so it may be rape that is most likely being condemned.

Furthermore, the Hebrew passage in Leviticus 18:22 would be literally translated "And with a man you should not lay down bedchambers of a woman; it is an abomination." Some controversy exists over the phrases "lay down" and "bedchambers", which can both be used sexually, but do not necessarily mean sexual things. In particular, the "lay down" terminology used in Leviticus 18:22 is not the same as the surrounding sexual condemnations in Leviticus 18:20 and Leviticus 18:23, leading some to think that "lay down" refers to the generic act of sleep rather than the specific act of sexual intercourse. Also, the term "Abomination" in this case is translated from the Hebrew word "Toevah" which is always used in scripture in context to imply polluting oneself with impurities, whether by worship of strange gods or consumption of unclean foods, not to refer to sexual sins. So, it is possible that what is being described in Leviticus is some form of ritualistic sexual encounter that took place in pagan temples (i.e. Orgies).

Positions of specific denominations

(These are covered in-depth at List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality; what follows here summarizes that page)

• The Seventh-day Adventist Church views homosexual intercourse and relationships sinful.
• The Anglican Communion is presently divided. In North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and southern Africa, most Anglican bishops view homosexuality as moral. In the majority of Africa and the West Indies, homosexuality is considered sinful.
  • (See Anglican views of homosexuality)
• The Southern Baptist Convention views homosexuality sinful. They believe homosexuals can choose chastity, that homosexual orientation does not exist and only heterosexual orientation is natural.
• The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists (http://www.wabaptists.org/) regards homosexuality as moral.
• Eastern Orthodox Christianity does not have a formal position on homosexuality as traditionally it refrains from making any kind of blanket statement, however, the personal opinion of many Orthodox is that the homosexual intercourse is sinful. Some jurisdictions are more outspokenly against homosexuality (e.g. Christodoulos of Athens and the Church of Greece); while others are more tolerant (e.g. The Orthodox Church in America).
• Jehovah's Witnesses consider homosexual intercourse to be sinful. Members of Jehovah's Witnesses practice abstinence from homosexual sex, but also request that homosexuals be respected.
• Lutheranism
  • The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is currently evaluating its policy on homosexual ordination. Current policy allows homosexual ordination, but requires sexual abstinence (whether heterosexual or homosexual). GLBT individuals are allowed.
  • All other Lutheran churches in the United States view homosexuality as sinful.
• The United Methodist Church officially views homosexuality as sinful. Many congregations disagree and the Church has not removed any openly gay clergy since the 1980s. Politically, the Methodist church has supported civil rights for gays, although it is unclear whether that support extends to same-sex marriage.
• The Metropolitan Community Church views homosexuality as moral.
• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("LDS Church"; see also Mormon) views homosexual intercourse and relationships as sinful. They do not consider homosexual attractions inherently sinful without corresponding intercourse. Church doctrine requires heterosexual marriage for entry into the most desirable afterlives. There is some controversy over historical positions over the LDS church, covered in depth in their entry on the list of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality.
• Presbyterianism
  • The Presbyterian Church of the USA, the largest U.S. Presbyterian body, is sharply divided over the issue of homosexuality, allowing gay membership but opposing gay service as ministers or on key church boards.
  • The Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand has debated homosexuality for many years. In 1985 its General Assembly declared "Homosexual acts are sinful." In 2004, they added "this church may not accept ...anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside of faithful marriage between a man and a woman," but added the lemma, "In relation to homosexuality... this ruling shall not prejudice anyone, who as at the date of this meeting, has been accepted for training, licensed ordained of inducted."
• The Religious Society of Friends (aka Quakerism) is deeply divided on this issue. The more conservative groups Friends United Meeting and Friends Evangelical Church view it as sinful. Other Friends, such the Friends General Conference, strongly support equal rights for homosexuals and believe homosexuality is moral.
  • (See Quaker views of homosexuality.)
• Roman Catholicism formally views homosexual intercourse and relationships as sinful. However, they do not consider homosexual attractions inherently sinful without corresponding intercourse and advocate homosexuals to become celibate enabling them to become clergy. The Catholic Church requires homosexual abstinence among their congregation, but also requires respect of homosexuals.
• The Unification Church views homosexuality as sinful.
  • (See Unification Church views of sexuality.)
• Unitarian Universalism, views homosexuality as moral.
• The United Church of Canada views homosexuality as moral.
• The United Church of Christ's policy differs congregation to congregation. The majority views homosexuality as sinful; a substantial minority views it as moral.
• The Uniting Church in Australia views homosexuality as moral.

Related topics

• Religion and homosexuality
• History of Early Christianity and Homosexuality
• Homosexuality in the Roman Catholic priesthood

Bibliography

• Bates, Stephen (2004). A Church at War: Anglicans and Homosexuality. I.B. Tauris (http://www.ibtauris.com). ISBN 1850434808.
• Boswell, John (1980). Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality: Gay people in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian era to the fourteenth century. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226067106
• Gagnon, Robert A.J. (2002). The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Abingdon Press. ISBN 0687022797
• Harvey, John F., O.S.F.S. (1996). The Truth about Homosexuality: The Cry of the Faithful, introduction by Benedict J. Groeschel, C.F.R.. Ignatius Press (http://www.ignatius.com). ISBN 0898705835.
• Helminiak, Daniel A. (2000). "Frequently Asked Questions About Being Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender and Catholic" Dignity USA. <<http://www.dignityusa.org/faq.html>>
• Homosexuality and Civilization, by Crompton, Louis, et al.; Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003. ISBN 067401197X
• Hildegard of Bingen, "Scivias," Columba Hart and Jane Bishop, translators; New York: Paulist Press, 1990

External links

• Two-part series by Joseph P. Gudel, Christian Research Journal:

1. Homosexuality: Fact and Fiction (http://www.equip.org/free/DH055-1.htm)
2. That which is unnatural: Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture (http://www.equip.org/free/DH055-2.htm)

• A discussion of Christianity and Homosexuality by John Howard Yoder from the University of Notre Dame (http://www.nd.edu/~theo/jhy/writings/mardiv%26sex/hist%26herm.htm).
• RobGagnon.net (http://www.robgagnon.net/) Author & seminary professor's site with many resources, arguing that homosexual behavior is sinful
• Christian response to a homosexual claiming biblical/Christian support for his views (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2004/0206.asp)
• The disingenuous and anti-Christian nature of "gay rights" rhetoric (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/2005/0218.asp)
• Homosexuality and Christianity (http://www.cathedralofhope.com/homosexuality/) does not see homosexuality as a moral sin.
• Homosexuality and the Bible (http://www.freeingthespirit.org/Homosexuality%26Bible.htm) believes the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.
• Gay Christian Online (http://www.gaychristianonline.org/) Providing Encouragement, Support, Counseling, and Information for the Gay and Lesbian Christian.
• The Bible and Homosexuality (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibi.htm) advocates religious tolerance of homosexuality.
• Christianity and Homosexuality (http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2003/familyfundamentals/resources.html) from PBS.
• Bible Scholars and religious leaders interpret and debate Scripture's references to homosexuality (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/bible/) from PBS.
• Understanding Male Homosexual Problems: An Introduction for Latter-day Saints (http://centurypubl.tripod.com/Understanding%20text.htm) (A Mormon view of male homosexuality)
• PERSPECTIVES: Homosexuality and the Church (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week128/perspectives.html)fr:Christianisme et homosexualité

zh:基�教对�性�的看法

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) Homosexuality_and_Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Christianity) version history (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality_and_Christianity&action=history) GNU Free Documentation Lizenz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License) CC-by-sa (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/)