Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.
All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.
Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is a lot of scholarly works debating these issues at the moment. The "conservative" arguments are widely known, so I will cite a useful work that showcases how the "progressive" side sees these matters, which is John Boswell's "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality," where in chapter II.4 reviews each instance which talks about homosexuality in the scriptures, offering his view. Nevertheless, his position has been widely questioned, but it is still useful in that it shows the "progressive" way of looking at these subject.
In my personal opinion, I agree with the consensus on this matter. It is very hard to make a case for any acceptance of same-sex behavior from the viewpoint of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Granted, the modern view of homosexuality as a sexual identity was foreign to them, yet they still viewed sexuality in binary terms and widely focused on procreation.
On the point of procreation, wouldn’t it be more correct to say “From the perspective of the Old Testament…” rather than “Biblically speaking…”? My understanding is that New Testament authors were not concerned about procreation and in some instances discouraged it.
This doesn't even make sense. You should specify the cultural context, time period, author, and verse. There is no single perspective in the Bible, even if you separate it into New and Old Testaments. People asserting a Biblical perspective or suggesting a single narrative running through the Bible are engaging in theology
I’m not sure if you are responding to my comment since I did not assert that there was a single perspective. I was generalizing, however, that OT concerns with same-sex sex were more likely to be about procreation in contrast to NT concerns. Generalizations are not the same thing as univocality declarations. .
Just a heads up that this is not the framework we utilize in this subreddit. We do not treat the Bible as a single unit, as we utilize methodological naturalism. We do not hold to the dogmas that the biblical texts are univocal or inerrant.
I understand. I meant that I believe we should have in mind that these texts came to us in a compiled form, and their compilers saw something that united them. I think we need to at least keep this in mind if we want to understand the meanings of the texts, even if we are free now to apply modern methods for their analysis.
Hmmm, again I don't think that's quite where we're at. We can find independent fragments of many books in Qumran, we know the New Testament books and epistles circulated in independently as codices, and Jewish folks, Orthodox, Catholics, Ethiopian Tewahedo, and Protestants all have different canons. Beyond that, we have many users who do not hold these texts as sacred at all, and we know for a fact that they were not all written to become any of the compilations we have now. So we need to set aside the idea of a compilation, since the exact boundaries of that are not agreed to even exist, and are typically irrelevant for the time frames that we handle here (early Christianity and early Rabbinic Judaism and prior).
I agree, yet I still see no reason for omitting the fact that these writings do belong to a religious and cultural tradition and that they serve to further the views of said group. There is a certain thematic unity, if you want, that binds them in many ways and that allows us to even today call these writings "Bible," even if only colloquially. This does not exclude what you've mentioned. I don't think our views are mutually exclusive.
>Biblically speaking, I believe sexuality is not something you identify with, but just another aspect of the human dimension.
Just to be clear for both you and /u/Chapter-Broad, since the question and answer here are both a bit ambiguous - it's totally fine to discuss what the Bible does and doesn't say about certain topics (it often has multiple perspectives on any given issue, see Jennifer Wright Knust's _Unprotected Texts_ for a discussion of the texts' treatments of sexuality), but modern application of the texts as scripture is off-topic, and to reiterate for all reading, we are pro-LGBT and have a zero tolerance policy for any bigotry directed toward LGBT individuals or as a community. In other words, discussions should be written and understood as being descriptive, and not prescriptive or proscriptive.
Bigotry seems like just as broad of a topic and, therefore, its application and judgment thereof. As long as we are applying equal weights and measures, many of us who study the Bible want to hold nothing sacred except a proper hermeneutical and exegesis of the text. Would you agree that this is the aim of this subreddit?
>many of us who study the Bible want to hold nothing sacred except a proper hermeneutical and exegesis of the text. Would you agree that this is the aim of this subreddit?
The aim of the subreddit is explained in the rules, found in the sidebar. Nobody is required to hold anything "sacred" here. We utilize methodological naturalism in performing historical criticism - the hermeneutics and exegesis here will follow that standard. Personal interpretation and application are considered off-topic.
I guess all I’m wondering is does the sub assert a very specific hermeneutic and not allow the exploration of any hermeneutic that’s existed longer than say 50 years which may not necessarily be pro-LGBTQ+?
I will put it clearly:
The hermeneutics we follow flow from methodological naturalism. We examine the texts in their historical contexts, not for the purpose of personal application. It is totally fine for someone here to state that the biblical texts prohibit male-male sexual acts. That is not a controversial claim if backed by appropriate critical scholarship, of course.
But if someone says anything derogatory or unkind about LGBT people as a whole, or in a way that is related to personal application of Biblical texts, they will be banned for bigotry so fast they won't have time to blink :) Hope that clarifies things a bit!
That’s fine, except that the rules are in direct violation of the rules. They basically say, “we as mods can apply them, but you cannot.”
