Untangling Early Christian Attitudes - Part 3

Hi all!  So very sorry for the delay in getting this posted.  I broke my computer, ordered an new one which did not arrive, ordered another, got it - but it did not have word, waited for new MS Office software to arrive, etc.  Needless to say, this should have been posted a while back.  Here is the third installment of my paper.  As I continue to study, however, I am beginning to understand where folks who are Social Constructionists are coming from.  I still disagree, but I understand now.  Anyway, here is the third part of my paper.  Let me know what you think.

Other indications exist showing the attitude of ancient writers.  Aristophanes felt that same gender attraction was part of the natural order of things.[1]  Aristotle appears to feel the same way when he “suggests that some men desire homosexual sex because it is in their nature to do so; it is natural for them.”[2]  In addition to these men, Catullus, who lived from 84-54BCE, wrote passionate poetry for both a mistress and a boyfriend showing he was capable of passion for either men or women which he had in common with other poets such as Tibullus and Martial.[3]  Also, Julius Caesar was known in the first century BCE to have an ongoing relationship with King Nicomedes.[4]  Also, in the 1^st Century BCE, Mark Antony, at least according to Cicero, was a prostitute who was removed from prostitution and set up in a legitimate marriage with Curio.[5]  Even if this last story was fabrication intended to slander Mark Antony, it is not as if most Romans would have been unaware of homoromantic relationships.

In addition to homoromantic relationships, early Romans would have been aware of transvestitism and transexualism.  Roscoe points out, “By the first Century BCE, however, a variety of evidence, including literary references and artifacts found at the site of the Cybele temple, suggests that the popularity of Attis, and the number of galli, was growing.  The Senate initially responded by regulating the activities of begging priests.”[6]

In order to show that this recognition of other forms of erotic love continued, it would be helpful for us to consider what took place after the beginning of the Common Era.  Xenophon of Ephesus wrote a novel in the 2^nd or 3^rd century CE in which Hippothoos and Cleistenes were in what appeared “a relationship of mutual and lifelong fidelity.”[7]  Likewise, In Erotes, supposedly written by Lucian of Samosata, in either the 2^nd or 3^rd century CE, the author concludes that there are what we would call today heterosexual and homosexual men.[8]  Greenburg indicates that some Roman slave owners had “sizable male harems.”[9]  It can only help to remember that “Many of the Roman Emperors had homosexual tastes,” and a lack of concern for the sex of a partner is attested to in the writings of Catullus, Philostratus, Horace, Plautus, Tibullus, Augustus, Vergil, and Ovid.[10]  To show that homoromantic love found depiction in art as well, a silver cup, called The Warren Cup, dated to the early Imperial period depicts men engaged in sex.  While one side depicts some age variance in the men (one has a beard, the other does not), the other side depicts the men as similar in age (neither has a beard).[11]  So, it seems clear that recognition of variety within erotic passions continued and was approved of by at least a portion of the population in ancient Rome. 

To further indicate that same gender attraction was well attested to in Roman times, Caelius Aurelianus, writing in the 5^th century CE, wrote about same gender attraction in a medical work.  Parmenides in the 4^th century BCE wrote that some people are attracted to members of the same gender due to the circumstances in which they were conceived, which oddly enough scientists today are also exploring.  Artemidorus, 2^nd Century CE, in writing about dreams indicates that dreams with homosexual content are those dreams that are “according to nature.”  Cantarella indicates that his attitude reflects “popular morality” not “official morality.”  Having said that, for some reason, he believed that female homosexuality in dreams was against nature.[12]

In addition, Galen of Pergamon who lived from 130-200CE was a physician who briefly mentions same sex desire when commenting on the physiological effects of sex.  He viewed male and female characteristics and desires on a continuum and disagreed with a contemporary physician named Soranus that clitoridectomy should be performed to reverse masculinity in women.  Nor does he state that man’s desire to be penetrated is a result of a pathological condition as Soranus did.[13]  Here, we begin to see the diverging viewpoints of Romans regarding homosexuality. 

