August 30, 2010
-
The real truth
I have had people telling me what the truth is. They are saying that God says this. That God says that. Reality, it is their interpretation of what God says.There are LGBT followers of God in the world. There are not as many as there could be though because of these people who want to tell them that it is a sin and that they are going to hell.
There are people out there that want to say Homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality is a sin…sin…sin …sin.
One passage people try to use is Genesis 19. They say God destroyed those cities because they were gay. This is NOT true. God destroyed them because were uncharitable and abusive to strangers. Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:7-16, Jesus said that the sin of the people of Sodom was to be inhospitable to strangers. In Ezekeiel 16:48-50, God states clearly that he destroyed Sodom’s sins because of their pride, their excess of food while the poor and needy suffered, and worshiped many idols; sexual activity is not even mentioned.
Sodom and Gomorrah actually condemns inhospitality and idolatry, not homosexuality. Read the Scriptural cross-references: Deuteronomy 29:23, Isaiah 1:9, Jeremiah 23:14, Lamentations 4:6, Ezekiel 16:49-50, Amos 4:11, Zephaniah 2:9, Matthew 10:15 / Luke 10:12, Luke 17:29, Romans 9:29, Jude v.7, Revelation 11:8
Nowhere in the Scriptures does it say that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexual sex. Even if the specific point of the story was concerning a sexual matter, rather than hospitality, the issue is rape not homosexuality. Jesus claimed the issue was simply one of showing hospitality to strangers (Luke 10:12). How ironic that those who discriminate against homosexuals seem to be the true practitioners of the sin of Sodom.
Deuteronomy 23:17 states (in the King James Version) “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel . This is an “error” by the authors of the KJV. The word qadesh in the original text was mistranslated as sodomite. Quadesh means “holy one” and is here used to refer to a man who engages in ritual prostitution in the temple. There is little evidence that the prostitutes engaged in sexual activities with men. Other Bible translations use accurate terms such as shrine prostitute, temple prostitute, prostitute and cult prostitute.
I Kings 14:24 and 15:12 again refer to temple prostitution. The original word qadesh is mistranslated as sodomite (homosexual) in the King James Version, but as male prostitute, male cult prostitutes, and male shrine prostitutes in more accurate versions. As mentioned before, there is little evidence that homosexuality was involved. Again, the text has nothing to say about consensual homosexual relationships.
In my Not a sin post I already covered about Romans so I will skip over that one here.
1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 sound very convincing in including lesbians and gay men in the most dreadful lists of depraved human behavior imaginable. The fact is that the word translated “homosexual” does not mean “homosexual” and the word translated “effeminate” does not mean “effeminate”!
The English word “homosexual” is a composite word made from a Greek term (homo, “the same”) and a Latin term (sexualis , “sex”). The term “homosexual” is of modern origin and was not used until about 100 years ago. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is parallel to the word “homosexual.” No Bible before the Revised Standard Version in 1946 used “homosexual” in any Bible translation.
The word translated as “homosexual” or “sexual pervert” or some other similar term is Greek arsenokoites, which was formed from two words meaning “male” and “bed”. This word is not found anywhere else in the Bible and has not been found anywhere in the contemporary Greek of Paul’s time. We do not know what it means. The word is obscure and uncertain. It probably refers to male prostitutes with female customers, which was a common practice in the Roman world.
This incorrect rendering of malakoi and arsenokoites as references to gender orientation has been disastrous for millions of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual people. This mistaken translation has enlisted a mighty army of ignorant religious fanatics against homosexual people and has turned many Lesbians and Gays against the Bible, which holds for them as for all people the good news of God’s love in Christ.
I would suggest the everyone read What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by Daniel A. Helminiak
Websites:
http://whosoever.org/http://www.gaychristianonline.org/
http://www.hrc.org/
http://www.ucccoalition.org/http://www.jeramyt.org/gay.html
http://www.youtube.com/GayChristianNetworkhttp://www.cloutsisters.org/home/
Christian and Lesbian?
Christian and Gay?
Christian and Bisexual?
Christian and Trans?
It’s not a contradiction. Neither are you.
Comments (32)
As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“Mormon”) I do not rely on the Bible as the only source of scripture. We have the Book of Mormon – Another Testament of Jesus Christ as well as other scriptures and also a living prophet – like in ancient times. Plus, we may not see homosexuality as you think…but that is another discussion.
I think I love you.
Seriously, though, I have read a lot of what you presented here and it all makes perfect sense.
I love your point. I also love your purple hair.
@AnonymousXGrl - thanks
You are awesome. This is a wonderful, well thought out post. Thanks for posting this.
what you say may be true…however…what are we going to do with all those who do believe that homosexuality is a sin?
