Bush and The Bible

[Guest]

Thank you, Pure. As you and others have pointed out, the answers lie in the interpretation. . .

Sorry it took me until now to post again on here...I was at church this morning

GBT

Hope you were asking for forgiveness for being sexually immoral with the rest of us.

 

[Edward Teach]

Hope you were asking for forgiveness for being sexually immoral with the rest of us.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Thank you, Pure. As you and others have pointed out, the answers lie in the interpretation.

I read LC's "debunking." It's interesting reading. Unfortunately, it contains the same scriptural misunderstandings as every other similar list I have read.

Since I'm sure few (if any) of you took me up on my suggestion of reading Hebrews, and since quoting scripture is obviously the thing to do here, let me just point out some highlights.

Hebrews 9:1 ff - "Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary." If you read the rest of Hebrews, you'll know that "the first covenant" was the covenant made with Abraham, aka Leviticus through Deuteronomy.

Hebrews 8:7 - "For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another."

Hebrews 10:1-4 - "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming - not the realities themselves. For this reason, it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."

Hebrews 9:15 - "For this reason, Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance - now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant."

Sooooo...to connect the dots here, the Old Covenant (Old Testament) has been made "obsolete" by God, according to Hebrews 8:13. The regulations and guidelines for living are to be found in the New Testament, aka the teachings of Christ and his followers.

Does that mean that the Old Testament is useless? Not at all...refer to II Timothy 3:16 - "All Scripture if God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness."

So going back to the original argument, the OT passages on homosexuality are not laws binding on Christians today. Neither are the laws to do with sacrifices and everything else contained therein. However, knowing that God considered homosexuality to be a sin punishable by death is more than enough to frighten me into staying away from it (if I were ever tempted to go there in the first place).

As a Christian, I should take my guidance from the NT. I Corinthians 6 speaks to this issue. Verse 9-10: "Do you no know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

And to stem the usual comeback, no, that does not mean that anyone that has ever done those things is just out of luck. If you really want to argue about that, you let me know.

As far as I'm concerned, if people want to engage in homosexuality, that's their problem. I'm not God, and I don't know how God is going to judge that. But I know from my understanding of the Bible that it speaks against it enough that I'm not going to try it. I'm not going to do it and I'm going to encourage others not to do it. If they want to do it anyway, I'll let God take it up with them. I'd love for him to say, "Hey, no problem, come on up anyway." But I seriously doubt that's how it will be.

As always, I welcome the feedback. I also look forward to, in this case, what will surely be lashback.

Sorry it took me until now to post again on here...I was at church this morning

GBT

As I said above, my debunking was written awhile ago and its lack of inclusion of Hebrews was part of my desire in the case against to stick to thed chapters themselves to debunk the arguments in the chapters. You know showing not cross-chapter inconsistencies or reformations, but direct in-chapter flaws that render the argument obsolete even if one looked only at that chapter.

I mean the big arguments against homophobia are clear. Jesus constantly demands his followers to focus on their own sins above the sins of another and even alludes that it is a path to sin to focus on another's sinful ways and denounce them. This is repeated so often in the NT, it's amazing how many disobey it.

I don't want to sound at all like I'm lashing out at Christians with what I say. It's an overall decent religion with a lot of good to say. The reasons I can never practice it are my own and birthed of my own beliefs on the subject of eternal justice (a completely different debate and a personal one).

I see you used a 1 Corinthians, can't believe I missed that one when I wrote the essay awhile ago.

I could take the easy way out. The commandment is not God's but Paul's. 1 Corinthians is written by Paul and is sermon against wickedness, immorality, and how people aren't showing him the proper respect of an apostle of God. This is the easy way out.

Similarily to note its fanatical devotions to the OT and its laughably misogynistic demands is paltry and pathetic on my part. Who am I to judge a servant of God for demanding that all women cover their heads or that women are beneath men. Or that only their ability to marry is restricted until their first husband's death, whereas the man's ability is not.(11.(6, 13), 11.3, 7.10 respectively)

Such arguments are mere personal problems I have with the personality of the speaker. Similarily the fact that his "points" are made through bullshit that wouldn't work right if you were stoned, is all a point I can not argue. Even when he sounds like this: "Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him (lucifer's minor note: Christ had long hair), but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice-nor do the churches of God" (11.13-16). All of this is beyond my allowance to point at and ridicule, though God I wish I could. I really really do.

So, my argument against it by my old standards rests on the following:

"Everything is permissable" is the most quoted line. While he is arguing against this line throughout, it is his most oft used line.

Yet again, Paul for all his faults, drives home the fact that believers are not responsible for the sins of nonbelievers. "What business of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?" (5.12)

And weakly on the fact that it is NOT the word of Christ but the word of PAUL.




The denunciation then of nonbelieving homos is not to occur then even by the most offending and satunchly anti-sex apostle. Still, my argument that the marches and efforts against homosexuality are against God's will or even the Bible's will still remains so. The phrases they quote do not show the whole picture.

All right, I think I've said my peace, so peace out yo.

 

[impressive]

Hope you were asking for forgiveness for being sexually immoral with the rest of us.

Posted in another thread (and UNverified):

The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.
Lynn Lavner - as published in PFLAG

 

[Pure]

Let me get this straight GodBT,

You say this passage of Hebrews (a late first century text written by God knows who) tells Christians they may disregard the moral laws of the OT:

Hebrews 8:7 - "For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another."

