Pro-gay Bible quotes are given a lot more attention

The issue is you need to fundamentally butterfly Judaism's inherent Natalism away, and even then that wouldn't necessarily make them 'pro-gay'. Gay, that is to say identification and not merely partaking in homosexual acts, didn't exist until around the time of the Enlightenment. They could be more tolerant of homosexual acts, but that wouldn't make them 'pro-gay'.

Anyways the OP's point is based on a false assumption that 'Pro-Gay' bible passages exist, which is not true. It's not asking what whether Judeo-Christian culture could have been changed to be more accepting of homosexuality.
 
Anyways the OP's point is based on a false assumption that 'Pro-Gay' bible passages exist, which is not true. It's not asking what whether Judeo-Christian culture could have been changed to be more accepting of homosexuality.

The OP said that at first and then said:
What would happen if there was a direct, unmistakable verse that could not be manipulated in to look like anything else. Perhaps a story of a man or woman and their same-sex lover?

That's right, the first sentence did say that there were pro-bible passages, which you all agree isn't really... but then he said, what if it was changed?
 
That's right, the first sentence did say that there were pro-bible passages, which you all agree isn't really... but then he said, what if it was changed?

Well, part of the discussion (that detailed quite a bit, sorry for that) tends to point out that promotion of same-gender sexual acts was quite foreign, if not opposed, to most ancient Mediterranean societies, or at least the most directly concerned there.

I wonder which kind of radical cultural change among Jews would not only bear toleration, but an actual promotion of it. That would be huge, huge enough to butterfly most of Bible and Abrahamic religions as we know them.

Assuming it happens within a still recognizable religion and world as we know it, I think it would be quite opposed to actual conceptions. A Christian pro-same sex relations stance would probably insist on equality of partners, in a world where domination/submission ruled these acts. It could change eventually, but I would see a continued classical medieval tolerence (as in seen as part of sexualized deviances/exacerbations, but not unnatural), with celibate prventing clerics to really go on with this.

Vision of marriage, unions, conception would be totally different, at the point of probably being something else than Christianism; and the religion would probably have an harder time being taken seriously if not as a more dangerous sect.
 
Actually, when it comes to compare bibles from different times periods, copying mistakes are really rare. When a book is afoundement of an entiere religion (if not civilisation), copies tend to be watched carefully.

I on't speak arameic or ancient greek so won't pretend to be an expert but simply look at the difference in terms used for the same passage in various version (I picked a fairly straightforward one and one that is relevant):

Corinthian 6: 9-10

English Standard Bible

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

King James bible

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Catholic Bible

9 Do you not realise that people who do evil will never inherit the kingdom of God? Make no mistake -- the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites,

10 thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

Geneva Bible (1599)

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? [a]Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor wantons, nor buggerers,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God.

La Bible du Semeur

9 Ne savez-vous pas que ceux qui pratiquent l'injustice n'auront aucune part au *royaume de Dieu? Ne vous y trompez pas: il n'y aura point de part dans l'héritage de ce royaume pour les débauchés, les idolâtres, les adultères, les pervers ou les homosexuels,

10 ni pour les voleurs, les avares, pas plus que pour les ivrognes, les calomniateurs ou les malhonnêtes.

--------------------------------------------​

Now the first one makes it pretty clearly that gay sex is wrong, in the second it can be *assumed* so (modern people could take effeminate as being a coward). The catholic bible makes a bit murkier since "sodomites" was an historical term meaning gays but could also mean someone practicing sodomy (just like in the geneva bible) meaning that people having "unnatural sexual acts" (in the old sense) or anal sex (in the modern sense) would be denied heaven even if said unnatural act was not committed between people of the same gender.

You'll also appreciate that in the french version I included it's gays *and* perverts that get the shaft so even without straight up mistake (such as "les chaussures de vair" becoming "les chaussures de verres") you still have a bias in translation. add the old testament text in which figure of speech might be lost and you got a recipe for disaster.
 
Last edited:
It's a bit more complex. As every unprotected sexual intercourse doesn't results in a child, absence of such result in sexuality doesn't invalid it.

What validate a marriage is its consummation, not a pregnancy itself, but being open to it nevertheless.

Weirdly enough, incapacity to consumate marriage, as impotence, is enough to invalidate it.