Cantarella says, “Paul Veyne writes that between the age of Cicero and the century of the Antonines, Rome saw a sea-change in sexual relations, by the end of which, pagan morality was identical to the future Christian morality of marriage.”  Cantarella goes on to indicate that Veyne sees this as a result of the aristocracy loosing rights and becoming “self-repressive” to maintain good standing by way of having an air of respectability.[14]  This may be partly true; however, it doesn’t fully satisfy the change.  Also, Cantarella indicates that Cicero does condemn pederasty, but not homosexuality.[15]

---

[1] Fone pg 54

[2] Fone pg 54

[3] Lambert in Gay Histories and Cultures pg 751

[4] Bullugh pg 138

[5] Taylor pg 361, Smith pg 237

[6] Roscoe 201

[7] Fone 47

[8] Fone 62

[9] Greenburg pg 120

[10] Greenburg pg 155, Boswell pg 72

[11] Pollini entire article

[12] Cantarella pg 204-06, Greenburg pg 147

[13] Jordan in Gay Histories and Cultures pg 359

[14] Cantarella pg 187

[15] Williams pg 518

Untangling Early Christian Attitudes - part 2

Here is the second part to what will be a multi-part post.  It is from a paper I wrote in 2006.  I hope you enjoy this and can learn something from it.  This is a confusing part, so please ask any questions you may have.  Some scholars claim that homosexuality is a new social construct having existed for roughly 100 years or so.  Other scholars claim that homosexuality is universal and essentially exists across time and culture.  I think, in the end, the answer is not as simple as either point of view; however, I am pretty much an "essentialist" in my views.  Here is part 2:

Part of the confusion in recent scholarship regarding same-sex relationships in early Christianity lies in the word homosexual.  Both homosexual and heterosexual seem to be confusing and poorly defined words.  If a man rapes a boy, while it is same-gender sexual contact, it is above all pedophilia.  The same would be true if a man rapes a girl.  It is certainly other-gender sexual contact; however, it is above all pedophilia.  While pederasty may have been defined as sex between an “adult” and a youth of up to 25 or 30 years old,[1] it is important to understand that this is at its root pederasty, not homosexuality nor heterosexuality.  If a man is convicted of raping a woman, it would be folly to conclude that the society in which he lives considers heterosexuality repulsive or abominable.  Yet, this is what many scholars have done.  Therefore, one should use caution when trying to understand the influences that shaped the attitudes of the leaders of early Christianity. 

Miller contradicts an earlier claim that homosexuality was not understood by the ancients the way we understand it today[2] when he talks about Plato’s Syposium where Aristophanes discusses the myth of creation.[3]  In the myth, people were originally doublets.  There were three doublets, namely a man-man doublet, a woman-woman doublet, and a woman-man doublet.  The people were split in two and one partner/half of the doublet is constantly searching for their mate or “other half.”  Smith also refers to this myth[4]; however, he recommends using caution in interpreting this myth because of, “Plato’s playful and subtle use of irony and humor.”  According to Adams, Plato felt that democracies (republics) would accept homosexual activities while tyrannies would discourage them.[5]  So well known were the homosexual men in Rome that even mannerisms, which oddly enough coincide with certain stereotypes of gay men today, were easily spotted.  Lisping, swinging hips, posture, and others were noted by such men as Juvenal. [6]   

To understand attitudes towards homosexuality in ancient Rome, one would do well to consider that attitudes varied much like they do today.  It is also helpful to remember that the person trying to understand the attitudes of the ancients are also colored by their own attitudes.  Satlow indicates that an adult male citizen who is passive in sexual encounters is reviled while the female who has sex with another female is considered someone who shirks her duty in “her political place within the society.”[7] Yet, “There was probably no law against homosexuality per se until fairly late in the Empire.”[8]  Taylor points out, HH    “There is plenty of ethnographic and anthropological evidence that the actual behavior (the ‘reality’) and the way it is socially characterized (the ‘concepts’) are often radically at odds.”[9]  So, tweezing out the truth can be a challenge. 

Few scholars have taken on the task of understanding ancient Roman attitudes towards homosexuality like Saara Lilja.  She points out, “‘The exploitation of any kind of effeminacy for the purpose of jokes about passive homosexuality’ is found in both New and Middle comedy” (roughly from the end of the 5^th c. BCE to the beginning of the 3^rd c. CE.)[10]  She also notices that, “One further difference between Plautus and New comedy is the fact that cooks and other persons who were low on the social scale never make homosexual allusions in New comedy, whereas the same characters in Plautus’ plays have predilection for vulgar homosexual jokes.”[11] She also notes, “In Plautus’ plays, “the homosexual relationship in question usually exists between a slave and his master.”[12]  It is important, however, to keep in mind that one cannot look to comedy to explain reality within a country.  It only shows an aspect of that reality.