@veronika_grey - educate, educate, educate. Think about 60 years ago how many people thought the interracial marriage was a sin. How was that fixed? Educate, educate, educate
@gottobereal64 - thanks
Lol I love how he even bothers to read your post when there will be nothing that will change his mind.
Great job, you executed this wondefully!
@jessibaby28 - thanks
Awesome post
@vixen_with_a_cause - thanks
That’s a typical Christian for you, twisting the words of the Bible to meet their own agenda.
Yes, education is the key. I can’t wait for the day when people finally realize that this is simply just historical interpretation instead of “picking and choosing what to believe” and “taking verses out of context.”
Thank you for bringing up inhospitably and idolatry. When I was in the ministry I pounded that into people’s heads whenever they said those cities were destroyed for sexual activity.
I see homosexuality a lot different than I did years ago, I appreciate the references you posted.
You’ve given me a lot to think about.
Question: How would you feel if one of your children grew up and told you that he or she was gay?
@Stanelle - I would have no problem with that
So just out of curiosity, what do you think Romans 1:26-27 is talking about?
@homefire - Romans 1:26-27 are located within this larger section, Romans 1:18-32.
And in this larger section, Paul is talking about how depraved the
Gentiles are. According to his Jewish audience, these Gentiles—these
heathens—were the kind of people who did all kinds of bad stuff.
So
when Paul talks about their “shameless acts” and “unnatural sexual
relations,” this was just part of a long list of things about those
godless Gentiles. They worshiped images of “a human being or birds or
four-footed animals or reptiles.” Listen to what else Paul says about
them:
They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil,
covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness,
they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful,
inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless,
heartless, ruthless.
Whoa. Now the point here wasn’t to bash the
Gentiles. This long, negative list was in the head of the Jewish
listener. It was the typical though pattern against heathen depravity,
and Paul is using it to set them up.
So the only way we can take
this passage is to see it in the larger framework of Romans 1:16-3:20.
This whole section about “unnatural relations” and how bad the non-Jews
were is a set up for the punch line that comes in the very next verse.
Here’s the punch line:
Therefore, you have no excuse when
you judge others. For in passing judgment on another you condemn
yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same thing! (Romans
2:1)
This whole thing plays out like this:
Paul says, “You know those good-for-nothing Gentiles?”
“Yeah! Yeah!” jeers the crowd.
“You know those degenerates, idolaters, adulterers and sexual deviants?”
“Yeah! Yeah!”
“You know how terrible they are, right?”
“Yeah! Yeah!”
“Well, you are just as bad!”
“What?”
Paul
is trying to make a point not about homosexuality or even about the
evil Gentiles, but about grace—that all people fall short and are in
need of it. He was saying that God’s saving love doesn’t come to us
because of what we are but because of who God is.
You could say
that the whole point of the entire letter of Romans was directed toward
those who thought themselves to be pure and perfect and who looked down
upon others, judging and condemning them. So it’s very ironic that many
Christians use passages from Romans out of context to judge and condemn
gay and lesbian people, when the whole point of the epistle is not to
judge others but to look in the mirror!
So Paul wasn’t talking
about what we call “homosexuality,” a word that didn’t exist until the
19th century and that has no equivalent in ancient Greek or Hebrew. He
was talking about abusive forms of sexuality. And Paul wasn’t singling
out a group of people to condemn and judge as worse than others. He was
talking about how all people are in need of grace.
It was also Paul who wrote words that soar with this spirit in the third chapter of his letter to the Galatians:
In
Christ there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or
free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one.
There is no question in my mind, and in a great many in Christ’s church today, that we must add to this passage,
In Christ there is no longer straight or gay, for in him we are all one.
Look,
pious people have taken select passages from scripture to cast judgment
upon others since the time of Jesus. We must remember Paul’s statement
that
The letter (the written word) kills,
but the spirit gives life. (2 Cor. 3:6)
@Kristenmomof3 - hm. i’ve been trying to get my way through the bible (it’s difficult, not because of the content, but it’s so long and dense) and the only ‘homosexuality is a sin’ part i’ve read as of yet is the sodom and gomorrah. personally, i viewed it as many others do, that homosexuality is a sin. however. honestly, i don’t think that’s the real issue. what i /do/ think is the real issue is how people interpret it today. i believe that even if homosexuality then was a sin, there was good reason for it to be so (population control, for example). but that was then and this is now. we have enough people on this planet and perhaps a little bit of population control is in need. i think the trouble is that people’s perceptions now have not changed from how they were a while ago.
