Well, one thing we can say about religious history with some confidence is that, if religious patriarchs say “don’t do it!”, then people were, in fact, doing it!
3 Likes
We can’t go back in time to read Jesus mind about the issue, but the fact of the matter is that he never talks about homosexuality anywhere in any gospel, but he does condemn divorce and suggests that people who divorce and remarry are committing adultery. In the oldest gospel, Mark, there are no exceptions. In later gospels an exception is added, presumably by the editor of the gospel, to soften a very “hard teaching”, where divorce can be granted in cases of gr. “porneia”, which means sexual immorality (the meaning of the term in this context is heavily disputed). It is therefore quite interesting to see Christians being very concerned with condemning homosexuality based on a handful of pauline passages, but ignoring what Jesus and Paul has to say about divorce and remarriage. Apparently you cannot be a good Christian and live with a gay partner, although Jesus says nothing about the issue, but you can be a good Christian pastor or priest (not to mention lay people) even though you have divorced and remarried several times despite Jesus’ condemnation of divorce.
When it comes to Paul, conservative Christians are inconsistent in their adoption of his views. He does condemn homosexuality in texts that the majority of scholars agree are written by him, but he also teaches (in 1 Corinthians 11) that women need to wear a head covering when praying “because of the angels” and that nature itself teaches that it is a disgrace for women to have short hair and for men to have long hair (so much for the popular images of Jesus). Nobody seems to care what he says about this issue.
In 1 Timothy 2, which is probably not written by Paul but claims to be, it is said that women are to be silent in church, that they may not teach or have authority over men, and that they can be saved by having children despite being to blame for the fall of humanity. Most evangelical and fundamentalist Christians believe this letter is written by Paul and inspired by God, and yet I have not heard anyone teach that childless women will go to hell, which the text would imply. Nor are women required to be silent in church, despite what this text says. The nuns of the Catholic and Orthodox churches would be in real trouble if women are saved through childbirth, as would anyone who for one reason or another doesn’t have children.
Finally, Paul himself distinguishes between his own views and the teachings of the Lord in 1 Corinthians 7 (“I and not the Lord [say this]”), and yet his letters are read as the word of God in churches all over the world. Paul himself probably had no idea that this would happen, and as evidenced by this text he didn’t think he spoke for God.
3 Likes
Since these is speculation as to the stance of Jesus regarding homosexuality, I would like to put forward the passage in which Jesus defines “marriage” in its proper context, which is very rarely cited, in my experience, from Matthew. :quote 1. When Jesus had finished talking, He went from the country of Galilee. He came to the part of the country of Judea which is on the other side of the Jordan River.
2. Many people followed Him and He healed them there.
3. The proud religious law-keepers came to Jesus. They tried to trap Him by saying, “Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?”
4. He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman?
5. It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’
6. So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”
7. The proud religious law-keepers said to Jesus, “Then why did the Law of Moses allow a man to divorce his wife if he put it down in writing and gave it to her?”
8. Jesus said to them, “Because of your hard hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. It was not like that from the beginning.
9. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sex sins, and marries another, is guilty of sex sins in marriage. Whoever marries her that is divorced is guilty of sex sins in marriage.”
10. His followers said to Him, “If that is the way of a man with his wife, it is better not to be married.”
11. But Jesus said to them, “Not all men are able to do this, but only those to whom it has been given.
12. For there are some men who from birth will never be able to have children. There are some men who have been made so by men. There are some men who have had themselves made that way because of the holy nation of heaven. The one who is able to do this, let him do it.”[/quote]As is usually the case with reference to what might now be called “sex & gender minorities” in history, much like in the case with the term paṇḍaka, it is unclear if eunichs or other forms of sexual “dysfunction” (from a biological perspective) are referred to in the above, in addition to this exception potentially and possibly applying to homosexuals in a contemporary context.
That being said, there seems to be a lot of talk about Jesus on an EBT forum, he said jokingly.