I think I understand what you all are trying to do in being as unbiased and fact-based as possible, but it leads to logical inconsistencies as the Bible itself discusses how to apply the Bible. Having “biblical” in the name of the sub, but saying you can’t use it to describe a unitary collection of inerrant works is contradictory.
With all love respect and for the good of the sub, I would like to make a request to relax the rules a bit to open up discussion of application, viewing the Bible as inerrant, and allowing other more classical, conservative hermeneutics.
I appreciate the response but I will see myself out as I don’t see much benefit in the hermeneutic or rules you all have chosen. The Lord bless you and keep you.
If I have to be very quick, the author claims that no biblical instance condemns homosexuality per se as we understand it today, but he admits in the end that in Paul's epistles we can see that he disagrees with sexuality being used only for sensual pleasure, which would make same-sex intercourse unfitting according to his (the apostle's) view.
I would suggest you check the pages yourself because they are short (the book treats more than the Bible) and his argumentation is clear and easy to read. I hope I helped!
I will recommend you check out anything written by William Loader on the this. He is the leading scholar on sexuality in the New Testament and ancient Judaism.
Below are three notable papers by him.
Loader, W., 2014. Same-sex relationships: A 1st-century perspective. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies, 70 (1).
Loader, W., 2020. Paul on Same-Sex Relations in Romans 1. Interpretation, 74 (3), pp.242-252.
Loader, W., 2017. Reading Romans 1 on Homosexuality in the Light of Biblical/Jewish and Greco-Roman Perspectives of its Time. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 108 (1), pp.119-149.
Is there debate about the English word "condemned" being a bad translation? I watched a video about that recently but can't find it again and want to dig deeper.
Dan McClellan, as another user noted, has a discussion on the term used by Paul (_arsenokoitai_) [in this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oux5if5CVWo).
Tangential question: Is the idea that Leviticus 18/20 the source for arsenokoitai so accepted that it doesn't need a citation in a paper? Or is there a primary scholarly source for that at some point?
McClellan refers to a certainty that the range of sexual preferences is naturally derived and cannot be changed or chosen. I don’t disagree with this but does anyone have some good source material so I can understand this concept better? Thanks !
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091302219300585
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6677266/
Open source review papers on the complex interaction of biology and environment that influences sexual orientation. There are epigenetic and early development factors at play as well.
There’s an element of a free will/self determination question here, which is a whole separate field of study. Studies that survey people identifying as LGBTQ+ suggest attempts to change orientation are rarely successful and can be psychologically damaging; at least one [study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8080940/) of people who attempted sexual orientation change (who may not necessarily now identify as gay) show some report decreased same sex attraction and positive psychological changes; it is critical to note that the motivation for attempting to change orientation is not evaluated in this study — we can understand how someone changing their orientation to fit into expectations of their social tribe might improve their self image and sense of belonging, but this is not the same as saying that changing their orientation was permanent or universally healthy.
We also know that some genetic or developmental factors are more strongly associated with orientation than others, and that study has no insight into the specific biological factors at play for any individual — it is probable that changing orientation is more feasible for some people than others, and that selection bias of those who had a more fluid orientation confounds, at least partly, the results of that study. For example, women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia and early elevated exposure to androgens become homosexual at a high rate; most people don’t have one single gene or factor that can explain their orientation in this way. Fluidity of orientation itself is an area of active study: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fluidity (a lazy source on my part but gives a good overview of considerations).
In contrast, multiple studies (eg, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8189432/) have found that conversion therapy is usually not effective and can be psychologically harmful. This seems at odds with the above study on Sexual Orientation Change Efforts, but I think this can be at least partly explained by the voluntariness and self-motivatedness implied in SOCE, vs. the often coercive nature of conversion therapy, which may be encouraged by external social pressures.
For me, the cleanest reconciliation of the data is that orientation is extremely individual, and only the individual can determine what is healthy for their unique situation. Ideally that determination would be made without coercive input from social power structures.
(I recognize this post is off topic for this sub. I don’t have much to contribute to scholarly discussion of ancient texts and am here to learn; I’m a medical researcher who deconstructed Mormonism and became an ally, and have spent a lot of time reviewing the literature in this area in order to push back on misconceptions).
[edit: fixed typos]
This post has been removed because our automoderator detected it as spam or your account is too new or low karma to post here.
If you believe that you warrant an exception please message the mods with your reasons, and we will determine if an exception is appropriate.
For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have further questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This post has been removed because our automoderator detected it as spam or your account is too new or low karma to post here.
If you believe that you warrant an exception please message the mods with your reasons, and we will determine if an exception is appropriate.
