A question for christians accepting of homosexuality

[protege]

Here's something that I'd thought I'd throw in here...

Why is it OK for a man to hang around 12 fellow men...but somehow homosexuality is a bad thing? Sorry, but when you read that most of his interaction was with them, and the occasional passage dealing with Mary Magdalene, you have to wonder... I mean, there's no mention of his sexual identity at all in the Bible. Of course, even if there was, do you really think it would have survived if it was "wrong?" Imagine the shock, or outright denial if it was! It would make the heads of Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, etc, explode!

[HYHYBT]

for the record, i'm not a christian myself, just someone who is wondering why you're generalizing about one group while the same accusations could be made against others using the same passage you use as evidence.

Going on guesswork: familiar point of reference. The beliefs you're raised in and around are easier to understand and even to question intelligently than those you mostly just read about. It's also more relevant since that's the one doing most of the pushing on this issue, at least in the US.

I would also strongly suspect that, in this case, Mr. Eagle's having recently been basically forced out of his church home over this issue (if I understood the thread a month or two back correctly) would have something to do with it. It's certainly something I've read up on quite a lot lately for similar but much milder reasons.

[Amanita]

I look at a lot of the old laws of Leviticus as a primitive form of disease control. All the stuff about blood, containment of the sick, mold, what foods to avoid, and so on.
They didn't understand the mechanisms of desease, of germs, or of blood-borne pathogens. They didn't understand food poisoning, or safe food handling practices like we do. And heaven only knows how sick you can get from pork or shellfish that are a little "off".
Pork has been known to carry trichanosis, and shellfish can carry red tide. And they also go really bad if not stored properly.
But they did see that people who ate certain things tended to get sick, that those who came into contact with sick people or blood sometimes got sick as well.
So in their own way, perhaps they were trying to establish basic hygeine practices.

If they had our modern knowlege, they might have chosen to enshrine safe food handling and storage as part of their purity laws. as well as hospital procedures for handling of biohazards and treatment of contagious patients.
Just a thought.

[Greenday]

my question to you is: why single out christians as inherently anti-gay? especially using a verse from leviticus, which is also a part of the torah. by your logic, doesn't this make jewish people inherently anti-gay? and what about similar passages in the koran? yet you've said nothing about anyone except christians.

for the record, i'm not a christian myself, just someone who is wondering why you're generalizing about one group while the same accusations could be made against others using the same passage you use as evidence.

Because odds are it's mostly Christians doing the gay-bashing.

As for the original question, the church I grew up in didn't take the bible to be law. We saw it more as a story book full of moral guidelines. But my church basically preached that everyone should be treated equally, regardless of gender, race, religion, etc.

[linguist]

I have had several people criticize me for jumping to the conclusion that Christians are inherently anti-gay. So, here's my challenge to those christians who aren't anti-gay: How do you reconcile that verse, which blatantly calls for me and anyone like me to be put to death, with your claim that you are accepting of homosexuality?

my question to you is: why single out christians as inherently anti-gay? especially using a verse from leviticus, which is also a part of the torah. by your logic, doesn't this make jewish people inherently anti-gay? and what about similar passages in the koran? yet you've said nothing about anyone except christians.

for the record, i'm not a christian myself, just someone who is wondering why you're generalizing about one group while the same accusations could be made against others using the same passage you use as evidence.

[Ree]

Leviticus was written as part of the old covenant. Under that covenant the laws were much stricter

Exactly.

We don't do animal sacrifice, or separate meat and milk, or demolish our houses whenever mold grows in them. So the anomaly, really, is that some people pick that one law from among the others and say it still applies.

Excellent point.

I may believe in the Christian God, but that does not mean I follow the Bible - a book written by men and edited heavily by the Catholic Church.

Whaaa????

It's been edited by more churches than just the Catholic Church, and still continues to be as each new "version" is released. Verses have been rewritten. Entire Books have been added or removed. Some Protestant denominations were founded on these "edits."

Thank you.

I can't really add a lot more than what has already been said quite well.

[Nyoibo]

Just expanding on the whole bible being re-written all the time I give you parallel translations of Leviticus 20:13

New International Version (©1984)
"'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.

New Living Translation (©2007)
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
When a man has sexual intercourse with another man as with a woman, both men are doing something disgusting and must be put to death. They deserve to die.

King James Bible
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.

American King James Version
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be on them.

American Standard Version
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Bible in Basic English
And if a man has sex relations with a man, the two of them have done a disgusting thing: let them be put to death; their blood will be on them.

Douay-Rheims Bible
If any one lie with a man se with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them.

Darby Bible Translation
And if a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall certainly be put to death; their blood is upon them.

English Revised Version
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Webster's Bible Translation
If a man also shall 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.

World English Bible
"'If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Young's Literal Translation
And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood is on them.

[fireheart17]

Leviticus 20:13 "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"


I knew a Catholic priest that put the emphasis on that part-and merely saw it as an extension of "do not commit adultery" or "do not have more than one partner at a time"-it's open to interpretation.

That is an excellent point and I'm glad that there's a priest who interprets it that way. I have a bisexual friend and a gay friend, both of whom are currently living in Christian raised families-one is catholic, one I'm not sure. The Catholic Parents are unaware (as far as I know), while the Not Sure Grandparents just ignore it. I'm wondering if this might help if I showed it to my friend.

