The Bible & Homosexuality

[willy_jack]

Flame on, all you right wing homophobic, sexist, war mongering followers of Jesus. (Irony is so funny.)

What The Bible Really Says About Homosexuality
By Keith Boykin
August 21, 2002 12:19 PM
in spirituality


Last week I reported on black ministers in Miami who want to repeal that county's gay rights law. Today it's a church in Texas that apparently encouraged two young girls to divorce their lesbian mother. With all the talk about Christianity and homosexuality, it's worth examining what the Bible really says about the issue.

Before we begin, it's important to understand how the Bible has been used over time to justify bigotry. The Bible was used to justify racism ("slaves be obedient to your masters," Ephesians 6:5-9). The Bible was used to justify sexism (women should wear modest apparel and should not teach men, 1 Timothy 2:9-15). The Bible was used to justify anti-Semitism (the crucifixion of Jesus in Matthew 27:25 helped reinforce anti-Jewish beliefs). And today the Bible is used to justify heterosexism and homophobia.

There are four main biblical passages cited to justify Christian beliefs against homosexuality: (1) the story of Adam and Eve, (2) the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, (3) the prohibition in Leviticus, and (4) the writings of Paul. Neither one makes the case.

I. Adam and Steve




First, the creation story in Genesis 2-5 is often cited to prove that "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," but the story proves no such thing. After Cain killed his brother Abel, he was banished to a land east of Eden where he started a family and built a city (Genesis 4:16-17). But since the Bible at this point mentions no other humans besides Adam and Eve, how could Cain have created such a city if there were no other people on Earth? Clearly, the story of Adam and Eve does not tell us all of the people that God created, so it's quite possible that there were "Adam and Steve" couples around as well.

II. Sodom and Gomorrah




Second, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18-19) is often cited to show God's dislike for homosexuality, but this too oversimplifies the biblical text. It's hard to figure out who the good guys are in this story because Lot, the supposed hero, pimps his two daughters to the men of the town in exchange for rescuing the two angels who have come to stay with him. It's also hard to figure out what crime was committed that caused God's wrath to be brought on the town. If you read the Bible chronologically, then God planned to destroy the city (Genesis 18:20) well before the incident in which the men attempt to rape the angels (Genesis 19:9), suggesting that the attempted rape was not the primary cause of God's anger. Even if it were the cause, few gays and lesbians would disagree that rape should be condemned, but rape is not the same as homosexuality. And if you read Ezekiel 16:49, God never mentions homosexuality among the list of Sodom's sins. All together, it's hardly a compelling case that the story condemns homosexuality.

III. Leviticus




Third, the biblical passage in Leviticus 18:22 that man "shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind" fails to prove that homosexuality is wrong coming from a book (Leviticus) that is selectively quoted and widely ignored. Most modern gay men would probably say they do not "lie with" men as they would with women because many do not "lie with" women at all. But the Leviticus passage refers to a time when men with homosexual inclinations were still expected to marry women. For a man to lie with a man was called an "abomination." It seems like a pretty serious charge until you consider the other abominations in Leviticus. Eating pork (Lev. 11:7) or seafood (Lev. 11:9), planting mingled seeds (Lev. 19:19) or wearing polycotton blends (Lev. 19:19) could also put you in the Leviticus dog house. But how many black ministers are willing to condemn these practices?

IV. Paul's Writings




Fourth, Paul's critical message about homosexuality has been widely debated by biblical scholars, but Paul is hardly a standard that modern Christians would follow. It was Paul, after all, who wrote that women should "adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array" (I Timothy 2:9). That means the church ladies would have to take off their hats, their weaves, their gold earrings and their pearl necklaces before they could condemn homosexuals. And even then they could not condemn gay men because Paul does not allow women "to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

The Christian critics of homosexuality rarely mention Jonathan's homosexual love affair with David (I Samuel 18:20, II Samuel 1), the omission of homosexuality from the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) or Jesus' omission of any criticism of homosexuality. They see the Bible as a weapon of hate instead of a tool for love. But if homosexuality were such a big concern to Christ, then surely Jesus would have mentioned it and someone would have recorded it. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus take up the issue. Instead, when asked to choose the greatest of the commandments (Matthew 22:36), he explains the greatest commandment is to love.

(For more on this subject, check out The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart by Rev. Dr. Peter Gomes, or What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by Dr. Daniel Helminiak.)

© Copyright 2002 by Keith Boykin.

[confucius]

ok about the leviticus thing...

I witnessed two guys sleep in the same bed,
who aren't gay...
but more like brothers from different mothers...

so they lay in bed with eachother,
where is FREE WILL
freedom of choice...
freedom from prosecution for others and their individual religions...

freedom for two adults to do whatever they please behind close doors...
or three adults
or four adults...?

