Homosexuality and the Bible (gay Christian perspective)

This article was written from the perspective of a gay practicing Christian.
I thought it was very interesting...

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

I have said for years that if you are a Christian who doesn't keep kosher, you have no right to condemn homosexuality (you have no right otherwise either, considering the whole "don't judge others" bit, but that's beside the point).
This guy has broken it down in a much more detailed way than I ever found the time for.
While I can't agree with everythign he said, I do agree with him in intention and his overall point.

If you don't read the article, please do no repond to this.
I am looking for feedback on his specific points, not inane ramblings about morality and what is or is not natural I am not looking for justifications one way or the other - just specific critique of the article and his specific claims.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Phew got through it. What a load of twisted evil. Someone in extreme denial. He did not quote scripture much, figures because his type never does. But I will deal with the comments he Made about the scriptures.

Yes if a bride is not a virgin when she has sex with her first husband then it is proof that she has committed fornication. Therefore She has sinned. Fornicating was sin and is still sin now. True Christian stand firm on that truth today.

Yeah that’s adultery and it is still sin and the price of sin is death. Nothing has changed we do not accept adultery as good we call it sin. Just as it was in the OT.

No it is not. This is a lie. Paul said in the NT that a Christian can divorce a non-believing partner, and Jesus himself said that divorce is permissible when one of the couple has committed sexual sin (adultery, sodomy, ect ) So This is a flat out lie by the one who wrote this pamphlet. Of course the whole pamphlet is a lying piece of junk.

Yes it is unclean to have sex while the woman is having her period. Was then and still is now.

What a lie. And a deceiving twist of scriptures. I will just let people who are interested read Mark 12 if they cannot see how this guy has made and evil interpretation of this then nothing I say will change their twisted minds.

Yeah So ?

It is amazing the extent that people will go who love their sodomizing abominations to try and justify their deeds. Nothing this degenerate says can change the truth of the scriptures as to the abomination that sexual intercourse between men represents.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Adstar,

Do you keep kosher?

If you found out your wife was not a virgin before you met her, would you stone her to death?
If you found out a neighbor had with her husband during her period, would you execute both of them? Should they be executed?
If your neighbor cheated on her husband with your other neighbor, would you kill both of them? Should they be killed?
Do you beat your wife with a stick when she disobeys you? Should a man be allowed to beat his wife with a stick when she disobeys him?

Do you think we should have laws that align with this?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what does that have to do with anything?

 

one_raven, isn't this premise also often used by Christians on why homosexuality is a big sin? My experiences of discussing on homosexuality- as a problem in their part- with Christians and Muslims generally starts with the claims, concentrating on there is nothing mentioned in their holy books, or practises, because it's not a part of normal, accepted, er, holy life. So, absence of any remark makes it difficult rather than convince, don't you think?

 

Who are you talking to and what are you talking about?

 

wondering what those questions have to do with anything you asked.

 

I have heard the other side of that coin as well.
I have heard that "homosexuality" wasn't really talked about in secular texts at the time either, as there was not even name for it, it was just so commonplace and accepted as a part of life.

Regardless, sex with the same gender was obviously known at teh time, because there were a few references to it, and the lack of condemnation of it in the texts suggests a lack of condemnation of it in the Law. To assume that it was so just not talked about because it was so bad that any holy person would not do it is just absurd and stupid, because they define Laws for every aspect of life and spell out rules of morality very clearly.

If you have a bit of spare time, read the book of Leviticus.

 

Everything.
You haven't read the article, have you?
Have you even read what Adstar said?

The point is, someone will quote the passage in the book of Leviticus stating that for a man to lay with a man the way he lays with a woman is an abomination to justify their hatred of homsexuals and homosexuality and claim they are damned to Hell.
That very same book, states things such as it is acceptable to beat your wife with a stick if she disobeys you, so long as that stick is thinner then your thumb. That same book lays out the laws of keeping kosher. That same book states that if someone says the name of God aloud that person shoudl be stoned to death. That same book says many things that these people who use it to condemn homosexuality do not follow or even believe in - hell, most of them don't even know what else that book says because they have never even read it.

If you look at Jesus' words, he did very clearly condemn hipocricy, hatred and judgement but never said a word about homosexuality. So these people, who use the words in Leviticus to judge others by, yet they conveneintly discard the rest of the book to judge others and justify their hatred are, judging by the words of Jesus, much worse sinners than gays are.

 

I don't understand why anyone cares. If you're a serious Christian, then obviously the Bible means something to you. If you're not, it shouldn't matter. So what is with all the tension and controversy? It's not like there's any pressure coming from anywhere in this day and age.