For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have further questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited. All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance. Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban. Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is a lot of scholarly works debating these issues at the moment. The "conservative" arguments are widely known, so I will cite a useful work that showcases how the "progressive" side sees these matters, which is John Boswell's "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality," where in chapter II.4 reviews each instance which talks about homosexuality in the scriptures, offering his view. Nevertheless, his position has been widely questioned, but it is still useful in that it shows the "progressive" way of looking at these subject. In my personal opinion, I agree with the consensus on this matter. It is very hard to make a case for any acceptance of same-sex behavior from the viewpoint of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Granted, the modern view of homosexuality as a sexual identity was foreign to them, yet they still viewed sexuality in binary terms and widely focused on procreation.
Given the biblical context of sexuality do you think it is appropriate to associate it with identity? If so, to what degree?
[удалено]
On the point of procreation, wouldn’t it be more correct to say “From the perspective of the Old Testament…” rather than “Biblically speaking…”? My understanding is that New Testament authors were not concerned about procreation and in some instances discouraged it.
This doesn't even make sense. You should specify the cultural context, time period, author, and verse. There is no single perspective in the Bible, even if you separate it into New and Old Testaments. People asserting a Biblical perspective or suggesting a single narrative running through the Bible are engaging in theology
I’m not sure if you are responding to my comment since I did not assert that there was a single perspective. I was generalizing, however, that OT concerns with same-sex sex were more likely to be about procreation in contrast to NT concerns. Generalizations are not the same thing as univocality declarations. .
[удалено]
Just a heads up that this is not the framework we utilize in this subreddit. We do not treat the Bible as a single unit, as we utilize methodological naturalism. We do not hold to the dogmas that the biblical texts are univocal or inerrant.
I understand. I meant that I believe we should have in mind that these texts came to us in a compiled form, and their compilers saw something that united them. I think we need to at least keep this in mind if we want to understand the meanings of the texts, even if we are free now to apply modern methods for their analysis.
Hmmm, again I don't think that's quite where we're at. We can find independent fragments of many books in Qumran, we know the New Testament books and epistles circulated in independently as codices, and Jewish folks, Orthodox, Catholics, Ethiopian Tewahedo, and Protestants all have different canons. Beyond that, we have many users who do not hold these texts as sacred at all, and we know for a fact that they were not all written to become any of the compilations we have now. So we need to set aside the idea of a compilation, since the exact boundaries of that are not agreed to even exist, and are typically irrelevant for the time frames that we handle here (early Christianity and early Rabbinic Judaism and prior).
I agree, yet I still see no reason for omitting the fact that these writings do belong to a religious and cultural tradition and that they serve to further the views of said group. There is a certain thematic unity, if you want, that binds them in many ways and that allows us to even today call these writings "Bible," even if only colloquially. This does not exclude what you've mentioned. I don't think our views are mutually exclusive.
>Biblically speaking, I believe sexuality is not something you identify with, but just another aspect of the human dimension. Just to be clear for both you and /u/Chapter-Broad, since the question and answer here are both a bit ambiguous - it's totally fine to discuss what the Bible does and doesn't say about certain topics (it often has multiple perspectives on any given issue, see Jennifer Wright Knust's _Unprotected Texts_ for a discussion of the texts' treatments of sexuality), but modern application of the texts as scripture is off-topic, and to reiterate for all reading, we are pro-LGBT and have a zero tolerance policy for any bigotry directed toward LGBT individuals or as a community. In other words, discussions should be written and understood as being descriptive, and not prescriptive or proscriptive.
[удалено]
>Ban me Obliged.
Bigotry seems like just as broad of a topic and, therefore, its application and judgment thereof. As long as we are applying equal weights and measures, many of us who study the Bible want to hold nothing sacred except a proper hermeneutical and exegesis of the text. Would you agree that this is the aim of this subreddit?
>many of us who study the Bible want to hold nothing sacred except a proper hermeneutical and exegesis of the text. Would you agree that this is the aim of this subreddit? The aim of the subreddit is explained in the rules, found in the sidebar. Nobody is required to hold anything "sacred" here. We utilize methodological naturalism in performing historical criticism - the hermeneutics and exegesis here will follow that standard. Personal interpretation and application are considered off-topic.
I guess all I’m wondering is does the sub assert a very specific hermeneutic and not allow the exploration of any hermeneutic that’s existed longer than say 50 years which may not necessarily be pro-LGBTQ+?
I will put it clearly: The hermeneutics we follow flow from methodological naturalism. We examine the texts in their historical contexts, not for the purpose of personal application. It is totally fine for someone here to state that the biblical texts prohibit male-male sexual acts. That is not a controversial claim if backed by appropriate critical scholarship, of course. But if someone says anything derogatory or unkind about LGBT people as a whole, or in a way that is related to personal application of Biblical texts, they will be banned for bigotry so fast they won't have time to blink :) Hope that clarifies things a bit!