Incidentally, homosexuality and Buddhist monasticism have something in common from this aforementioned “biological perspective”: they are both forms of sexual dysfunction. Maybe something is wrong with the perspective…? Maybe some perspectives can be/are frequently misapplied to a given situation?[quote=“anon98845439”]
In later gospels an exception is added
[/quote]AFAIK, most of these gospels date from around the same time, regardless of which was first. They are all from within ~100 years of each other I mean to say, and constitute the second layer of attestation of a historical Jesus (a generally more removed layer, contemporaneous with numerous other Christian movements, including Gnosticism, as discussed on the various thread relating to Elaine Pagels, etc), after the Pauline Epistles, which predate all of them. The only gospel that is demonstrably later significantly is John.
Jesus generally talked about those aspects of the Judaic Law he sought to reform. He did say he came not to abolish the Law but to complete it. It can only be assumed he supported the Judaic view on homosexuality even though, based on the reported teachings, he would not have condemned homosexuals who lived together with fidelity. However, I doubt this would have concerned him.
For example, when Jesus protects the adulteress from stoning, he still condemns adultery but is against stoning.
My reading is he condemned men who divorce their wives when the wife has shown no fault thus forcing the woman to essentially remarry against her will thus forcing her to commit adultery in her heart since most women struggle to live alone. Further, the new husband gets a wife whose heart is stuck on her 1st love, which can be problematic. To me this teaching is based on compassion for women.
I personally like this teaching because I have known older men who divorce their wives for a younger woman after the sexual drive of the wife wanes & the children have grown up. This is very hurtful to the wife whose self-identity is based in the marriage & family. Its terrible. Then they, in their loneliness, reluctantly look for another man. Its terrible.
I disagree here. If the woman is immoral it is OK to divorce or expel her, as also taught in the EBTs.
I provided my personal speculation on this, namely, Paul was building a new religion in Greece & Rome, where homosexuality was more accepted as a norm & chose to not align his new religion with homosexuality.
In the West today, my impression is Buddhism largely focuses on recruiting fringe minority groups, feminists & cultural Marxists, which is indicative of its failure to penetrate mainstream Western society due to its image of not supporting family values.
This is relevant to modern Western people but as I suggested was probably not relevant to Paul and the early Christians who were concerned with converting the many Jews living throughout the Roman Empire and the Gentiles.
Western Buddhism has chosen to market itself to gay people thus these matters become relevant, today. I personally struggle to understand why gay people still fight for acceptance in the Christian churches.
Correct. Women should not have authority in the Church but can have authority in the home, the same as in Buddhism. If women have authority in the Church, they will teaching worldly things such as metta rather than transcendent things such as anatta & sunnata.
As for being saved by childbirth, this is obviously for the non-celibates. Paul said clearly he would prefer both men & women to be celibate like him, if they are able. But for women who cannot be celibate, yes, they find purpose, meaning & maturity in having children, as most women do today.
Why do you think modern women today are desperately having children in their 30s after realising following feminist materialistic ideals for their previous 20 years ended up as an emotional dead end? Generally most women (but not those that hang out on Buddhist chatsites) really want to & love having children. At least for me, if I did not realise this when I was young, I would have probably never become a Buddhist & easily dropped the hindrance of sexual desire (since I don’t warm to the idea of having children).
Personally, I think this is not relevant. Unlike Western Buddhists, my impression is Christianity had little interest in marketing itself to homosexuals because this would not advance the growth & future of their new religion. Where as as Western Buddhists, most of us are fringe dwellers of society. Western Buddhism is for us misfits, including myself. 
Its all about marketing really. I have a university degree in marketing I never used! 
Lol. I better defend the honor of Buddhist monasticism from this offense. The EBTs describe the household life as “confining & dusty”, particularly when there are children to work & slave for. It seems more a matter of discernment (panna) than dysfunction.
Anāgāika Michael, do you know anything about how this Sri Lankan commentary may be viewed in Thailand? I have been puzzled by the fact that in a country where gays are generally accepted the Mae Chee handbook says that lesbians may not take Mae Chee ordination. (It also says that we may not go pindapat or smile when with our families - I do both)
1 Like
[quote=“Deeele, post:25, topic:6011”]
In the West today, my impression is Buddhism largely focuses on recruiting fringe minority groups, feminists & cultural Marxists
[/quote]Like Christianity, once famously referred to as “the religion of women and slaves”?
