Homosexuality and the Bible

[Inevitable2012]

Okay, I'm sure there's been over ten billion threads about this but a guy told me on another forum that I'm going to hell for supporting gay rights... he doesn't know I'm gay as well. So, he told me that I'm going to hell because the Bible condemns homosexuality... yaddah, yaddah, yaddah. It was just the usual bullshit.

So, I did my research like a good little Christian queer and here's what I came up with. Btw, please no saying God's not real and blah, I just want to know what you guys think about this whether you're religious or not.

I"ll quote my exact words from my reply on that forum.

And for the people out there claiming homosexuality is wrong because of God, read the following and tell me what you think.

####################################################################
Leviticus 18:22 states: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13 states: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have
committed an abomination: they shall surely to death; their blood shall be upon
them."

So...

-- These two statements clearly condemn homosexuality as abomination. However, scholars stress
that "abomination" in the Biblical time meant unclean not sin.

-- The Bible was written and interpreted by mortal men.

####################################################################

And there are also other things that the Bible says are wrong. For example...

Leviticus 11:10 - And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you. (This basically says that if you eat shellfish, you're going to hell.)

Leviticus 19:19 - Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee. (This basically states that if you let your cows mingle with other animals, grow a field with different plants or wear clothes made of different cloths, you're going to hell.)

Exodus 21:15 - And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
Exodus 21:17 - And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

Okay, with the two Exodus statements... pretty much the whole human population has cussed about or at their parents and a small percentage actually hit their parents. These are looked down upon but I've never heard someone say you're going to hell because you cussed about/at your parents.

####################################################################

So all in all, most Christians don't take any of these "abominations" seriously except the parts about homosexuality because eating shellfish or wearing mingled garments isn't considered disgusting and "wrong" in these days. I understand how two guys or two girls having sex is gross because when you think about the physical acts of "things" going on between them, in your eyes... it's disgusting. And when you hear the word "gay"... you automatically think of a flaming guy walking down the street in drag which makes you cringe. However, I for one am not like that. I never have wanted to be a girl, I have never wanted to dress like one, and I'm glad with what God gave me. So don't think just because someone is gay that they like dressing in drag or like to be flaming. I hope to God I never am "noticable" just by walking down the street. Even cross-dressers and transexuals scare me...

PS: No offense to "flamers" and cross dressers. I just said they scare me to get a laugh out of my other gay friend that likes cross dressing.

 

[G-Lexington]

No worries - a mod will move it if you ask them to.

You can't convince a Christian of the you're-going-to-hell type that they're wrong by quoting chapter and verse to them. For one thing, most have already decided which parts of the Bible are "important" to them, and so have no problem being contradictory in regards to certain verses. Secondly, perhaps you're aware of the section in the gospels according to Matthew and Luke where Jesus is tempted in the desert. In both accounts, the devil uses Biblical passages in an attempt to sway Jesus to his point of view. In short, as far as they're concerned, you're simply following in some well-worn footsteps.

Lex

 

[Enigma63]

didnt adam and eve have two sons, where did their wives come from, my opinion is that adam and eve were two tribes and not two people,

 

[trikky]

Inevitable

I think you are pretty much on track already with challenging the context of what leviticus says. Also the bible in it's current form, pretty much came about as a result of the council of Nicea in 325AD. Before then there were many branches of "christianity" who all believed different things that conflicted and all drew from different gospels which are often little known today. Nicea was an attempt to unify these branches under Constantine and at that time, the docrine of the Catholic Church was established by deciding which of the "books" would make it into the bible and everything else was to be destroyed and was considered blasphemous. After that it has appeared, except perhaps to scholars, that the bible is a complete and only message, which with the historical perspective you can see is simply untrue. The phrase Bible Truth is very misleading. In life most "information" is opinion really, either first hand or quoted. Very little is actually fact. More people cannot tell the difference. If you are to gain perspective in life you need to realise the differences.

I will add that it is not necessary to reject God or religious beliefs to be happy with your sexuality. It is just a matter of understanding how beliefs came about and their relevance in our world.

2000 years ago, birth and population expansion was essential to stop tribes and cultures from dying out due to high mortality rates. Small tribes were vulnerable and high birth rates required for their protection. This undoubtedly influenced a backlash against homosexuality.