If you like some things about the Bible, some of the core teachings relating to tolerance and forgiveness and faith, then embrace those things. After all, many other religions teach exactly the same thing despite the actions of some of the followers of those religions. If there are some things that you just can't swallow, that don't ring true for you, then feel free to ignore them. Instead of trying to mold a religion to fit your particular views, why not take those views and build your own belief system around them?

I'll just never understand why homosexuals feel the need to force the issue. I have sex outside of marriage and I've even had it with my partner during that time of the month. It wasn't a perverted kinky sex thing. In fact considering it in that context really is a bit gross. At the time it was simply a safe thing to do (in the context of birth control) and formed a natural part of our loving relationship. Christianity condemns me for these actions just as much as it would if I was having sex with another guy. But I just don't believe that is any more significant than what any other conservative element of society might have to say, and all other things being as equal as they possibly could be, I'd feel the same way if I was gay.

I don't think this is one of those situations where you should fight to be accepted. You are accepted. The Christians are the ones with the problem, not you. You can worship God, in your own way, without them. Or not.

 

I am not a homosexual and I feel the need to force the issue because this is used as a weapon weilded against homosexuals in many instances, in many circles and greatly influences discriminatory legislation and other deplorable actions.

 

One more thing, because I feel compelled to add it.

Laws are mostly designed to govern the lowest common denominator of idiot. They have to be. Idiots are everywhere. You can't make a law that says "If there's no cars around, you can cross the road any time you want", because there are just too many people out there who don't pay attention. You need to train them to stop, even when they don't need to, because this conditioning is necessary to ensure everyone's safety.

The Bible is exactly the same. God can't say that sex is alright as long as you're in a loving & committed relationship based on mutual respect, because most people just can't control themselves. They'd be justifying all kinds of behavior in the heat of infatuation. The same goes for Homosexuality. Most times in the Bible it is framed as an act of perverse lust, but in this sense it is no different from kinky heterosexual sex that is engaged in purely for the physical pleasure of it without regard for the consequences. If two men, or a women and a man, or two women, who love and respect each other, choose to express that love physically, that is a pure thing. If on the other hand two strangers meet at a bar and have sex that night, without regard for each others emotional wellbeing, that probably is a bad thing. It doesn't matter if the sex is gay or straight. If it's pure, it's pure, and if it's not, it's not.

Let's not forget that couples married in the eyes of God are having sex all the time. How is sex any different then? It's still either all about love or all about lust. Goodness and purity are in the heart, not wrapped up in the technicalities of Biblical law. If you're a good person, you're a good person.

 

OK. What I am trying to say is:

1.First Premise is based on:

There is nothing mentioned against gays & lesbians in the Bible.

2nd premise is based on:

3rd premise

This one also based on the first one, as the existance of any mention and condemnation cause misinterpretations so you should be open to see them in a different way. He points the general idea (claimed in all religions) that God's word's infallibale and designed to cover all aspects of human life and nature. Just, humans can't see it. So they must be open to change their minds about it.

But then he puts this premise.

4th Premise.

The article's overall way of looking to the subject is conflicted in itself, because the same arguments can be used by a Christian exactly to support an anti-gay & lesbian thesis.

So, what I am trying to say is, it's weak at the point of discussing the subject.

 

I am not homosexual. I don't believe in any god, religion or a system. I can't stand people condemning another group, just because they don't like the way they fuck. It's fascistic and disgusting.

 

To my foreknowledge, the Bible never recommended hanging or punishment for dealing with homosexuality. It does recommend a form of shunning, but I think this meant that a homosexual man should not be allowed to inherit property from his father, and they probably disregarded any offspring he produced, just in case the behavior could be passed on. Even then, this would be irrelevant if you were not a member of the land-owning class. All of the Bible's dictates on sex, just in general, all seem to have something to do with governing the inheritance of land and wealth. It seems to have almost nothing to do with how regular people are expected to behave.

Besides, royalty during this time period were monsters, and they got their way through murder and robbery. The only reason the world did not become infested with them was that they made themselves targets for each other, so they spent ample energies upon killing each other off.

In ancient times, the ruling class were what we would consider to be "white trash" today. All the decent people, during this time period, held small bits of land and tried to ignore these people who behaved like they owned everything.

Therefore, I disagree with the author. The Bible is an instruction manual for monarchs. Their "God" was nothing but a method of getting belligerent war-lords to cooperate with the collection of census information and other necessities. I really sympathize with the poor bastards in their priesthood, and I don't blame them for making up this bullshit.

