A Christian's view of homosexuality

[tjhammer]

I just read an interesting article written by Justin Cannon, a young, gay college student preparing to enter the Episcopalian priesthood. There's many resources available to people who want to better understand the Bible and homosexuality, and I have read several recently. I found Justin's thoughts to be well reasoned; he observes the six passages of the Bible that have been related to homosexuals, and one-by-one explains how misinterpretation may have creeped into the lexicon (he notes the word "homosexual" didn't even make it into a translation of the Bible until 1946).

 

His main point, I think, is that too many Christians (perhaps because they're "creaped out by gays", or too distracted with things more pressing in their lives), just accept the view that Christianity considers homosexuality a sin, without actually studying the matter.

 

I encourage anyone here with strong beliefs about what the Bible says on homosexuality to pause and consider Justin's remarks... I found it to be a short, easy read. The "summary quote":

...the Bible really does not fully address the topic of homosexuality. Jesus never talked about it. The prophets never talked about it. In Sodom homosexual activity is mentioned within the context of rape (raping angels nonetheless), and in Romans 1:24-27 we find it mentioned within the context of idolatry (Baal worship) involving lust and dishonorable passions. 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 talk about homosexual activity in the context of prostitution and possibly pederasty. Nowhere does the Bible condemn a loving and committed homosexual relationship. To use the Bible to condemn such a relationship, as we see, involves a projection of ones own bias and a stretching of the Biblical text beyond that of which the scriptures speak. Historically, however, the Bible has been taken out of context and twisted to oppress almost every minority one could imagine including women, African Americans, children, slaves, Jews, and the list goes on. Do we truly understand the greatest commandments? You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets. (RSV Mat. 22:36-40)He provides a good deal of thought and analysis to support his conclusion above; before arguing against it, I'd encourage you to read his thoughts: http://www.truthsetsfree.net/study.html

 

I don't endorse Justin's entire view as my own, but it does present an interesting argument that the literalness of the Bible on this issue might not be so simple. And while homosexuality has become such a hotbutton issue within the Christian church, it's noteworthy that there's only six (Justin would argue weak) references to it within the Bible. Compare that to the Bible's lessons on divorce, for example, yet most Christian's have decided to let that matter be more up to personal interpretation.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[fgoodwin]

Jesus never said I couldn't run you over with my car -- does that omission make it OK? Of course not. Jesus failed to mention a lot of things -- that doesn't make them OK.

 

The Bible's condemnation of same-sex relations is consistent in both OT and NT -- I can't think of a single instance where the Bible says same-sex relations are OK.

 

If you know of such a cite, I'd love to read it. Until then, the language of the Bible is clear and consistent in its condemnation of same-sex relations.

[tjhammer]

fgoodwin, I see you took the time to actually read the article.

[fgoodwin]

I read what you posted -- as I said, if you can cite even one place where the Bible approves same-sex relations, I'd like to read it.

[tjhammer]

If by "read what you posted", you mean you followed the link and read Justin Cannon's article, then I commend you for taking the time.

 

Of course, his article is counter to your assertion that the Bible so thoroughly condemns same-sex relationships. As for your other observation, that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality is akin to Jesus not mentioning vehicular assault, well, that's just silly. If homosexuality is such a big issue for some Christians today, you'd think it would have at least ranked a mention from Jesus or in the Gospels... or are you trying to suggest homsexuality didn't even exist in the time of Jesus?

 

If you did read the full article, you'll see that Jesus said the most significant commandment was to "love God", and the second most significant is to "love thy neighbor as thyself", and all other "laws" was subject to those two commandments. Clearly, vehicular assault would be a violation of "love thy neighbor", though I don't see where same-sex relations is a violation of either.

 

Finally, http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm is a quick summary of about a dozen Bible references of three relationships in the Bible that could be interpreted as "same-sex relations" beyond mere friends. How the book of Samuel describes the relationship between David and Jonathan, for example. Of course, some modern day edits of the Bible seem to have dumbed down the language on those relationships.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[fgoodwin]

I'm quite familiar with the spin that revisionists put on the typical Bible passages quoted to condemn homosexuality -- that's why I'm still waiting to see a Bible passage quoted that approves of same-sex relations. I'm not aware of any, but if you are, I'd like to read it.

[evmori]

I'll give you credit for a good argument, tj. I read the interpretations from your link. Nice spin but in no way do any of those passages endorse homosexuality nor do they have anything to do with homosexuality.

 

Jesus said many things. Not all are written down in the bible. Read John 21:25.

 

So to state because it isn't in the Bible means it's OK is wrong.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[tjhammer]

Ed, don't get too caught up in denying that the Bible might actually "endorse" homosexuality... perhaps you're right, and those relationships like Jonathan and David are purely "platonic" (I'm not sure I agree, though... how else could one explain some of those passages, which clearly identify relationships that go well beyond friendship and closely parallel the way the Bible describes romantic, heterosexual relationships elsewhere?). Perhaps Rooster will find a way to say "nuh uh" by using more words?