I was aware of the last point (being raise catholic and all) but my point is that even if a sexual act (as in an unprotected one) doesn't result in a baby, if the *intent* was to have one (or at least not being opposed to it) it would mean the act was "not sinful" from a reproductive model of sexuality. If you *know* that you can't have kids and don't seek to have your marriage annulled, why then isn't it sinful to continue having sex ?
 
I on't speak arameic or ancient greek so won't pretend to be an expert but simply look at the difference in terms used for the same passage in various version (I picked a fairly straightforward one and one that is relevant)
In all honestly, I don't see there any other difference than use of contemporary terms.

English Standard Bible : pretty clear on itself, as you said.

King James bible : you're not mentioning the rest of the translation. It's not only "effeminate" but "nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind", making it really clear as well.

Catholic Bible : Indeed sodomites have a larger meaning. That said, you forgot there two things. One is the existance of canons precising the point of this verse, then that it's a translation of Vulgate, the official Catholic Bible whom translations were issued.

There's the expression Vulgate used : neque masculorum concubitores, neither men concubines. Again, quite clear.

Geneva Bible (1599) : coming from bougre. First understood as bulgarian, meaning heretical, it eventually became a slur for homosexual and bougrerie as homosexual intercourse, not just any kind of sodomy.

La Bible du Semeur : You're wrong. It's not perverts *and* homosexual, but perverts *or* homosexuals. Meaning that the translation got covered both sodomy in larger sense, and homosexuality specifically.



You'll also appreciate that in the french version I included it's gays *and* perverts that get the shaft so even without straight up mistake (such as "les chaussures de vair" becoming "les chaussures de verres") you still have a bias in translation.
add the old testament text in which figure of speech might be lost and you got a recipe for disaster.
I'm sure you're not arguing that a mistake from a fairy tale can make a case about a text whom translations and explanations were extremly watched over.
Not that there's not errors, but for the "lost in translation" could have be valid, if you didn't had a whole lot tradition of commentary, explanation (through 4 senses, for example)

That's why Jeohvah witnesses Bible is often depicted at how looks a really differently translated opus up to ourtright fraud. Even King James Bible does hold notations in margin to prevent imposing a distinct meaning when there was another one possible (not that it did prevented mistakes, but errors are...well, relativly minor)

If you *know* that you can't have kids and don't seek to have your marriage annulled, why then isn't it sinful to continue having sex ?

It's explained there.

While the act of marital intercourse may be (and indeed usually is) sterile, whether because of the natural rhythm of the woman's ovulation cycle or even because of some permanent defect (such as the absence of viable spermatozoa in the male ejaculate or the irreversible occlusion of the female fallopian tubes) nonetheless the act of marital intercourse is that kind of an act which is proper to human generation, whether or not it is, or even can be, generative.
 
I on't speak arameic or ancient greek so won't pretend to be an expert but simply look at the difference in terms used for the same passage in various version (I picked a fairly straightforward one and one that is relevant):

I'm really not interested in really participating in this discussion, because it really seems more appropriate for the chat section than the AH section, but I'm just going to point out that, when it comes to debating Biblical passages, anyone who has ever been serious about the topic *does* go directly to the original source material. In the case of the Epistles, that would be Koine Greek. Nobody at any serious level of theological import ever discusses doctrine based on a local vernacular translation.

Also, there is no "Catholic Bible" as a translation. There are several English translations of the Bible that are approved by the Catholic Church, such as Douay-Rheims, Jerusalem, New American, Revised Standard, and New Revised Standard, among several others.
 
Nobody at any serious level of theological import ever discusses doctrine based on a local vernacular translation.
What Marc wanted to point out, or what I think he wanted to point out more exactly, was the different translations of the Bible offered different and contradictory (or at least, not equivalent) meanings, not that if the greek text covered that in first place.
Althought I would disagree, on an historical consideration that only greek texts are relevant for theological discussion : Latin translations and consideration provided much of direct theological fueling.

I think only the Catholic Vulgate is considered sacred, though.

Not really, it's just considered as a very good translation by Catholics, having an institutional but not religious per se importance over different approoved translations, that it may have influenced.
 
The issue is you need to fundamentally butterfly Judaism's inherent Natalism away, and even then that wouldn't necessarily make them 'pro-gay'. Gay, that is to say identification and not merely partaking in homosexual acts, didn't exist until around the time of the Enlightenment. They could be more tolerant of homosexual acts, but that wouldn't make them 'pro-gay'.

Anyways the OP's point is based on a false assumption that 'Pro-Gay' bible passages exist, which is not true. It's not asking what whether Judeo-Christian culture could have been changed to be more accepting of homosexuality.