That being said, I do not see the above as a bad thing, per se, but acknowledge the difficulty that such converts will face when faced with the cold hard facts that “Buddhism” is every bit as much the cold conservative establishment-supporting institution as the one they turned away from in the territory in which it is a native faith.
[quote=“Deeele, post:25, topic:6011”]
Correct. Women should not have authority in the Church but can have authority in the home, the same as in Buddhism. If women have authority in the Church, they will teaching worldly things such as metta rather than transcendent things such as anatta & sunnata.
[/quote]This thought strikes me as disingenuous. I know many women smarter than what you imply, who would not lead a sermon on metta (or, if they did, I would recommend we all attend) if given the chance.
Harsh judgment.
Namely? Thanks
Dear @Varada , I am unsure how the Sri Lankan views would be perceived in Thailand. I haven’t had a chance to read the Mae Chee Handbook, but found this posting which was helpful: “Thailand has a national mae chee organisation sanctioned by the Dept of Religious Affairs. They used to publish a short handbook in Thai and English, which I saw once at the bookstore opposite Wat Bowon. According to that manual mae chee in Thailand follow 10 precepts, which as I recall are the same 10 precepts samanera (novice monks) follow.”
If the handbook states that lesbians may not ordain, this seems to be contraindicated by practice in Thailand, where gay men have ordained and are generally welcomed to do so, so long as they meet all other requirements of preparation and practice for ordination. As a celibate ordination it is not one’s sexuality at issue, but whether one practices restraint of sexual activitiy that is important to practice, IMO.
I am glad that you go on pindabaht, and I feel it is completely perfect to smile when with one’s family. It sounds to me like the handbook may be a bit archaic, and that in practice in Thailand, being gay, being happy and going on almsround (one of the great experiences of being in robes, IMO) are all accepted.
It’s nice that you asked me this question, but Bhante @Sujato will likely know much more about this subject than I. Also, for example, Sujato’s Blog ( https://sujato.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/the-1928-bhikkhuni-ban/ ) has a number of great essays and comments regarding Bhikkhunis, Mae Chee, and other issues that might be relevant to your most interesting question.
I am glad that you smile…it’s such a great expression of Metta, and gift to those around you.
1 Like
Most scholars would place mark at around 70, Luke and Matthew use Mark as a source and are hence later. Both Mark and Paul who says he got his teaching from “the Lord” grants no exceptions when it comes to divorce. Matthew uses stronger anti-Jewish rhetoric, presumably because it is written in 88 or later when the Christians had been kicked out of the Jewish synagogue by traditionalists who wanted a pure Judaism after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (before that time they were practicing Jews). You can also see significant development in the crucifixion and resurrection accounts, etc. There are good reasons for the dating of the gospels and I don’t think the evidence for a late John is better than the evidence for a relatively early Mark. I do agree that John is late, though. All the canonical gospels are written by third generation, greek speaking Christians living in a geographic region far removed from Galilee, but the gospel of John is the least historical of them.
Thank you for reminding me of the eunuch passage. It is very interesting.
Thanks Michael
I don’t take the manual seriously. I was having it translated into English to make a bilingual handbook for use here. I had asked a friend to read through it and see if it was suitable. She told me of these three things she (rightly) believed l’d disagree with and so I discarded the book. This discussion on homophobia in Buddhism made me wonder how the Mae Chee’s Foundation came to reject lesbians. I don’t know if any of my MC sisters are gay and I don’t care - they’re celibate anyway 
1 Like
Dear @Varada, maybe this opens a door to the possibility of creating an updated Handbook? Of course, I’d prefer that women in the Thai Sangha simply ordained as Samaneri and Bhikkhunis, and that the Mae Chee ordination (if kept alive) be something that a woman could choose of free will. Still, the Mae Chee is a 10 precept ordination, and I hope soon, if you wished, you could ordain into the samaneri robes and go as far in orange/brown robes as you wish.
The Handbook is probably written/final edited by a man, or at least someone that doesn’t understand the Buddha’s kind neutrality on sexuality in the Canon.
I’ve been trying for over 10years to find a place to take pabbajjā, it’s not that easy
I don’t know about Mae Chees with 10 precepts. Here I have the 8 precepts and 75 sekhiya rules, same as when I was an anāgāikā.