Lilja, in order to fully explore the topic, looked at Roman laws and lawsuits.  She found that Valerius’ history has 12 sexual charges being charged as against the law.  6 of these are heterosexual and six homosexual.  Lilja concludes, “This fact alone shows that it could not be homosexuality as such that was condemned, any more than it could be heterosexuality as such.”[13]  Boswell agrees with her.[14]  Lilja goes on to point out that the earliest instance of the law’s use is against a man who tries to force himself on a citizen who had become a slave to pay off a debt.  When the slave refused, the owner beat him.  The second oldest is over a tribune who was called before the comitia for trying to coerce a subordinate into sex.  The third was over a man who tried to seduce a young boy and was called before the comitia by the boy’s father. Another was over a man who had sex with a young boy.  When accused, he claimed the boy was a prostitute.  Another case involved a soldier who killed his tribune while attempting to escape his sexual advances.  Marius acquitted him.[15]

Some people have used these lawsuits in an attempt to prove that homosexuality was against the law in ancient Rome.  However, those who claim that these are indeed proof that homoromantic relationships were condemned generally by Romans, should keep in mind that such a statement proves that heteroromantic relationships were also condemned by Romans since Livy mentions a similar story in which a Queen kills a Roman soldier for attempting to sexually assault her.[16]  Boswell points out correctly, “The suggestion is not that heterosexual practices were considered reprehensible but that sexual assaults on the unwilling invited retribution from either the victim or the state.”[17]  So, a negative attitude towards homosexuality in general cannot be proven from these lawsuits.

Likewise, a positive attitude cannot be proven from comparing the heterosexual lawsuits with the homosexual lawsuits.  To find the general attitudes of ancient Rome, one can consider some of Roman history.  Since many Romans knew Greek history, it may be helpful to remember to look at what would be fairly common knowledge.  “The Theban army composed of homosexual lovers was reputed to be undefeatable.”[18]  These men would fight and die for one another and were greatly respected.  Also, Socrates loved Alcibiades in a homoromantic relationship between folks of the same age range.[19]  Even one of Rome’s foundation myths included the story of Nisus and Euryalus who were involved in a homoromantic relationship and so devoted to one another that they died for each other “on the plains of troy.”[20]

It has also been reported that in Greece, some female couples went through ritual marriages as in the case of Agido and Hagesichora.[21]  In order not to be completely one-sided, I would like to mention that in addition to pederasty in men, there was also reported pederasty in women’s relationships.  Plutarch wrote that in Sparta, there was a pederastic relationship between a woman and a chosen girl.  Cantarella also quotes a poem from Anacreon to a girl from Lesbos in which it becomes clear that the “girl” is so much younger that she has no desire for Anacreon and goes after someone closer to her own age.[22]  So, it seems clear that both male and female homoromantic relationships existed in ancient Greece, and Romans would have known about them. 

---

[1] Smith pg 230

[2] Miller pg 1

[3] Miller pg 6

[4] Smith pg 239

[5] Adams pg 522

[6] Fone pg 51

[7] Satlow pg 2

[8] Greenburg, Brystryn pg 519

[9] Taylor pg 321

[10] Lilja pg 39

[11] Lilja pg 40

[12] Lilja pg 46

[13] Lilja pg 106

[14] Boswell pg 63

[15] Lilja pg 106-08

[16] Boswell pg 64

[17] Boswell pg 64

[18] Greenburg, Brystryn pg 517

[19] Fone pg 20

[20] Fone 46

[21] Cantarella pg 83

[22] Cantarella pg 84-87

Untangling Early Christian Attitudes part 1

The following is the first part of a paper I wrote back in 2006 and edited over the past several weeks.  I encourage you to read it with an open mind.  If you have any questions, please post them in the comments section.