I think you could actually stretch that into the 1960's tbh. From what I've read about gay members in the US millitary who were caught engaging in homosexual acts, there actually was a way they could avoid discharge if they simply signed a form agreeing they would no longer engage in such acts or that said act occured out of momentary lap of judgement such as drunkeness.

The idea of being gay as a broader cultural insitution seperate from just the acts of homosexualtiy, are a product of the 60's movement.
 
I was thinking that maybe the 18th and definitely 19th century there was more acceptance of mutual homosexual love as a natural inclination among more bohemian, romantic circles, but you're right that self-identification as Gay didn't really start as a social movement until the 20th Century.

The point is you can't make Ancient Near East societies 'Pro-Gay' the way the OP is probably wanting to. The idea of being exclusively attracted to the same sex would seem an absurdity to them.
 
I don't think there are any "pro-gay" statements in the Jewish/Christian bibles per se.

However, modern mainstream Jews and Christians prefer to emphasize the many general statements in both the old and new testiments that emphasize God's unconditional love for all people, and against any type of oppression. Also, in the Christian gospels the message is conveyed that Jesus especially befriended outcasts and people perceived by his society as sinful. Also, in Christianity all people are born sinners anyway, so why pick on gays? Sins like greed, oppression, excessive wealth, etc are criticized far more in the Bible than the one or two possible mentions to homosexuality (and as others have noted the terms used may refer as much to pedophilia than consentual adult homosexual relations).
 
The OP is asking for a PoD where homosexual acts are considered inherently good though. 'Hate the sin, love the sinner' still means that a sin is being committed.
 
Wait, wait, wait. I think there's a major misunderstanding. I don't mean to say that it is a belief that being gay is good. I meant pro-gay as in they don't see anything wrong with it. Me being pro-gay for example means (to me) calling for acceptance.
 
Wait, wait, wait. I think there's a major misunderstanding. I don't mean to say that it is a belief that being gay is good. I meant pro-gay as in they don't see anything wrong with it. Me being pro-gay for example means (to me) calling for acceptance.

Just because you don't see something as inherently wrong doesn't necesarilly mean you are pro-it.

They way you initially phrased it did create that assumption. It sounds like your asking for a world where the prohibitions in the bible against homesexuality are more ignored.

Maybe similar to the biblical prohibitions against pre-marital sex being mostly ignored these days in the west.
 
The OP is asking for a PoD where homosexual acts are considered inherently good though. 'Hate the sin, love the sinner' still means that a sin is being committed.

So? What does "hate the sin, love the sinner" mean in a theology that considers every single human being a sinner? It just means we are asked to "love one another as I have loved you". Plus, as noted later, that's not the OP.
 
So? What does "hate the sin, love the sinner" mean in a theology that considers every single human being a sinner? It just means we are asked to "love one another as I have loved you". Plus, as noted later, that's not the OP.

The issue is that people who engage continuously in homosexual acts, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, are in a state of Mortal Sin and not in commune with the Church. They can't actually say they are damned, but the sacraments are no longer efficacious for them (if they do not sincerely repent, I mean).
 
Perhaps the alteration should come in Galatians?

Maybe in the letter to the Judaists he goes beyond "No male nor female" or rather than just saying "in the eyes of god" (obviously the quotes I'm using are of English versions so it is the originals that would need alteration) or "in the house of god" he says something about "And we should look upon it the same" and maybe he goes into some examples. If one of these examples happens to contain something regarding, say, a sacrement of love between two women... and some sort of acceptance of that or something?
I suggest Paul might make it disjointed, that is not perfectly obvious, but certainly obvious to anyone not attempting to twist the bible.

I mean, Galatians starts with Paul's attempts to make it such that the Gentiles didn't all become "Jewish-ified" so if he addresses this major point, saying that "The recognition of the gentile's love" or something when referencing two women... Some could then use it to say "Well that only applies to peoples to whom it is natural." In such a case, maybe that would allow the concept to be restricted for a long time in the short case? But, in the longer development of the church it would be explored more and ultimately become influential?

But if it is not 'ignorable', might that actually cause such a section to be removed from Galatians by the early church? Would that challenge Galatians' entire addition to the Canon?

And further, Paul's words are used quite a bit regarding it all, so if he has such words nearly the opposite I wonder how that would relate. That is, as opposed to one of the other Apostles making the "Pro-gay" statement we are adding in.
 
Top