Sorry, I’m off topic😑
You’re right; I 'm sorry. I had thought that Mae Chees in Thailand were 8 or 10 precept ordinations.
I hope that your goal of higher ordination is reached. It’s not easy, but I hope, even if you have to travel, you can take the ordination path you wish, and find a place within Thailand or wherever you wish to be to fulfill this. It seems to me this will be open to you, one way or another, and all of us that care about this issue need to be of help to you.
It depends on which gospel you read. Matthew’s gospel does indeed attribute to Jesus the saying that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, but this saying is not found in the other gospels (if my memory serves me correctly). The Jewish Christian(s) responsible for writing Matthew’s gospel seem to have been in close alignment with Pharisaical Judaism, since the interpretations of the law found in this gospel are very much in line with the views of this particular school of Judaism, however these views are not in the other gospels. It was a gospel written by Jewish Christians for Jews, to convince them that Jesus was a new Moses. This is why the sermon on the mount is situated on the mount in Matthew. Moses also addressed the people of God from a mountain. In Luke’s gospel the sermon takes place on a grass plain.
In Mark’s gospel chapter 7, Jesus sets aside the law which forbade people from eating certain kinds of foods and pronounces all foods clean. The phrase “Thus he declared all foods clean” is not included in Matthew’s gospel, probably because it directly contradicts the view that Jesus did not abolish aspects of the law.
"He said to them, “Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
As for non gospel sources, in Ephesians 2:15 we read
“He [Jesus] has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace”
and Paul says
“when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross.” (Col 2:14). In 2 Corinthians 3 he refers to the law as “The ministry of death”.
I also think the passage was motivated by compassion for women. The law of Moses allowed a man to simply declare divorce and the marriage was over. Jesus says that if you do that and remarry, you commit adultery. He made no exceptions in the earliest versions of the saying. My point is that divorce is something Jesus specifically, forcefully and clearly forbade (in violation of Mosaic law which allowed it), and most Christians ignore it. But the same Christians are sometimes very much hung up on homosexuality, which Jesus said nothing about even in passages where it would be natural for him to do so [EDIT: if he actually cared about it], such as in the list of defilements quoted above.
Jesus did not think it was ok to divorce her and then remarry, even if she was “immoral”. At least the earliest version of his sayings permit no exceptions, and if you look at Christianity in the subsequent centuries, divorce and remarriage was not allowed at all in the western church. It still isn’t allowed in the Catholic Church. It is not divorce per se he refuses, but divorce and subsequent remarriage. I am not arguing that this is my view. I am pointing out an inconsistency in how certain Christians treat Jesus saying about divorce and remarriage vs. homosexuality.
I don’t think most Buddhist groups in the west proselytize at all. In order for Buddhism to have failed to penetrate mainstream Western society, it must first have attempted to do so. I don’t think it has. I also don’t think there are enough people with little dust in their eyes for wide adoption of authentic Dhamma teachings. Most people are deeply addicted to pleasures, and a religion that teaches true happiness comes from destroying craving, getting rid of sexual lust, giving up the thirst for pleasures instead of receiving an infinite supply of whatever one craves, will not be adopted by the masses, unless it is sugarcoated until it is unrecognizable or rejected outright.
You think women have a female self, then. An inner identity & nature that makes all women prefer worldly teachings. You must not have met women who are not like that.
Paul didn’t write 1 Timothy. This is one of several reasons for rejecting pauline authorship of the epistle.
Desiring children and being saved through having them are two different things. Salvation in Christianity doesn’t merely mean being happy in the here and now. Sure, lots of women start feeling a very strong need for children in their thirties.
I was making the larger point that Christians generally do not follow everything Paul says. They feel free to ignore his views about wearing head coverings when praying, for instance. They also ignore his own words when he clearly and unambiguously distinguishes between his own opinions and commands from the Lord. If he thought he was writing the inerrant word of God the distinction would be meaningless. And so Paul is ignored in order to turn his letters into the Word of God.
Sorry. I was referring to adultery here. If Matthew is a misrepresentation then this would probably make the position of Jesus about homosexuality even more extreme.