[confucius]

gays in the military (btw) is one point where history does in fact repeat itself,
but the greeks would rather supress that, like everything else (i.e. the truf)

[confucius]

Originally Posted by willy_jack

The Christian critics of homosexuality rarely mention Jonathan's homosexual love affair with David (I Samuel 18:20, II Samuel 1), the omission of homosexuality from the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) or Jesus' omission of any criticism of homosexuality. They see the Bible as a weapon of hate instead of a tool for love. But if homosexuality were such a big concern to Christ, then surely Jesus would have mentioned it and someone would have recorded it. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus take up the issue. Instead, when asked to choose the greatest of the commandments (Matthew 22:36), he explains the greatest commandment is to love.

and about this,
through some research from this teacher from MIT and California @ Berkley I learned that the Islam faith is the one that shows the audience how to use properly the lessons that Jesus was trying to teach including the golden rule...
treat others as you would like to be treated...

apparently these bible -thumping, gun toting fools will never learn...

love eachother...

it's infinite

[zerojunkie]

there it is! he proved it! the bible's totally ok with homosexuallity...hahaha...I mean it's an article written by some schmuck on the internet, how could it not be true? hahahah

[willy_jack]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

there it is! he proved it! the bible's totally ok with homosexuallity...hahaha...I mean it's an article written by some schmuck on the internet, how could it not be true? hahahah

Whereas Jerry Falwell, and George Bush have God's personal phone number? Or maybe people just listen to them, because they're just rich schmucks with a bunch of cash so therefore it is a given that their beliefs are more accurate with Jesus and his philosophy.

*shakes head while laughing LOUDLY*

[Mr. Sam]

Who cares what the bible says anyways?

[willy_jack]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sam

Who cares what the bible says anyways?

Watch out, Sam. That statement is very un-american. Homeland Security has been notified.

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by willy_jack

Whereas Jerry Falwell, and George Bush have God's personal phone number? Or maybe people just listen to them, because they're just rich schmucks with a bunch of cash so therefore it is a given that their beliefs are more accurate with Jesus and his philosophy.

*shakes head while laughing LOUDLY*

Ok, that makes no differnence in how WRONG this article is to anyone with even the slightest degree of understanding of the Bible. His 'points' are completely bogus, a first grader could've told you that.

[willy_jack]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

Ok, that makes no differnence in how WRONG this article is to anyone with even the slightest degree of understanding of the Bible. His 'points' are completely bogus, a first grader could've told you that.

Oh really now? Who is to say how someone INTERPERATES the Bible is the way in which it was meant? And you are exactly right, a child could have told me that. One thing we all know is that children pretty much believe everything they are told. So I guess you are saying that you understand the Bible, whereas people like myself, and this guy lack a grasp on the reality of the words since we do not fall into your belief zone.

You crack me the fuck up. You justify your dropping bombs on Iraqi children, your oppression of gay people, your invading Iraq on assumptions, and how Bush stole his first term. Not to mention exposing a CIA agent,because of qa report from her husband saying Saddam did not have WMD's.

Anything to protect your tax bracket, because thats what really matters. Cold, hard cash over emotions and feelings any day.

*pukes*

[Keith P]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

Ok, that makes no differnence in how WRONG this article is to anyone with even the slightest degree of understanding of the Bible. His 'points' are completely bogus, a first grader could've told you that.

I don't know many first graders that take the time to interpret biblical scripture for themselves to be honest. The core of this argument has nothing to do with Bush. As much as I share Willy's distaste for the man, its irrational to use him as a scapegoat in this argument atm. What is rational to say is that under this logic, one is trying desperately hard to justify bigotry. This is an issue that resides w/in your person for at no point in the new testemant do I see Christ justifying hatred.

Look I'll level with you, as a heterosexual male I still feel a certain degree of discomfort when I see gay men partake in intimacy. I think thats a natural response from conditioning. Who are you though to judge someone's private sexual affairs while sexuality in our culture has become little more than a tool to sell product?

These people(who are effectively US)are not the ones dividing our nation or perverting our moral standards. I have never encountered a gay man or woman who espoused a belief system of hate, or told me I was wrong for my sexual preference. I have never met a gay christian crusader or a gay man who felt it his God given right to take up the equivalent of American Jihad. These people such as Falwell, Robertson etc. are the ones stirring up fear and distrust in the public over a minority of people who subscribe to a live and let live mindset. Like idiots before you, you'll pervert the example of Christ to justify your arrogance and ignorance but you will ultimately lose to reason.

I don't hate you but I don't tolerate you(well this groups vie for power to be specific) anymore than I do an Islamic Jihadist. I hope this is how America comes to view this radical branch of Christianity.