Leviticus and exodus are of course Old testament, which is why they seem so completely different to new testament teachings. The reason they don't gel together really is because essentially they are 2 different religions in one book - Judaism and Christianity. The timescale between the writings of the original old testaments and new can be up to 1000 years depending upon which scholar you believe.

I had a pretty serious crisis of faith some years ago which lead me to research out all this stuff and I have extensive knowledge on the subject, and I have found that with the right perspectives it is possible to not have religious conflicts. If you want to PM me I'll be happy to talk more to you about it, and also give you a proper perspective on 2012.

 

[CuriousMonkey]

So, a couple of additional notes on Leviticus ...

If you read through the chapter you'll encounter 613 rules & regulations, things you either MUST do or MUST NOT do if you wanted to be a holy Israelite at that time. You've rightly pointed out prohibitions on eating pork ar shellfish, crossbreeding livestock, and blending textiles as examples that few modern Christians pay any heed. Among the 613 rules are MANY instructions about the ritual sacrifices required before an "unclean" person ( such as a woman after menstruation or childbirth ) should enter the temple ... but we don't see modern Christians gathering up & killing the turtledoves ( or whatever ) that these verses stipulate.

Frankly, I think folks who selectively latch on to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are trying to justify their own phobias about homosexuality.

And a quick note about translations ...

When we read today's english language translation of Leviticus and see passages about "man with mankind", what we don't see is the word Moses originally used ... "zakhar". In Moses' time, Egyptians incorporated ritualistic sex into their pagan practices. The (usually male) temple prostitutes who participated in these rituals were called "zakhar". So perhaps Leviticus' references to "man with mankind" and being put to death is referring to men who engage in ritualistic sex with temple prostitutes for pagan worship ?

( check "[ame="http://www.amazon.com/What-Bible-Really-About-Homosexuality/dp/188636009X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262269500&sr=1-1"]What The Bible Really Says About Homosexuality[/ame]" for more perspective )

 

[TX-Beau]

As Lex said, there’s no point in arguing chapter/verse/context/translation, with a bible thumper. They don’t care what you have to say about the bible because you’re a god cursed sodomite and god already told them what’s true, and all you’re doing in arguing the bible is trying to misinterpret it to justify your sin. It’s pointless.

I’ve never found arguing this subject with idiots with intractable religious positions productive in the least little bit. I’m pretty sure that I’ve never even gotten one of these people to listen, let alone question. The only effective way I’ve ever found to shut them up, is to reject the whole premise in the first place:

Bible thumping troglodyte: “You’re going straight to hell you god cursed sodomite!!!! It says so in the bible!!!!”

Me: “I don’t give a flying fuck about your bible, it’s fiction anyway, you might as well threaten me with dragons and unicorns.”

Bible thumping troglodyte: “But, But, But God says….”

Me: “God who?”

If you refuse to accept the premise, there’s not much left for them to argue, but remember, you’re not going to change their minds, people and Christians with minds to think with, never approach you this way.

This of course has no bearing on religion or the existence or non existence of god, it's simply the most effective way I've found to deal with religious bigotry.

 

[hotatlboi]

Yes you are correct that Christians pick out the passages they want to follow (like the condemnation of homosexuality) and just ignore the parts they don't.

It's an extremely hypocritical position.

 

[TX-Beau]

Yes you are correct that Christians pick out the passages they want to follow (like the condemnation of homosexuality) and just ignore the parts they don't.

It's an extremely hypocritical position.

Every Christian denomination picks and chooses. I suspect that's true of all religions. It's why all this reinterpretation and claims of mistranslation, and discussion of out of context prohibitions on homosexuality are completely moot.

Denominations with a tradition of hating us will go on doing so - no matter how many obscure references and translational arguments are made.

And unfortunately for gay Christians with a vested interest in these kinds of arguments, homophobic Christianity is a significant part of the Christian tradition as it's been practiced these past two thousand years. No matter how one argues the bible.

It would be much nicer to have benign Christians, but arguing about text and temples and other things more obscure isn't going to get any of us anywhere. Our best argument is in changing the attitudes in society, after all, no one - including Southern Baptists argues that God condones slavery anymore, and that's not because someone successfully argued that verses in the bible supporting it were taken out of context.