The Abrahmanic religions are ‘creationist’ religions rather than natural doctrines like Buddhism believing in the diversity of elements (dhatu). Naturally, Adam & Eve creationism would not support homosexuality. If Jesus was such an extremist about marriage; obviously he would not endorse homosexuality given most boys & girls would be married young by their parents thus there would be little scope for homosexuality in the non-divorce creationist Adam & Eve world view of Jesus.
Not at all. It has made itself unattractive to mainstream society. For example, if I post about sexual morality on a Buddhist chatsite, generally I will be criticised or ridiculed.
Buddhism does not only teach a monastic path of shunning pleasures. It has a complete set of teachings for lay people.
Sure. Probably.
Irrelevant to the teaching.
Extreme view to believe this teachings says if women have children on earth they will be saved in heaven. Personally, I find the spirit of the non-Gospel NT teachings to be quite sound & mostly non-superstitious.
For around 1,800 years of Christian history, it was common for women to wear headscarfs. However, you seem to be quibbling here about minor details in attempting to manufacture a Christian case for homosexuality.
Just as in my opinion it is not a Buddhist role to promote political homosexual identitarianism (but instead to merely promote dhamma to people, including homosexuals), in my opinion it is not a Buddhist role to be an apologist for the often vague teachings attributed to a Jesus of Nazareth.
Regards 
Greetings Venerable,
Respectfully: imho “micchādhammā” and “adhammarāga” cover a very wide range of possibilities, (for the word “adhamma” is just as equally versatile as the word “dhamma”!) any translation of which will have to be “interpretive”, not only within the moral context but possibly even the mental (emotional) context. Perhaps that’s why we get to disagree with the commentator now. For example, i’m not sure i understand why “rāga” has to be a reference to “lust” in particular (so many instances in the text where it is not, plus, “virāga” is not sexual-specific). It is the word “visama” that suggests some reference to “perversion” (like vipariyesa) or deviation from what is “normal”. But the addition of “lobha” does not reinforce the sexual connotation as much as it points to sensual experience in general. Bottom line is what kind of “abnormality” is “visama” referring to? If we were to render “visamalobha” as “perverted” greed or gluttony; then these expressions would rightly cover sensual perversion “in general”, including excessive craving for food for example. And even in the sexual sense, it would cover the perversion which is found in the heterosexual experience as well. So I feel that references here are not necessarily sexual-specific, and even if i’m mistaken in that, I’d then say that the word “visamalobha” is similar to the word “paraphilia” in English, which is a reference to all sexual perversion and not only the homosexual.
1 Like
Yes, you are quite right, there is nothing about these words that speaks to sexual immorality specifically.
For this reason, I normally translate both rāga and lobha as “greed”, although in some cases such as the present one they need to be differentiated. But perhaps we should use “desire” rather than “lust”. Of course, “lust” may be used more broadly than sexual desire, but on its own, that is the main connotation.
When the terms themselves are vague, we must rely on context. While most attention has been given to DN 26, in fact there there is little in the way of meaningful context. Yes, sexual immorality is mentioned, but so are many other things, and there is no contextual reason why these terms should relate to that specifically.
The context in AN 3.56, however, is more helpful. There, in a similar way, the forces that lead to decline in society are mentioned. At each step of the way it is said that people are adhammarāgarattā visamalobhābhibhūtā micchādhammaparetā, i.e. consumed by illicit desires. There, the basic crime is violence, people killing each other, which, as in the Aggañña Sutta, upsets the very order of nature. Sexual immorality is not mentioned.
So on review, I think at that you’re right, these terms don’t refer to sexual immorality specifically, and should be phrased in more general terms.
3 Likes
In the EBTs, there is nothing defining “homosexuality” as a “perversion”. Buddhism only refers to “sexual misconduct”. If homosexuals live according to the Buddhist teachings that lead to wholesome sexual relations between two homosexual partners, this is not a “perversion” or “adhamma”. Instead, it is Right Action (for the homosexual lay person). Homosexuals can engage in both Right Action & wrong action which is why Buddhism supports Right Action rather than homosexuals or heterosexuals per se (as identity groups). The focus on ‘identity groups’ is another ideology.
3 Likes