Untangling the Contradictions:

Attitudes Toward Homophilia in the Early Christian Church

Same-gender sexual activity has existed since the beginning of time.  Many ancient gods and goddesses participated in homophilic or homoerotic relationships.  They also participated in heterophilic and heteroerotic relationships.  One can surmise, therefore, that these types of homo- and heteroerotic relationships existed among humans.  Male homoerotic relationships are well documented among the Greeks, though much of the evidence deals more with pederasty.  Some documentation exists showing that homoerotic relationships also existed without condemnation among the Etruscans, Villanovans, and Phoenicians.  These four cultures represent the main basis of Roman citizenry, which was greatly influential to the early Christian Church.  A few statements which can lead to a decent understanding of the Jewish concept of same-gender attraction at the time also exist.  When one takes into account all of the varying attitudes of these cultures (as well as possibly the attitudes from North Africa, the Middle East, and areas of Europe not previously mentioned) one can begin to understand the complexities involved in untangling the attitudes towards homophilia in the early church. 

While such a study is crucial for a balanced understanding, this paper will focus solely on understanding the shift in the attitude from acceptance or tolerance of homoromantic relationships by Christian leaders from the time of Christ’s ministry to the apparent condemnation or intolerance in the time of Constantine and the adoption of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire.  A careful study of scripture and other early documents both within Christian writings and within Roman writings, as well as a look at the variety of early Christian forms of worship, may lead to a better understanding of how and why this shift took place.  By reviewing the documents, and the misinterpretation of the documents by scholars, one is left with the conclusion that the early Church (1^st, 2^nd and possibly 3^rd Century CE) seemed not to be concerned with same-gender romance.

First, one should understand that some of the contradictions as to what early Christianity held as true about homosexuality are colored by certain scholars’ beliefs that homosexuality is a modern concept existing only in the West and unknown to the ancients.  To dispel any misunderstandings, it may perhaps be helpful to look at other societies.  The Berdachs in Native American cultures are men who can be spouses of other men.[1]  Females may take on the roles of men as well.  They are persons who embody aspects and/or responsibilities of both men and women.[2]  The Hijras of India, a group that the ancients would have been in contact with, are similar to Berdachs however they are specifically transsexuals who are members of the priestly caste.[3]  So, it seems that gender boundaries get blurred in more societies than just the West.

Homosexuality is cross-cultural and can “be found, in principle at least, in any culture and in any time.”[4]  This is an “essentialist” concept.  “What is essential to essentialism is (a) that they sexually and erotically desire members of the same sex, and (b) that the desires are intrinsic, objective, and not dependent on a particular culture.”[5]  So homosexuality would have existed even back at the beginning of the Common Era. 

It is likely that the ancients would have been aware of homosexuality from another source as well.  Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom.  In addition to recent studies on bonobo chimpanzees, penguins, doves, seagulls, swans, cetaceans, etc, [6] ancients would have known of homosexuality within the animal community because of animal husbandry.   Most animal farmers and shepherds today have seen and are aware of homosexuality within their herds.  The same would likely have been true of herds 2000 years ago.  So it certainly seems likely that the ancients would have been aware of homosexuality.

---

[1] Taylor pg 340

[2] Moon pg 314, Roscoe pg 147

[3] Taylor pg 340

[4] Halwani pg 25

[5] Halwani pg 28

[6] See Elizabeth Adkins-Regan, “The love that dare not bark its name” and New scientist article………

Leviticus

Hey y'all.  I was naive to think that tackling the two clobber passages from Leviticus would be as simple as translating a couple of words and explaining the context of the passages.  Leviticus has turned out to be anything but simple.  Not least of all because I fought against reading the Anchor Bible Commentary series’ handling of Leviticus.  It was written by a scholar named Jacob Milgrom, a Conservative Rabbi.  His tome on Leviticus spans three books and several thousand pages.  I don’t know that it was the size of the study so much as his “conservative” status that frightened me.  But, I finally broke down and read it.  I agreed on some points, disagreed on others and learned a great deal.  It is a must read for anyone hoping to do a serious scholarly study of any part of Leviticus.  In addition, I used several other resources (New Interpreters Bible, Martin Noth’s Leviticus: A Commentary, various translations of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, Old Testament Parallels, a couple of versions of the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.). I will try to keep this as short as possible and still cover the important parts.