So since all the other things in that list of Paul’s are indisputably sins, what makes you think that homosexuality isn’t? Perhaps the word homosexuality hadn’t been coined yet, but the act obviously had, since that is exactly what he is describing: “for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts…” Paul does not at any time mention abusive sexual acts, as you claim, he is simply rattling off a string of sinful things that men do, and in that list he includes a description of homosexuality. No, that wasn’t his main point, you are right, but he is definitely condemning all of the things in the list, both in the Gentiles and in the saints in Rome, to whom he was speaking. His point was that because these people had worshipped idols or worshipped themselves, rather than the great God of the Universe, God had given them over to impurity and “degrading passions,” which he then describes more specifically as homosexuality. I am not trying to condemn anyone, but I am trying to warn. I believe absolutely that Paul was giving a warning against Christians harboring ANY type of sin in their lives, including homosexuality. He actually says in verse 32 that those who practice such things are “worthy of death,” which is according to the old law and which is horrifying to us, but lets us know how very strongly he felt about it. No, he wasn’t singling out a group of people to condemn, he was warning them that we all have a tendency to sin, and we must believe the truth, believe in God, in order to resist it.
Kristen, I appreciate your attempt to be tolerant and non-judgmental, but when we try to tolerate something which God calls sin, we do him a dissservice. In verse 32, Paul also reproves those who “know the ordinance of God… but give hearty approval to those who practice them.” The sin of homosexuality is no more sinful than my sins of slothfulness and disobedience, but I stil cannot say that it is not sin.
http://such-were-you.xanga.com/732243632/what-should-christians-do-now/
I found this post from Bad Penny that says what I try to communicate in many more words. Have you read Lonnie’s posts at Such-Were-You? I find them very honest.
Kristen I in no way am sending scorn nor judgment toward you or anyone else — I know I have not been on Xanga in a long time. Hopefully my demeanor online is perceived like me in real life
It makes me sad to see that you aren’t living your life and being a light for Christ lately
I’d thought about just leaving this alone, but I’m going to comment. This matter has always been of utmost importance to me. I have long seen this matter, literally as a matter of eternal life and death. I’ve studied the writing and opinions of people on both sides of the matter. You present one side, but I cannot see that you have considered the works of those who say that the Bible does, in fact, condemn homosexual practice.
I found in my careful and extensive study of the Bible and homosexuality that when the two positions are compared the best position sticks out like a sour thumb. So here are the names of three exceptional resources which hold the opposite view from yours, saying that Scripture does indeed condemn homosexuality. The first is The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread The Bible, by Joe Dallas. The second resource is Out Of Order: Homosexuality In The Bible And The Ancient Near East, by Donald J Wold PhD. The third book is the most rigorous and scholarly I’ve ever found on the matter, The Bible And Homosexual Practice: Texts And Hermeneutics, by Robert A. J. Gagnon. The first book by Dallas is the most readable. Both Gagnon’s and Wold’s books are more scholarly of the books. Both Gagnon and Wold are professors who are expert in both the Bible and the Ancient Near East. None of the sources you site can boast the level of scholarship or credentials of the last two authors I list.
If you are really interested in finding out the facts of the matter then you will consider the works of those who hold to the traditional view of the Bible. I’ve not ever found any yet, who hold your position, who will ever take the time to consider the other side. Having considered both sides of the issue myself, I’ve always believed the reason folks on your side won’t consider the other is because they really don’t want all the facts. So do you want all the facts or just information which supports your view on the matter?
@Such_Were_You - I have done much research in both sides before coming to the conclusions that I reached. For you to assume that I didn’t because I disagree with you is very insulting. If you knew me at all you would know how much I research things. Maybe you should research the other side. How about reading “The church and the Homosexual” written by John J. McNeill
@Such_Were_You - Joe Dallas is founder of Genesis Counseling which specializes in “sexual addiction recovery and homosexuality. He believes in “praying away the gay”. Do you know how much damage thinking like that has done to people??
The statistics that Joe Dallas uses in his book to equate homosexuality
with child molesting and the destruction of family values are ludicrous
and without validity. The Ex-Gay Fraud by Dr. Rembert Truluck http://www.whosoever.org/v3i4/book2.html
@Kristenmomof3 - I appreciate your passion Kristen. I really do. I am passionate as well. But see my intent was to offer you some sources which present the case for the traditional view of the Bible. You say, in these last two comments that you did consider both sides of the matter and then you give me a thoroughly pro-gay theologian? Were you asking if I’ve read John J. McNeill’s work? I have read extensively from the works of folks like Historian John Boswell. Founder of the Metropolitan Community Church movement, Troy Perry, Sylvia Pennington, Robert Williams, Mel White, John Shelby Spong, and many many others, and of course John J. McNeil. And some much more up to date thinking from people like Brian McLaren. You’ll find I’m very up to date on Pro-Gay theology. Now if you’ve not read John Boswell’s Christianity, Social Tolerance, And Homosexuality, you are missing the cornerstone of Pro-Gay theology. Boswell is one heck of a well credentialed historian. He taught history at YALE for heaven’s sake!! If you read Boswell’s book you’ll find out where folks like John J McNeill got a great deal of his beliefs about the Bible. Everyone since Boswell uses and builds their theology on the work of Boswell. But there is a flaw in Boswell’s tour de force of pro-gay apologetics. The Problem is with Boswell himself.