 

[hotatlboi]

That is a good point. The textual arguments are often not causal in nature but a representation of a choice people have already made.

Many homophobic Christians have just decided they are going to hate gay people, so they use whatever they can from the Bible to justify that. More tolerant ones have no problem with gay people so they have no use for those passages.

We've seen this before on other issues like slavery. During the civil war most people from the South supported slavery, so they used Biblical passages in support of slavery to justify that. People who had come to the conclusion that slavery was wrong had no use for those passages.

As more and more people realize that homophobia and hatred of gays is wrong, more will have no use for the homophobic passages in the Bible.

 

[Kulindahr]

You can't convince a Christian of the you're-going-to-hell type that they're wrong by quoting chapter and verse to them. For one thing, most have already decided which parts of the Bible are "important" to them, and so have no problem being contradictory in regards to certain verses. Secondly, perhaps you're aware of the section in the gospels according to Matthew and Luke where Jesus is tempted in the desert. In both accounts, the devil uses Biblical passages in an attempt to sway Jesus to his point of view. In short, as far as they're concerned, you're simply following in some well-worn footsteps.

Lex

When in reality they're the ones following in those well-worn footsteps, because they're just like the people who opposed Jesus back in the day: they're into rules, and condemning others.

So, a couple of additional notes on Leviticus ...

If you read through the chapter you'll encounter 613 rules & regulations, things you either MUST do or MUST NOT do if you wanted to be a holy Israelite at that time. You've rightly pointed out prohibitions on eating pork ar shellfish, crossbreeding livestock, and blending textiles as examples that few modern Christians pay any heed. Among the 613 rules are MANY instructions about the ritual sacrifices required before an "unclean" person ( such as a woman after menstruation or childbirth ) should enter the temple ... but we don't see modern Christians gathering up & killing the turtledoves ( or whatever ) that these verses stipulate.

I think it was John Calvin (a lawyer....) who invented the cute little trick that Christians use to justify ignoring things like that: dividing the Law into legal, ceremonial, and moral. The claim is that the legal and ceremonial parts are now void, but the moral still stands.

The trouble with that argument is that the Old Testament makes no such distinction: the Law was the Law, one thing not three.

Frankly, I think folks who selectively latch on to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are trying to justify their own phobias about homosexuality.

In general, yes. When you think about it, all sex is rather gross and disgusting, given that it involves organs of elimination being put together or otherwise inserted into another person's body. So they've just got a prejudice against one particular kind of grossness.

The clincher, though, is that I've almost never met a Christian who believed that if his son swore at him he'd kill the kid.

When we read today's english language translation of Leviticus and see passages about "man with mankind", what we don't see is the word Moses originally used ... "zakhar". In Moses' time, Egyptians incorporated ritualistic sex into their pagan practices. The (usually male) temple prostitutes who participated in these rituals were called "zakhar". So perhaps Leviticus' references to "man with mankind" and being put to death is referring to men who engage in ritualistic sex with temple prostitutes for pagan worship ?

It's got overtones of that, definitely; in fact at the time when Leviticus was delivered to the tribes, that would have been about the first thing to come to mind. The problem is that if this is pushed as the sole meaning, then you've got the problem of whether it's saying it's okay to go to female temple prostitutes.....

 

[Kulindahr]

As Lex said, there’s no point in arguing chapter/verse/context/translation, with a bible thumper. They don’t care what you have to say about the bible because you’re a god cursed sodomite and god already told them what’s true, and all you’re doing in arguing the bible is trying to misinterpret it to justify your sin. It’s pointless.

Well, if you really know your stuff there is. It's a matter of choosing your ground, and if you just start tossing Bible passages back and forth, you've met them on their own field, the field called "proof-texting".

I've had luck more than once by hitting back with the question that an Eastern Orthodox priest once told me is the basis for all theology: "Who is Jesus?" It totally redirects their minds, and then I lead an excursion on all the ways Jesus showed the Old Testament to be void/empty/powerless and all the ways in which He set out that a sin is a sin is a sin, and then to His character -- and finally to point out that given what He taught, if you're going to hold to one precept, you have to hold them all equally. Then it's time to look at the other verses, because by then they've agreed, on Jesus' authority, that they have to be impartial...