Those poor schmucks were trying to get a bunch of constantly feuding war-lords to act like a civilization, and they had barbarians biting at their ankles and evil emperors breathing down their necks. The same evil emperors were probably spreading lies about how they could do evil magic to get what they wanted. This "magic" was probably nothing but a bunch of poppies.

And I can guarantee that the "incense" they kept burning in the Tabernacle was just that. It was a bunch of opium smoke. It was a way to make sure that anyone who walked in there eventually started seeing shit, so word would get around. If you worked in there long enough, of course, you'd build up enough of a tolerance to it that you could pay attention while you went about the important business of keeping these fucking lunatic warlords from self-destructing. Their addiction to it may have been instrumental in keeping these guys there instead of running back home to Mom and Dad.

Moses and his buddies had to do some fucking weird shit to get things done, but you have to admit it: the civilization he built has turned out to be surprisingly resilient. I think the best idea he had was making people send off their first-born children to serve as priests, using the excuse, "Well, God took all of the first-born children of Egypt!"

Enough of my ramblings, though. I know that this guy has good intentions, but he should seriously consider reading the Bible from the perspective of an atheist. It makes a whole lot more sense when you choose to take its claims about gods, demons, and evil spirits with a grain of salt. To tell you the truth, it might even give you a heightened appreciation for the pure resourcefulness of their priesthood. Nonetheless, the Bible IS partially about sex because sex and reproduction have a lot to do with whether or not a civilization can remain intact.

Leviticus, on the other hand, was probably a bunch of sanitary codes that were drafted by a bunch of ancient doctors. You see, it's easier to perform medical procedures, my friends, if you haul your patients into a tent that is filled with opium smoke, the effects of which are little distraction for someone who basically lives around it.

 

As a gay man myself and having very thorough knowledge of the Christian bible and teachings, I never could understand how any homosexual can hold faith in a belief system that condemns them. I think it's ignorant, hypocritical and self-destructive behavior.

 

The point he's trying to make seems to contradict itself.

It all comes off like, "Even though the Bible says X, it really doesn't mean X."

On the finer points of the article:

Before I start let me make clear, I take no stand on the issue of homosexuality. I used to but not anymore. Now, I couldn't care less what to people do in their bedroom. All people have the right to live their own lives.

Granted.
In fact, most people don't bother to research the Bible at all.
"If the preacher man on the TV said it then it must be true."

Couldn't agree more.

Granted. However, we must also be careful that our own preconceived notions don't cause us to twist the scriptures to fit our own ends. I.E, "Even though the Bible says the sky is blue what it really means is the sky is red."
When we do that our own opinions and beliefs take over and the Bible becomes pretty much meaningless.

Agreed.

Okay, so the Bible condemns adultery. We still consider adultery wrong today but we don't kill people for doing it.

see above

Not quite. In cases of infidelity divorce is permissible.

Right, sex during a woman's period was considered an unclean thing to do. Again, we don't kill people for doing it but many cultures still consider it an unclean thing.

No, the brother is ordered to marry the widow. (Deuteronomy 25:5-10)

No comment

So what do the passages say about God?

This is where everything begins to go south.

I'll grant that there are cases where heterosexual couples cannot produce children. In some cultures these couples are condemned and even killed for this. However, at it's heart a union between man and woman can produce children. A union between two men or two women cannot, under any circumstances. That is why these unions were seen as unnatural. Love really never entered the picture.

If that were the case then the men of Sodom would have accepted when Lot offered to send his daughters out to them, but they didn't. They weren't interested in the women, just the other men.

Okay, let's look at the verses.

Leviticus 18:22 - Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Hmm, seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Leviticus 18:1-2a - The LORD said to Moses, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them...

This portion of Leviticus was addressed to all Israel, not just the priests.

TO'E'BAH

Outline of Biblical usage:

1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable

a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)

b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)

Seems like it means evil things too....

Okay, let's look at the text.

Romans 1:26-27 - Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Okay

Okay

Agreed. but what does this have to do with homosexuality?

"Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Um....

How are Dr. Smedes' conclusions relevant to the verse in question?

Sorry, my friend, but I have to disagree.

Agreed.

This has nothing to do with the original point you were trying to make. Nevertheless, I find myself in agreement. All people, regardless of sexual orientation, color, gender, or creed are entitled to the same basic human rights and dignities.

 

Yes, you are.

All Praise The Ancient Of Daze

 

is this the thread where the straight guys pretend they dont talk negatively about homosexuals?

 

Fuck me, you've got some issues!