 

But what about the original argument, that the six Bible versus used to "clobber" homosexuality may in fact be misinterpreted, too? What if the Bible really says nothing at all (positive or negative) about committed, same-sex relationships? So far, both you and goodwin have only responded with your opinions (which were pretty well known before this analysis)... surely the analysis presented deserves a better responses than "nuh uh"?(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[evmori]

Ever read Genesis 19?

 

The six verses you speak of do condemn

homosexuality in any context.

 

Read them again.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[tjhammer]

Sure, I read Genesis 19... and in Justin's original article, he makes a few specific observations (more actually, but you have to read the article), including:

 

1) God sent the angels to tell Lot that Sodom was being destroyed (in other words, whatever the reason for God destroying Sodom, it had already been decided BEFORE the incident with the gang of men and the angels).

 

2) This passage is clearly about forcible rape, and not even specifically homosexual rape. But even if you do read into the scripture that it is condemning homosexual rape, it says absolutely nothing about a committed, same-sex, loving relationship. In fact, that's an underlying point of Justin's observations on all six of the "clobber" passages in the Bible... none of them, read in context, are condemning committed, same-sex, loving relationships.... they all add specific qualifiers to their condemnation of homosexuality (i.e. the "gangbang" rape in Genesis, or prostitution or origies or pedastry as described by John, etc).

 

3) The main reason people have read into that Genesis verse that it was a condemnation of homsexuality, is because Lot actually offered his daughter as an alternate victim to the house guests (angels), and I suppose some see that as suggesting it would be better for the men to rape a woman than the male angels. But Justin's article provides a simple answer for that, too.

 

Admittedly, this discussion will get confusing and monotonous very fast, and I don't look forward to a Bible-verse-tit-for-tat with some of the posters on this forum... I have made the point before that you can find justification for just about anything by pulling a Bible verse. The larger point was trying to apply some specific context to the versus that have been related to homosexuality, and raise the possibility that the Bible has actually been misinterpreted. I think Justin's article makes a pretty good case for that.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[evmori]

Sodom was condemned by God. Abram asked God if he would spare Sodom if there were 10 (the number started higher) righteous men found in Sodom. God said he would. God sent the angels in the form of men to see if there were 10 righteous men. The rest is history.

 

There is nothing about forcible rape. The men of Sodom asked Lott to bring out the two men so they could have sex with them. That's not forcible rape. Lott offered his daughters as a sacrifice for these men, that's why he & his family was given a chance to flee the city before it was destroyed. That's not the main reason people read the passage as a condemnation of homosexuality.

 

When you are reading the Bible, you need to read the whole thing not just the passages you want. Taken out of context, they loose their meaning.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[cajuncody]

"I have made the point before that you can find justification for just about anything by pulling a Bible verse."

 

Not only did you find someone to say the Bible may "endorse" Homosexuality but I found someone to say the Bible was written by Aliens!

 

http://www.grandmastercorner.com/radiogeneris/aliens_in_the_bible.htm

 

Wow!

Does that make it true?

Kristi

[Prairie_Scouter]

Kristi,

As we've seen from these discussion, anything is possible. Aliens? Sure, why not? Not likely, but possible, I suppose. Using the tactic many use here, I guess you could say "prove it WASN'T written by aliens."

 

The basic problem that I see here, as I've said in other posts before, is that this all relies on interpretation of the Bible. There really is no "the Bible says this, end of story", because the Bible we read is an interpretation of translations from several ancient languages. From what I understand, the Bible wasn't "assembled" until several hundred years after the books were written, and then, not all the books were included. Nobody's really sure who wrote the books. Posters can say that the Bible directly condemns homosexuality, but from what I understand, the languages used to write those passages didn't have a word for homosexual at that time. So, you can say "well, it obviously means this", but you can't really know. You can BELIEVE it says that, but that's as far as it goes. So, getting into a tit-for-tat contest of dueling Bible quotes isn't going to get very far because they all rely on someone's interpretation.

 

As far as mis-interpretation is concerned, it's a plain fact that the Bible is being misinterpreted. With so many opposing views based on the Bible, they can't ALL be interpreting it correctly. So, who's to say who's right? The religions who base their teachings on the Bible all say that they have the correct interpretation. There are 3,000 translations of the Bible available, if I remember correctly. As we've gone from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to German to French to Spanish, etc., I find it really hard to believe that every passage has been translated exactly the same way to exactly reflect the original wording of the text taken in the context of the times in which they were written. So, it's all a matter of belief. Personally, I think that there's enough questions about those verses in the Bible that I'd be reluctant to use them to condemn an entire population of people.

[Hunt]

tj, I've read all these arguments before, and I have to say that they're not very persuasive. They reflect a strong desire to harmonize what some folks think is the "spirit" of Biblical teaching with some pretty explicit statements. In short, I think it's pretty clear that the writers of both the Old and New Testament viewed homosexuality as a sin. (The treatment of the passage from Leviticus is particularly weak.) Of course, people of today are free to think that those views were affected by the cultural mores of the times, and that they should be rejected or modified--but that's a different argument.

[fgoodwin]

Hunt, what galls me is the post-modern arrogance that says the commonly accepted interpretation of the Bible for the last 2,000-3,000 years is all wrong and only we "moderns" really know what it means.

 

As you say, we may not like what it says, but I won't stand for these word games that re-interpret it to mean what we want it to mean.