When we read Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, we need to understand that the translation that we are reading is an interpretation by the translators.  What I mean is that, more often than not, the translator is putting his or her own preconceived notions into how they translate the words.  For example, the NIV translates 18:22 “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”  JPS “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.”  NRSV “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”  The NRSV is closest to the way I would translate it.  The NIV translates “zachar” as “man,” the JPS makes it plural with “mankind,” and the NRSV translates it correctly as “male.”  “Zachar” is singular/masculine and means “male.”  There is a Hebrew word for “man;” it is “ish.”  There is also a word meaning “humankind” – “adam” (different than h’adam or Adam).  So, translators are putting their spin on the text as they translate it.  The words translated as “sexual relations” by the NIV actually mean “a place of lying, a couch, or the act of lying.”  The connotation may be sex, but the Hebrew does not spell it out that way.  20:13 is translated by the NIV “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads” while the JPS has “And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them,” and the NRSV has “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.”  Again, here, there are translational problems.  “Has sexual relations” is the same phrase as in 18:22, “lies with” except that in 20:13 it is plural.  Two words are used in 20:13 that the NIV translates “man.”  One is “ish” which means “man” while the other is “zachar” meaning “male.”  JPS makes it plural which is also a mistake.  The verse reads in Hebrew, “And a man (“ish”) which lies down with a male (“zachar”) as with (or in/on the couch of) a woman (“ishah”)…” The author clearly knew the difference between “ish”/man and “zachar”/male.  He chose to use the different words for a reason.  I explain all of this in order to show how bias can creep into a translation and to give a little bit of background about our verses.

To understand our verses we need to understand the cultural context in which they were written.  So I tried to look at the law codes of Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, etc.  While there are many law codes, I came across the same problem with translators that I have with biblical translators.  Milgrom states that there are no other condemnations of adult same sex sex other than in Leviticus in the Ancient Near East.  (pg 1566)  Which is interesting and I only wish I could ask him which law codes he looked at.  (He passed in 2010.)   For example, in Old Testament Parallels, Matthews and Benjamin claim that the Middle Assyrian Code does have a prohibition against homosexuality.  Article 20 “If one citizen has homosexual relations with another, then the sentence, following due process, is castration.” (pg 73)  I find this translation suspect as the word “homosexual” is a modern word with no apparent parallels in the ancient world.  I would love to know how exactly the phase is worded in the original cuneiform.  Also, various translations of the Egyptian Book of the Dead leave me scratching my head.  Spell 125 has a negative confession that talks about some sort of sexual encounter.  The confessor says (translated variously as) “I have not committed acts of impurity, neither have I lain with men” or “I have not masturbated; I have not copulated with a catamite” or “I have neither misconducted myself, nor copulated with a boy” or I have not committed acts of impurity, neither have I lain with men” etc.  Milgrom says the translation should read, “I have not copulated with a boy,” but he does not note which translation he is using or if he translated the verse himself.  (pg 1566)  None of the translations I read were parallel (not that I could read hieroglyphics anyway), so I could not see if their original versions were different (there are MANY versions of the Book of the Dead).   I am not an Egyptologist, so I have to rely on other scholars which frustrates me to no end when there are this many opinions as to what is actually being said.  And, okay, I know… I’m a control freak.  Lol

We also need to look at the immediate context in Leviticus.  Chapters 18-20 are a single unit where YHWH is having the Israelites set themselves apart from Egyptians and Canaanites.  The laws in 18 and 20 are similar though in different orders for different reasons.  18 appears to be the oldest list, according to Milgrom.  The author of chapter 20 appears to have had 18 in front of him when writing.  That 18:22 is a later addition seems obvious to me because the language changes from “uncover the nakedness” to “lie with.”  Why the author didn’t keep the same language when adding the verse is beyond my ability to prove, but maybe the phrase was common during his time and he did not want to confuse the people. 

