The Real Meaning And Context Of Homosexuality In The Bible And The Ancient World
Not only does the Bible barely mention same-sex intercourse, but when it does, it mentions it in a much broader context of an endless series of other then-problematic behaviors — behaviors that anti-gay Christians rarely if ever object to, at least in terms of who gets to buy a cake and who doesn’t. Yet it’s singled out almost exclusively as something that self-proclaimed devout or evangelical Christians believe is a hell-worthy trespass. Put another way: no one’s refusing wedding or catering services to hetero couples who happen to be living together; just the gay couples, even though the Bible contains considerably more harsh words against premarital hetero sex than against same-sex intercourse.
That brings us to the two primary biblical sources for anti-gay language: Paul’s letters in the New Testament and Leviticus from the Old Testament. Leviticus forbids men sleeping with men, going so far as to sanction the death penalty for it. We’ve covered this one so often, but it’s worth repeating, especially given what Jesus had to say about it.
This whole Leviticus affair could be the most egregious example of political/biblical cherrypicking in the history of the biblical debates given how it’s so often cited by anti-gay Christians who brazenly ignore or waive all of the other Levitical laws including bans on getting haircuts; trimming your beard; marrying a divorcee; eating shellfish; masturbating; attending religious services while suffering from acne, blindness, a broken bone, scars, deformities, “crushed testicles,” and so on. Worse, Leviticus also calls for both the perpetrator and victim of incest to be executed. So far, there aren’t any Christians resurrecting that one, but there it is anyway — noted with the same importance in the same book of the Old Testament.
If this is truly and honestly about obeying the word of God and not being condemned to Hell — if this is about justifying your freedom to practice your religion — then why are all of these other rules totally ignored while the one about sleeping with another man is observed exclusively, while also repeatedly codified in secular law? The answer is obvious. Homophobia and bigotry. It’s also important to reiterate that even if someone is so devout as to follow the letter of Levitical law, it doesn’t forbid the selling of goods to customers who engage in same-sex intercourse; it strictly forbids the act itself.
Ultimately, though — and this is a big deal — Leviticus should be completely irrelevant to Christians. Any Christians who’ve… CONTINUE READING
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: Bob Cesca
Bob Cesca is the managing editor at The Daily Banter (www.thedailybanter.com) and a Huffington Post contributor since 2005. He's worked in journalism since 1988 as a print writer/editor, a radio news anchor, a digital media columnist/editor, a book author and blogger. He's the co-host of the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast and a Thursday regular on the syndicated Stephanie Miller Show. He's appeared on numerous other radio shows including the John Phillips Show and Geraldo Rivera Show in Los Angeles. Bob has been a commentator/analyst on the BBC (TV and radio), MSNBC, Current TV, CNN and Sky News. Following him on Twitter: @bobcesca_go
9 responses to The Real Meaning And Context Of Homosexuality In The Bible And The Ancient World
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
bluejayray March 31st, 2015 at 11:20
I don’t know where they got anti-gay ideas from the Sodom and Gomorrah story, either. That was about a straight man who pimped out his virgins daughters to save his own ass. Totally hetero.
FatRat March 31st, 2015 at 18:32
I think that an asteroid struck and took out some cities. These cities weren’t very friendly to the nomadic people. There wasn’t hospitality given out, you had to purchase lodgings, food, etc. When the asteroid took out the cities, the story was God spanked them for not being hospitable. Later on it was morphed into a Levite dream of switching ‘hospitality’ to ‘evil Gay butt sex’.
https://realitybong.wordpress.com/2010/03/07/sodom-and-gomorrah-the-kofels-asteroid-impact/
Dr Hempsall said that at least 20 ancient myths record devastation of the type and on the scale of the asteroid’s impact, including the Old Testament tale of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the ancient Greek myth of how Phaeton, son of Helios, fell into the River Eridanus after losing control of his father’s sun chariot.
The 3123 B.C. Köfels asteroid’s trajectory was at 6° as it whizzed over the area where Sodom and Gomorrah stood, torching everyone and everything in it’s path.
Dwendt44 April 1st, 2015 at 02:05
Facts don’t matter to bible thumpers.
tracey marie March 31st, 2015 at 19:40
then he mated with them
Dwendt44 April 1st, 2015 at 02:04
Repeatedly too. You don’t get pregnant on the first try every time, plus there were three daughters and the third one, assuming a drunk can get an erection three times in short order, wouldn’t get much ‘seed’. So they’d have to repeat time and again until they all missed their periods.
bluejayray April 1st, 2015 at 16:43
EEEW! And then of course they blame it on gay people!
Thanks, Obama!…
fancypants March 31st, 2015 at 21:34
In Lawrence v Texas the court told the Religious Right (Texas was their proxy) that the court would not enforce the religious views of the Religious Right. The Religious Right believes any sex besides marital coitus is sinful (hateful to God), but the court, in effect, ruled that sin and God have no place in a rational argument. Sin does not exist, so sin cannot be detected or measured (likewise God, of course). There is no way, therefore, to demonstrate that a given behavior is sinful. You may say it is sinful, another person may say it is not sinful, but it’s a matter of personal opinion and there’s no objective way to determine who is correct.
The court demanded the state demonstrate harm (injury). The Religious Right could not show that two men engaging in private, consensual, non-commercial sodomy injured anyone. The court said, our duty is not to enforce our version of morality; rather, our job is to delineate the limits of liberty.
So the court did not invoke the Equal Protection clause but rather invoked the Due Process clause. Religious concepts such as God’s will and sin do not constitute a rational basis that justifies criminalizing or regulating private, consensual, non-commercial behavior. The state has limits to its power, and liberty allows people to do as they choose in private
Ronald L March 31st, 2015 at 22:15
Nice informed article.
I have a graduate degree in biblical studies and I know that these fundamentalist Christians rarely know the Bible.
They almost always use a technique called “proof texting” where they start with an assumption (like “marriage has always been between one man and one woman”) and then they search the bible for isolated verses to confirm their bias.
Or, even more commonly, they believe what they are told about the bible by people who agree with them.
But, outside their conservative bubble, lots of Christians understand that homosexuality is a practically non-existent issue. It’s like eight verses out of 30,000.
Kick Frenzy April 1st, 2015 at 03:48
Don’t forget the part (from the New Testament) where women aren’t supposed to talk in church.
And if they want to learn anything, they are to ask their husbands at home.
Because it’s shameful for them to speak in church.