The reason for the general title is I didn’t want to blatantly call this the Homos and the Christians. Regardless, this was the response I wrote on that wonderfully vague issue of is homosexuality OK in Christianity. Well, here is what I think. It is extremely short and general compared to the extent of my view, but I didn’t want to give the readers a novel to read when my thoughts can be summed up. I may write more on this later, but this is a fairly good layout on my opinion.
This has always been a subject that bothered me, because of a condition called Chimerism. A condition in which a person can be born as both male and female, and if the letter is what is important then their very existence is considered unnatural, and any sexual view they take can be considered wrong.
In this case, I try to study the historical background on the big “homosexuality” passages. In just about all of their cases, the writers at the time were practically engulfed is sexual ambiguity. In the case of Romans, it was of course the Romans, who were notorious for sexual celebrations. Just look at the Roman holiday of Saturnalia, where part of the celebration was massive public orgies. I believe this is the unnatural order that is warned about in Romans 1 v26-27. Where sexuality isn’t a private matter among two loving individuals, but rather displayed like a public plaything as if it were the bouncy giraffe at the county fair.
And of course the other biggies are the the versus from Leviticus. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” and “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” In both of these passages we see the word abomination, translated from the Hebrew word to’ebah and in the Greek as bdelygma. In either case, each of these words are not seen as general as our word abomination, it actually means unclean in regards to a religous tradition. In other words, don’t do this to worship God. At the time this rule was set in place, the Hebrews would have actually been in constant contact (if not traveling with) pagans that used sexuality as a device for worship. They even used temple prostitutes, or sexual sacrifices, where a person would be taken to one of their temples and the priests or worshipers would then have their way sexually with the sacrificed individual. Certainly, we would consider this an abomination.
Another way I see this is in the KJV of the verse, which is the version I quoted. In the entire group of rules given in Leviticus, this is a rare occasion where the plural is used. It does not say lie with man, or lie with woman, it says mankind, and womankind, implying you shall not lie with multiple men, as you do with multiple women. Of course at that time polygamy being viewed as acceptable. Plus we have the case of Deuteronomy 23:17 where we see many of the rules in Leviticus mirrored, except the issue on homosexual practice, where instead we the rule of “No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute.”
From what I have noticed, the Bible almost always refers to homosexuality in the context of being surrounded by a culture that uses sexuality for worshiping publicly, rather than personally between two people. My opinion is there doesn’t seem to be any scripture condemning homosexuality directly without it practically referencing religious based rape.