Milgrom and others conclude that the lists are condemning incest.  (pg 1569) The phrase “As one lies with” is used to refer to illicit heterosexual unions everywhere but in these two verses.  Therefore, some scholars conclude that what is being condemned are the homosexual liaisons that are parallel to the heterosexual liaisons in the lists.  In other words what is being condemned is incest.  Milgrom goes on to also say that the only relationships that are under the scrutiny of these laws in 18 and 20 are the Jews and non-Jews living in Israel.  (pg 1790)  Milgrom suggests that the homosexual Jews residing in Israel could abide by the spirit of the law by adopting children as a way of making amends for the loss of seed, since their loss does not lead to procreation which he also suggests as a reason for the laws.  (pg 1787)

I personally found Milgrom a little confusing because he was inconsistent in his conclusions about why these lists were included.  It made his conclusions about what was being condemned in 18:22 and 20:13 a little muddled.  I think the incest argument is the strongest for various reasons, not the least of which is the “ish”/”zachar” wording.  I hope this helps some.  If you have any questions, please ask.  It is hard to compress hundreds and hundreds of pages of reading and dozens of pages of research into a single blog post.  Remember: God loves you!

Sodom and Gomorrah

Okay, here is my first "homosexuality and the Bible" post.  It is a Bible study of sorts.  Please, let me know what you think.

I have spent many years thinking about the Bible and homosexuality.  In my studies, I have researched Sodom and Gomorrah several times.  My attitude about what led to the destruction of the two cities has changed and evolved over time.  My earliest Bible study concludes that the cities were destroyed for intended gang rape.  When one looks at Genesis 19 by itself, as if it is a separate story in and of itself, one makes a mistake.  Genesis 19 is the end of a story which starts in Genesis 18.  (I find that my Bible studies have been really long in the past because I would go through and type out what each verse says.  This time round, I think I will allow you, the reader, to pull out your own Bible or chose an online Bible and read the verses.)  So in Genesis 18, YHWH (out of respect for those who find it offensive to spell God’s name out, I will follow the convention of leaving out the vowels) comes to earth to see if the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is really as bad as what he hears.  The decision had already been made to destroy the cities.  Be that as it may, when one looks at the literary structure of Genesis 18 and Genesis 19 as a single unit, one begins to see the beauty behind the J source’s writing.  (Scholars believe [and I agree] that there are multiple authors for the Pentateuch [the first five books of the Bible].  They break them down into different sources, designated by different letters.)  Here the J source is comparing and contrasting two extremes of hospitality and one minimum.  In the first half of the tale Abraham was honorable and goes out of his way to show respect to the strangers that come by.  He does not realize at first that he is welcoming YHWH and angels.  He prepares an elaborate feast and acts as if it has taken nothing to prepare.  He is rewarded for his exceptional hospitality, with the promise of offspring at a very late age.  Then in chapter 19, we have the exact opposite happening.  First, we have Lot who pretends like he's going out of his way to really doesn't do that much for the strangers.  He provides them with a place to sleep, but his meal is not elaborate. It is just passable.  He is rewarded with salvation, but not the promise of progeny.  (However, he also fathers nations in a bizarre twist where he has sons/grandsons with two of his daughters, perhaps indicating that not offering extreme hospitality can lead to tainted offspring.)  And then we have the image of the men (and boys?) from the city of Sodom surrounding the house demanding that the strangers come out so that they can gang rape them.  That shows a complete lack of hospitality in the extreme.  They are rewarded with annihilation.  So, just looking at the J source alone, Sodom was destroyed for extreme inhospitality.  Gomorrah and the other “cities of the plain” must have been guilty by association.  The text really doesn't explain why Gomorrah was destroyed except that YHWH had already said that it was going to happen because of general wickedness.

Take the time to read Judges chapter 19 as well.  In it you have a very similar story except the Levite’s concubine is thrown out to the streets and the men of the city raped her to death.  One can only conclude that Genesis 19 is a condemnation of homosexuality if one concludes that Judges 19 is a condemnation of heterosexuality.  Neither is true.  The authors are trying to make different points.