Don’t misunderstand me, John Boswell was one of the best credentialed historians ever (He died of AIDS in the 80′s). Boswell was a historian of the first water. However Boswell wasn’t a linguist, or a classicist, or a Bible scholar, or a scholar of the Ancient Near East. Yet if you read Boswell’s book, and I strongly suggest you do, you will get the idea that Boswell is a linguist, classicist, Bible scholar, and that his area of historical expertise is the Ancient Near East. That’s the funny thing, he makes you think all these wonderful things about his understanding of the matter at hand: The Bible, the languages, the cultures, the history, but he doesn’t have any expertise in any of the areas he makes you think he does. So when you put the work of Boswell, and all those who rely heavily on Boswell, like, you know, John J. McNeill, for instance then there is a huge problem with their conclusions. Now when you look at Boswell, Mc Neill, Campbell, Bailey, et. al. next to the works of folks who are well credentialed in the scholarship of The Bible, and The Ancient Near East, then you begin to see the very great problems with their works. You’ll begin to see that Boswell & Friends are very seriously lacking in their understanding of the world and peoples of the Bible. There are holes through which an 8 lane Interstate Highway could be built!!
Now I’ve said that to say this: Drop the book by Dallas if you like, that’s fine. I only included his book because it is the most readable of the sources I offered. I don’t agree with Dallas’ stance that homosexuality is a leading culprit behind the destruction of morals in this country. He’s thinking too small. EVERY kind of sexual immorality combined breaks down a society.
So read the works of Donald J. Wold and Robert A. J. Gagnon. Bible scholars and also of the Ancient Near East. I’m not going to lead you wrong Kristen. There is no point in leading you wrong. If you are an intellectually honest person, and you study the sources I’ve offered, you won’t be able to hold to your current view on homosexuality and the Bible. Pro-gay theology falls apart in the light of real scholarship. It’s just destroyed! BOOM! There it goes.
I hope you enjoy your ever widening search for the truth!
Bye now!
BP
I’ve done some reading on this topic. I’ve read books from every side of the issue (in the theological realm). Helminiak’s book is without a doubt one of the worst books I’ve ever read (in any genre). Granted, The Same Sex Controversy by White and Neill that was written as a response was equally as bad (probably because it was nothing more than an attack on Helminiak and his contemporaries). The greatest exegetical work I’ve read on the subject was in Slaves, Women & Homosexuals by William Webb and The Moral Vision of the New Testament by Richard B. Hayes.
I’d like to believe Helminiak’s conclusions at times but I didn’t think he presented a credible argument through most of the book. I’d put far more stake in Hayes and Webb. Have you read their work yet? You providing your working library for the topic would be fantastic for your readers. I’d like to see what you’ve picked up on the subject because I’ve been equally interested in it. I’d even research it again at some point.
This is so wonderful.
Kris, do you mind if I share your material here with my Bible study group? This is exactly the kind of stuff we’re talking about, so having this much detail regarding another viewpoint would be very helpful.
I like to more about your take on 1 Corinthians 6:9-12. The Jewish New Testament version reads like this:
“Don’t delude yourselves — people who engage in sex before marriage, who worship idols, who engage in sex after marriage with someone other than their spouse, who engage in active or passive homosexuality, who steal, who are greedy, who get drunk, who assail people with contemptuous language, who rob — none of them will share in the Kingdom of God.”
My study group covered this chapter last week, and spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out exactly what the translation boiled down to here. My understanding is that “active or passive” was in reference to dominance, which for the surrounding culture at the time was a really big deal. A homosexual man, if the dominant of the two partners, was still considered a man, whereas the passive partner was considered more effiminate, I presume. Then Paul here strikes that down, stating it doesn’t matter if the person is dominant (active) or not (passive). However, I have no idea how accurate that is — that’s just one historical context I heard.
So here, you’ve stated it’s a translation issue post-1940′s, correct? Assuming this is accurate, how did the original language here accidentally get mistranslated into “active or passive homosexuality”? Is it known yet what a more accurate translation would be in this case?
Again, thank you for sharing. My goal here is to learn more about viewpoints other than the one I’ve grown up with. I am finding I have a great deal to learn on that front.
@The_James_Blog - I don’t mind