I’ve never found arguing this subject with idiots with intractable religious positions productive in the least little bit. I’m pretty sure that I’ve never even gotten one of these people to listen, let alone question. The only effective way I’ve ever found to shut them up, is to reject the whole premise in the first place:

Bible thumping troglodyte: “You’re going straight to hell you god cursed sodomite!!!! It says so in the bible!!!!”

Me: “I don’t give a flying fuck about your bible, it’s fiction anyway, you might as well threaten me with dragons and unicorns.”

Bible thumping troglodyte: “But, But, But God says….”

Me: “God who?”

That's priceless.

There's also the approach of, when they say you're going to Hell, of saying that sounds interesting, but you haven't looked at land prices in Michigan recently..... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_Michigan)

If you refuse to accept the premise, there’s not much left for them to argue, but remember, you’re not going to change their minds, people and Christians with minds to think with, never approach you this way.

This of course has no bearing on religion or the existence or non existence of god, it's simply the most effective way I've found to deal with religious bigotry.

I've done something similar by asking, "Which God?" Almost invariably it goes something like this:

Me: Which God?
BTT: The God of the Bible?
Me: Is that like the Jesus of the Mormons?
BTT: Mormons aren't Christians!
Me: They talk about Jesus...
BTT: That's not the real Jesus!
Me: so how do I know if the God you're talking about is really the God of the Bible?
BTT: (1) Read the Bible!

(2) Ummm....​

Me:

(1)Okay, lets
(2) How about look at the Bible?​

Often at this point I haul out my Greek New Testament, which is meant to awe them and get them to listen....

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes you are correct that Christians pick out the passages they want to follow (like the condemnation of homosexuality) and just ignore the parts they don't.

It's an extremely hypocritical position.

That just gave me another idea for answering such things: hand 'em a rock.

Me: Okay, keep this handy.
BTT: What???
Me: If one of your kids curses you, this'll get you started.
BTT: Huh???
Me: I thought you were following the Bible. Don't you know that in the same part that you're quoting it says to stone your kids if they swear at you?

 

[opinterph]

Moderator Notice

This thread originated in the Coming Out, Relationships & Bisex Talk forum.

Members who wish to continue interacting in this discussion should recognize that the Religion, Spirituality, and Philosophy forum is a no flame zone. If you have not already done so, please read the Reminder from Ronboy before continuing to post in this thread.

 

[Centexfarmer]

IMO?

I believe that most of the so called "Christians" have allowed the teachings of Christ to become "politicized" and rather than doing any study on their own, have decided to hurt the very people that Christ himself professed to love.

Print this out www.godmademegay.com, or at least share with him the link and then let him worry about what the Bible has to say about "Homosexuality."

IMO any thing that's stated within the Gospels or the Old Testament is more of an admonition against heterosexuals being something that they're not, rather than an admonition against us.

 

[Kulindahr]

It would be much nicer to have benign Christians, but arguing about text and temples and other things more obscure isn't going to get any of us anywhere. Our best argument is in changing the attitudes in society, after all, no one - including Southern Baptists argues that God condones slavery anymore, and that's not because someone successfully argued that verses in the bible supporting it were taken out of context.

That's why I don't argue details of text and verse -- these people are too close to the trees to see the forest. I argue theme, and who Jesus is -- and He sure as heck isn't someone with a whip and a chariot, which is what would correspond in that time and place to the way they act on His behalf now.

Theme is what changed the view on slavery, and got Christians back earlier than Newton working to abolish it. Slavery is tolerated and regulated in the Bible, but the broader theme of all being the same in Christ got people to recognize that a closely related theme, man in the image of God, had a deeper point: how can someone own that which is in the image of God?

The same theme, really, ought to have clued Christians in long since that neither force, nor political power, nor financial pressure, nor anything else but declaring the Word of God, is appropriate for their influencing society. The trouble is that people still want a Messiah who will slaughter their enemies and lay the world at their own feet, which is the very sort of Messiah Jesus repeatedly refused to be.

Or, as I strongly suspect, they aren't willing to wait for Jesus to come back and have every knee bow to Him, they want everyone to bow to them, now.

 

[milboy]

didnt adam and eve have two sons, where did their wives come from, my opinion is that adam and eve were two tribes and not two people,

I just realized that I asked the same question as you, but in a different thread.