It's been edited by more churches than just the Catholic Church, and still continues to be as each new "version" is released. Verses have been rewritten. Entire Books have been added or removed. Some Protestant denominations were founded on these "edits."

The Bible didn't arrive by Fax from heaven.

[Hyena Dandy]

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

The problem with that is that it assumes that everyone was speaking English. When that was written, there wasn't a word for 'homosexual'. The morality of the time was different, so they didn't use the same words. The word meant "male prostitute" not "man who sleeps with men."

There were words, at the time, for men who penetrated other men, and men who were penetrated by other men, but there wasn't one for 'man who has sex with men'.

[crashhelmet]

I may believe in the Christian God, but that does not mean I follow the Bible - a book written by men and edited heavily by the Catholic Church. Excuse me if I don't put a lot of stock in it.

It's been edited by more churches than just the Catholic Church, and still continues to be as each new "version" is released. Verses have been rewritten. Entire Books have been added or removed. Some Protestant denominations were founded on these "edits."

That was 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Essentially, it is saying that homosexuals, among some other groups, will not inherit the kingdom of God. So how do gay-friendly Christians reconcile this one? I do know that 1 Corinthians was a letter of reprimand that Paul sent to the church in Corinth, so perhaps they say that for some reason it only applied to them (as they often do with the commandment that women remain silent in the church, which is also found in 1 Corinthians). Or maybe the Greek word that is translated "homosexuals" in this verse has multiple meanings in English.

Not inheriting the Kingdom of God simply means you're not going to Heaven. It doesn't mean you should be put to death.

As for the "women should stay silent", well, according to 1 Corinthians 7: 1-7, we can see Paul's general ideas about women.

If you really want to learn Paul's view of women, read 1Timothy 2:9-15.

From the NIV:

9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

CH

[joe hx]

(Yes, I have some issues with Paul, and especially his ego. What gave it away?)

I love the part where he tells people not to brag about their faith, then he goes on and on about how he doesn't need to brag, because he's awesome, and has done this and this and this... Forget which letter it is, though.

[BlaqueKatt]

Yes, I have some issues with Paul, and especially his ego. What gave it away?

you aren't the only one-Paul's "permission" to speak the gospel came supposedly from a private communication from God-so for all we know, he just wanted to impose what he thought on everyone else, as there is no proof of his claim. Also Corinthians was written before the Gospels

[Seshat]

That was 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Essentially, it is saying that homosexuals, among some other groups, will not inherit the kingdom of God. So how do gay-friendly Christians reconcile this one?

Paul is not Christ. Paul was the precursor, IMO, of the crazy type of "Christian".

[Arcade Man D]

That was 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Essentially, it is saying that homosexuals, among some other groups, will not inherit the kingdom of God. So how do gay-friendly Christians reconcile this one? I do know that 1 Corinthians was a letter of reprimand that Paul sent to the church in Corinth, so perhaps they say that for some reason it only applied to them (as they often do with the commandment that women remain silent in the church, which is also found in 1 Corinthians). Or maybe the Greek word that is translated "homosexuals" in this verse has multiple meanings in English.

Actually, the Greek word that has been translated as "homosexuals" in most places in the New Testament most likely means alternately "male prostitutes" or "one who purchases a male prostitute". In New Testament-era Greek, there was no word for "homosexual", in fact.


As for the "women should stay silent", well, according to 1 Corinthians 7: 1-7, we can see Paul's general ideas about women.

1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Basically, Paul wishes everyone could be as awesome and sinless as him and says that marriage is a concession to the fact that no one else has his AWESOME self-control and can remain a virgin for the remainder of their life.

(Yes, I have some issues with Paul, and especially his ego. What gave it away?)



Finally, the only real mention of homosexuality in the New Testament is the healing of the centurion.

The Faith of the Centurion
5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 "Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering."

7 Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him."

8 The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."

10 When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.

The Greek word translated "servant" in this passage (I use NIV because it's what I'm used to, it's translated "slave" in others) is actually one meaning "beloved slave" with the implication of, being the male lover of said centurion. Note that Jesus' reaction is not to admonish the centurion, nor to say a word about it, but to simply heal him because of this centurion's faith.

[guywithashovel]

You might be able to argue that this verse in Leviticus was overruled by Jesus. However, there are a few verses in the New Testament that talk about homosexuality, too. Here's one example.

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

That was 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Essentially, it is saying that homosexuals, among some other groups, will not inherit the kingdom of God. So how do gay-friendly Christians reconcile this one? I do know that 1 Corinthians was a letter of reprimand that Paul sent to the church in Corinth, so perhaps they say that for some reason it only applied to them (as they often do with the commandment that women remain silent in the church, which is also found in 1 Corinthians). Or maybe the Greek word that is translated "homosexuals" in this verse has multiple meanings in English.

For myself, I have no objection whatsoever to homosexuality or homosexuals. And honestly, I really don't care if someone else does think it's a sin or immoral, as long as they aren't trying to stop others from marrying who they want and prevent them from having equal protection under the law.