[willy_jack]

Originally Posted by Keith P

I don't know many first graders that take the time to interpret biblical scripture for themselves to be honest. The core of this argument has nothing to do with Bush. As much as I share Willy's distaste for the man, its irrational to use him as a scapegoat in this argument atm. What is rational to say is that under this logic, one is trying desperately hard to justify bigotry. This is an issue that resides w/in your person for at no point in the new testemant do I see Christ justifying hatred.

Look I'll level with you, as a heterosexual male I still feel a certain degree of discomfort when I see gay men partake in intimacy. I think thats a natural response from conditioning.

These people(who are effectively US as this was never an issue based on race)are not the ones dividing our nation or perverting our moral standards. I have never encountered a gay man or woman who espoused a belief system of hate, or told me I was wrong for my sexual preference. I have never met a gay christian crusader or a gay man who felt it his God given right to take up the equivalent of American Jihad. These people such as Falwell, Robertson etc. are the ones stirring up fear and distrust in the public over a minority of people who subscribe to a live and let live mindset. Like idiots before you, you'll pervert the example of Christ to justify your arrogance and ignorance but you will ultimately lose to reason. branch of Christianity.

I don't hate you but I don't tolerate you anymore than I do an Islamic Jihadist. I hope this is how America comes to view this radical branch of Christianity.

Very well said. I only used Bush as an example, because that was part of his campaign strategy to get the focus off of his miserable failure as a leader. This fundamentalist mindstate is scary. The factthat anyone can claim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ of turning the other cheek, then smiting people who do not fall in with them on the cheek is a little perverted.

I, am also heterosexual. I used to feel uncomterable with being around PDA of gay men, but since it is a part of the norm within the EDM scene, I no longer am.

I am more uncomfterable with fundamentalists war mongerers in this scene. S

[HomoSexualPredator]

Originally Posted by Keith P

I don't know many first graders that take the time to interpret biblical scripture for themselves to be honest. The core of this argument has nothing to do with Bush. As much as I share Willy's distaste for the man, its irrational to use him as a scapegoat in this argument atm. What is rational to say is that under this logic, one is trying desperately hard to justify bigotry. This is an issue that resides w/in your person for at no point in the new testemant do I see Christ justifying hatred.

Look I'll level with you, as a heterosexual male I still feel a certain degree of discomfort when I see gay men partake in intimacy. I think thats a natural response from conditioning. Who are you though to judge someone's private sexual affairs while sexuality in our culture has become little more than a tool to sell product?

These people(who are effectively US)are not the ones dividing our nation or perverting our moral standards. I have never encountered a gay man or woman who espoused a belief system of hate, or told me I was wrong for my sexual preference. I have never met a gay christian crusader or a gay man who felt it his God given right to take up the equivalent of American Jihad. These people such as Falwell, Robertson etc. are the ones stirring up fear and distrust in the public over a minority of people who subscribe to a live and let live mindset. Like idiots before you, you'll pervert the example of Christ to justify your arrogance and ignorance but you will ultimately lose to reason.

I don't hate you but I don't tolerate you(well this groups vie for power to be specific) anymore than I do an Islamic Jihadist. I hope this is how America comes to view this radical branch of Christianity.

Keith, I think this is a great post! One thing I would like touch on is PDA by gay men making you uncomfortable. I really respect that you are able to get beyond your gut reaction to co-exist with such displays.

[HomoSexualPredator]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

Ok, that makes no differnence in how WRONG this article is to anyone with even the slightest degree of understanding of the Bible. His 'points' are completely bogus, a first grader could've told you that.

um, no. Not really.

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by McG

um, no. Not really.

Really, they're not? why such a short reply? Do you really have a point or were you just trolling for attention? And don't get your liberal feathers all in a ruffle. I'm not judging it, I'm just saying you do us all disservice by posting articles with such vapid points as...

But since the Bible at this point mentions no other humans besides Adam and Eve, how could Cain have created such a city if there were no other people on Earth? Clearly, the story of Adam and Eve does not tell us all of the people that God created, so it's quite possible that there were "Adam and Steve" couples around as well.

Arrrgh, quoting that makes my brain feel like pop rocks. Wow, really? So then the bible’s crystal clear about it? (actually it would appear it is, thanks in no small part to the author doing his own argument in)

Third, the biblical passage in Leviticus 18:22 that man "shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind"

Hrm…

lie with
1. To be decided by, dependent on, or up to: The choice lies with you.
2. Archaic To have sexual intercourse with.


I'm asking for a little better arguments proving that the bible "Ok's" homosexuality...I'm open to being proven wrong, but I don’t recall the bible mentioning homosexuality in anything but a negative context...which would at least explain the quality of the half assed attempt WJ just posted. Oh and WJ...put the crack that, my OMG super plur hero of conservatism, Ronald Reagan got you hooked on in the 80's up and quit making dumbass assumptions. That's two threads now you've basically portrayed me as Pat Robertson in. Don't make me wish death on you at the next 700 club.