Now, we can look at some of the fine details.  According to E. A. Speiser in Genesis of the Anchor Bible commentary series, the distance the angels traveled to get to Sodom after feasting with Abraham would have taken a human about 2 days, yet only took them half an afternoon (Speiser, pg 138).   (Not terribly important for my subject, but very interesting none the less!)  There is the question of how the “cities of the plain” were actually destroyed.  There is a great deal of seismic activity around the Dead Sea.  There is also a lot of tar, bitumen, natural gas, oil, etc.  It is possible that an earthquake sparked off a fire that engulfed several cities (Speiser, pg 142).  I have also read, but can’t put my finger on the research right now, that volcanic activity could be to blame.  Because the Biblical description includes fire raining down from Heaven, I’m even willing to entertain the idea that a comet exploded (yet another theory that I heard of but can’t find the research on) igniting gasses in the area.  (The difficulty that some scholars have with this theory is that there is no impact crater near the Dead Sea.)  And, there are other, more bizarre explanations out there.  On the other hand, there are several attempts by Biblical authors to explain the destruction of these cities.  “Isaiah stresses lack of justice” (1:10-17 and in a roundabout way 3:1-9), “Jeremiah cites moral and ethical laxity” (23:14), and Ezekiel speaks of Sodom’s disregard of the needy” (16:49-50) (Speiser, pg 142).

-From an old Bible Study that I did when my citation skills were lax, but I liked the information: 

It has been argued that the reason for the destruction is inhospitality.  Since back in those days there were very few inns and only major metropolitan areas had them, strangers were to be taken in and welcomed into your home as Lot and the Levite did. The New Oxford Annotated Bible states: “…the main issue here is hospitality to secretly divine visitors. Here, however, the sanctity of hospitality is threatened by the men of the city who wish to rape (know) the guests. Though disapproval of male homosexual rape is assumed here, the primary point of the text is how this threat by the townspeople violates the value of hospitality. Hospitality is valued so strongly in this context that this text positively portrays Lot’s offer of his virgin daughters in place of his guests.”  This argument seems to be supported by Jesus’ statement in Luke 10:1-16.  He is talking about hospitality of cities welcoming the 72, and says in verses 10-12, “But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you.  Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.’  I tell you it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.”  There is another thing to keep in mind.  Tribal customs 3000 to 4000 years ago was quite different than what we know today.  Some tribal leaders would rape new men coming into the tribes to make them submissive and keep their power.  In “Good News for Modern Gays,” Rev Sylvia Pennington puts it this way, “It is historically known that it was not an uncommon thing for conquering nations or leaders to force the conquered male into same-sex anal intercourse with the conquering hero in the male role.  To a highly patriarchal people, there was no greater insult or degradation than for a man to have to submit, as a woman, to another man’s sexual advances.  It was a disgrace for a Jew, serving the one true God, to so humiliate and invalidate another person’s life as to steal his manhood (worth) from him.”  While this ties into her discussion on Leviticus, I offer it here as possible support for the inhospitality argument.

So, I guess my conclusion has not evolved much since my last Bible study.  The cities of the plain were destroyed for extreme inhospitality.  The prophets say as much.  Context matters.  If people take verses out of context, they can create scary scenarios.  Don’t fear the Bible.  Pray for the Bible to open up to you as you read it.  Then, read it.  The author refers to inhospitality/gang rape.  Not monogamous couples or even consenting adults. Ergo, the story of the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the cities of the plain is not a condemnation of gay people or homosexuality.  LGBTQi people need not be afraid of this story, at least not as far as their sexual orientation or gender identity goes.

Welcome!

Greetings y'all!  This is my first attempt at a blog, so please be patient.  I thought I'd set up what I hope to accomplish with this blog.  LGBTQi folks are frequently told that the Bible is very clear in its condemnation of homosexuality, that it always has been, and that the "catholic" (universal) church has always been consistent in its condemnation of homosexuals.  Personally, my studies have found these assertions to be false.  A) I am not at all convinced that the Bible - taken in its original language AND context - condemns homosexuality.  B) There are a few places that the Bible seems to celebrate - or at least tolerate - homosexuality.  This topic seems to be very emotional for some folks.  In order to avoid what can become an overwhelming mess, I plan to approach each clobber passage one at a time and give it my full attention.  Please don't bring up another clobber passage in your comments while I am approaching a specific one, because that can lead to general confusion and chaos.  I will also give my full attention to the possible pro-LGBTQi passages.  There may be other blogs about the arguments used in academia about when and where homosexuality started, the advantages of using multiple translations when doing a Bible study, the problem with an argument from silence, etc.  I ask that you be polite and respectful in your comments regardless of whether you agree or disagree.  Since my children may be reading this, I ask that you keep your language clean.  Thank you for joining me on this journey!  If you have any topics that you'd like for me to research after the clobber passages, just let me know!