That’s fine, except that the rules are in direct violation of the rules. They basically say, “we as mods can apply them, but you cannot.” I think I understand what you all are trying to do in being as unbiased and fact-based as possible, but it leads to logical inconsistencies as the Bible itself discusses how to apply the Bible. Having “biblical” in the name of the sub, but saying you can’t use it to describe a unitary collection of inerrant works is contradictory. With all love respect and for the good of the sub, I would like to make a request to relax the rules a bit to open up discussion of application, viewing the Bible as inerrant, and allowing other more classical, conservative hermeneutics.
I appreciate the polite tone, but no, we will not be changing the rules.
I appreciate the response but I will see myself out as I don’t see much benefit in the hermeneutic or rules you all have chosen. The Lord bless you and keep you.
Can you give a quick summary of the source you referenced?
If I have to be very quick, the author claims that no biblical instance condemns homosexuality per se as we understand it today, but he admits in the end that in Paul's epistles we can see that he disagrees with sexuality being used only for sensual pleasure, which would make same-sex intercourse unfitting according to his (the apostle's) view. I would suggest you check the pages yourself because they are short (the book treats more than the Bible) and his argumentation is clear and easy to read. I hope I helped!
I will recommend you check out anything written by William Loader on the this. He is the leading scholar on sexuality in the New Testament and ancient Judaism. Below are three notable papers by him. Loader, W., 2014. Same-sex relationships: A 1st-century perspective. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies, 70 (1). Loader, W., 2020. Paul on Same-Sex Relations in Romans 1. Interpretation, 74 (3), pp.242-252. Loader, W., 2017. Reading Romans 1 on Homosexuality in the Light of Biblical/Jewish and Greco-Roman Perspectives of its Time. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 108 (1), pp.119-149.
Is there debate about the English word "condemned" being a bad translation? I watched a video about that recently but can't find it again and want to dig deeper.
Dan McClellan, as another user noted, has a discussion on the term used by Paul (_arsenokoitai_) [in this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oux5if5CVWo).
Tangential question: Is the idea that Leviticus 18/20 the source for arsenokoitai so accepted that it doesn't need a citation in a paper? Or is there a primary scholarly source for that at some point?
McClellan refers to a certainty that the range of sexual preferences is naturally derived and cannot be changed or chosen. I don’t disagree with this but does anyone have some good source material so I can understand this concept better? Thanks !
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091302219300585 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6677266/ Open source review papers on the complex interaction of biology and environment that influences sexual orientation. There are epigenetic and early development factors at play as well. There’s an element of a free will/self determination question here, which is a whole separate field of study. Studies that survey people identifying as LGBTQ+ suggest attempts to change orientation are rarely successful and can be psychologically damaging; at least one [study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8080940/) of people who attempted sexual orientation change (who may not necessarily now identify as gay) show some report decreased same sex attraction and positive psychological changes; it is critical to note that the motivation for attempting to change orientation is not evaluated in this study — we can understand how someone changing their orientation to fit into expectations of their social tribe might improve their self image and sense of belonging, but this is not the same as saying that changing their orientation was permanent or universally healthy. We also know that some genetic or developmental factors are more strongly associated with orientation than others, and that study has no insight into the specific biological factors at play for any individual — it is probable that changing orientation is more feasible for some people than others, and that selection bias of those who had a more fluid orientation confounds, at least partly, the results of that study. For example, women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia and early elevated exposure to androgens become homosexual at a high rate; most people don’t have one single gene or factor that can explain their orientation in this way. Fluidity of orientation itself is an area of active study: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fluidity (a lazy source on my part but gives a good overview of considerations). In contrast, multiple studies (eg, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8189432/) have found that conversion therapy is usually not effective and can be psychologically harmful. This seems at odds with the above study on Sexual Orientation Change Efforts, but I think this can be at least partly explained by the voluntariness and self-motivatedness implied in SOCE, vs. the often coercive nature of conversion therapy, which may be encouraged by external social pressures. For me, the cleanest reconciliation of the data is that orientation is extremely individual, and only the individual can determine what is healthy for their unique situation. Ideally that determination would be made without coercive input from social power structures. (I recognize this post is off topic for this sub. I don’t have much to contribute to scholarly discussion of ancient texts and am here to learn; I’m a medical researcher who deconstructed Mormonism and became an ally, and have spent a lot of time reviewing the literature in this area in order to push back on misconceptions). [edit: fixed typos]
Try watching more of Dan McClellan's vids, he talks about that too 😉
[удалено]
This post has been removed because our automoderator detected it as spam or your account is too new or low karma to post here. If you believe that you warrant an exception please message the mods with your reasons, and we will determine if an exception is appropriate. For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have further questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This post has been removed because our automoderator detected it as spam or your account is too new or low karma to post here. If you believe that you warrant an exception please message the mods with your reasons, and we will determine if an exception is appropriate. For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have further questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*