 

[SAdude]

didnt adam and eve have two sons, where did their wives come from, my opinion is that adam and eve were two tribes and not two people,

Our priest was once asked that, he answered that the bible says that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman on earth, not the only. Havent checked it up for myself though

 

[conrad]

Yes, there are still those who take seriously the attitude of the ancient Hebrew books toward anything that remotely touches on human sexuality.

But, their history writers feature the great king David and his pronouncement that his love for Jonathan was a love passing (surpassing) the love of women. That certainly is a bit of a shift in emphasis.

As a Christian I am much impressed with what his followers remembered and what they wrote down concerning Jesus.

There would seem to be little doubt that he was content to stick to the traditional summary of the law with its emphasis on love of God with one's whole heart, soul, and mind. Jesus was content to connect love of God with love for others.

I wonder if his hearers would have understood an implied prohibition in that broad statement of any expression of that love of the other in sexual activity when the two were of the same sex.

Time has a way of making ancient truths (?) uncouth. Some Christians are able to see the love commandment being honored in loving sex between persons whether they be of different or the same sex. Others, who also call themselves Christians, seem to confine sex to its role in the propagation of the human species--thus, necessary but frought with possibilities for sin.

Surely one ought to make a distinction between unloving sex, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual, and loving sex whether it happens in the bonds of heterosexual or homosexual activity. Read your Bible as a warranting most relationships which include loving sex; many Christians do.

Frankly, I think the true worship of God with one's mind would free a good portion of the world from bondage to old ideas. One wishes more Christians would press for such worship of God; many of the objectional taboos have no sound grounding in logic or theology.

Think of it: Why would a loving God create human beings with the powerful urges to express affection in sexual concert with another and then declare that such sexual expression must only be for procreation?

Yes, it is possible and IMHO very right to be a follower of Jesus and to love others, even sexually, and even when that loved one is of the same sex as oneself.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes, there are still those who take seriously the attitude of the ancient Hebrew books toward anything that remotely touches on human sexuality.

But, their history writers feature the great king David and his pronouncement that his love for Jonathan was a love passing (surpassing) the love of women. That certainly is a bit of a shift in emphasis.

As a Christian I am much impressed with what his followers remembered and what they wrote down concerning Jesus.

There would seem to be little doubt that he was content to stick to the traditional summary of the law with its emphasis on love of God with one's whole heart, soul, and mind. Jesus was content to connect love of God with love for others.

I wonder if his hearers would have understood an implied prohibition in that broad statement of any expression of that love of the other in sexual activity when the two were of the same sex.

Time has a way of making ancient truths (?) uncouth. Some Christians are able to see the love commandment being honored in loving sex between persons whether they be of different or the same sex. Others, who also call themselves Christians, seem to confine sex to its role in the propagation of the human species--thus, necessary but frought with possibilities for sin.

Surely one ought to make a distinction between unloving sex, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual, and loving sex whether it happens in the bonds of heterosexual or homosexual activity. Read your Bible as a warranting most relationships which include loving sex; many Christians do.

Frankly, I think the true worship of God with one's mind would free a good portion of the world from bondage to old ideas. One wishes more Christians would press for such worship of God; many of the objectional taboos have no sound grounding in logic or theology.

Think of it: Why would a loving God create human beings with the powerful urges to express affection in sexual concert with another and then declare that such sexual expression must only be for procreation?

Yes, it is possible and IMHO very right to be a follower of Jesus and to love others, even sexually, and even when that loved one is of the same sex as oneself.

Quoted for excellence of content and composition!

 

[subobj]

No worries - a mod will move it if you ask them to.

You can't convince a Christian of the you're-going-to-hell type that they're wrong by quoting chapter and verse to them. For one thing, most have already decided which parts of the Bible are "important" to them, and so have no problem being contradictory in regards to certain verses. Secondly, perhaps you're aware of the section in the gospels according to Matthew and Luke where Jesus is tempted in the desert. In both accounts, the devil uses Biblical passages in an attempt to sway Jesus to his point of view. In short, as far as they're concerned, you're simply following in some well-worn footsteps.

Lex

So maybe I'm just being trollish, but what if I accuse THEM of acting the part of the devil by their citing of the Bible? How would a proselytizing Christian deal with this sort of accusation?