Hebrews 10:1-4 - "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming - not the realities themselves. For this reason, it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."

Hebrews 9:15 - "For this reason, Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance - now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant."

So, for instance, the Ten Commandment come merely under the 'useful for teaching and training' of Timothy, and Christians don't have to regard them as God's moral laws to which they must adhere (which is not to say that Jesus, God's grace, etc., may be ignored).

Are Christians enjoined to observe the Ten Commandments? Yes or no?

Are Christians enjoined to observe the OT injunctions against incest, e.g., father and daughter? Yes or No.

And your Bible interp. question for the day: If specific OT laws do not apply to Christians, why does Paul in 1 Cor 5, get upset of reports of a man sleeping with his father's (new) wife? Paul suggests rooting out the guy. Why does Paul bother to say this, instead of 'Don't be so upset. The fellow, like you, is under a New Covenant: Jesus is the High Priest, and J's blood is the sufficient sacrifice to take care of the problem."

 

[LadyJeanne]

I confess I haven't studied the Bible outside a couple classes in college, but I don't understand why the following passage cited is interpreted as opposition to homosexuality:

I Corinthians 6 speaks to this issue. Verse 9-10: "Do you no know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

It says "homosexual offendors", not "homosexuals", right? Doesn't "homosexual offender" refer to a homosexual crime against another man? To me, especially since it follows the terms "adulterers" and "male prostitutes", the term seems to apply to homosexuals who go to male prostitutes or who rape other men. Isn't this interpretation just as valid?

With the omission of "heterosexual offenders" from that list, I'm getting the impression that the Bible places women at such a lowly status that offenses against women weren't considered such a big sin.

I would think people who cite this passage should be more conerned about the 'greedy' part than the homosexual part.

 

[Guest]

. . . With the omission of "heterosexual offenders" from that list, I'm getting the impression that the Bible places women at such a lowly status that offenses against women weren't considered such a big sin.

My previous point exactly. And those types of passages have been used for years to continue church-sanctioned oppression of women.

I would think people who cite this passage should be more conerned about the 'greedy' part than the homosexual part.

Yep. Kinda makes you wonder about them thar wealthy TV evangelists, don't it?

 

[Edward Teach]

My previous point exactly. And those types of passages have been used for years to continue church-sanctioned oppression of women.



Yep. Kinda makes you wonder about them thar wealthy TV evangelists, don't it?

Now wait a damn minute. Oral Roberts offered a double-your- money-back guarantee. That's right. Oral used to say that if you contruibuted to his ministryand God didn't give you a wind fall of double that amount within one year, Oral himself would.

Does Exxon-Mobile do that? I don't think so.

And Oral gave Pat Robertson a grant to start Regent University and Pat in turn gave Jerry Falwell a grant. I've never heard, but I would bet that Jerry gave Oral a grant. Evangelists work in mysterious ways. Your tax exempt donations at work. Hallelujah.


Ed The Indignant

 

[Guest]

Now wait a damn minute. Oral Roberts offered a double-your- money-back guarantee. That's right. Oral used to say that if you contruibuted to his ministryand God didn't give you a wind fall of double that amount within one year, Oral himself would.

Does Exxon-Mobile do that? I don't think so.

And Oral gave Pat Robertson a grant to start Regent University and Pat in turn gave Jerry Falwell a grant. I've never heard, but I would bet that Jerry gave Oral a grant. Evangelists work in mysterious ways. Your tax exempt donations at work. Hallelujah.


Ed The Indignant

http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/engel/daz.gif

 

[Pure]

LadyJ: //It says "homosexual offendors", not "homosexuals", right?//

Actually, no.

It says, _arsenokoitai_ and the term is variously translated:

KJV abusers of themselves with mankind[RV: men]
NRSV sodomites
NEB [guilty of] homosexual perversion
Moffat sodomites
Lattimore pederasts

 

[The Mutt]

Lattimore Pederasts 24
Danbury Baptists 17
final/ot

 

[impressive]

Oral Roberts ...

There is just something wrong with an evangelist named "Oral."

 

[Guest]

There is just something wrong with an evangelist named "Oral."

LMAO!!!!

 

[The Mutt]

Do you think this is Bush's favorite passage?
1 Samuel 15:1-3,
"Thus sayeth the Lord of Hosts... Now go and smite Amelek, and utterly destroy all that they have and spare them not; but slay both man and woman,infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

 

[Edward Teach]

There is just something wrong with an evangelist named "Oral."

Swaggart fits a little better doesn't it.

Ed

 

[The Mutt]

favorite apropo evangelist names:
Ernest Angely
Crefflo A. Dollar

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Abusers of themselves with mankind. Kind of interesting how that can be interpreted so many ways. The bible makes no specific injunction against lesbianism that I am aware of. Neither does it make any mention of abortion as being prohibited.

When I say the word football, depending on whom I am speaking to, they will probably know I am talking about a game. A European will see a huge cow field with little goals and guys who can't use thier hands kicking a round ball. An american will see 300 pound guys in tight pants trying to kill one another over an oval ball. Austrailians will see a bar room brawl where a ball might or noght not be involved in the good part

I see the bible in something of the same light, it's filled with words and many of those words are open to interpretation. As with football, the way you take the word can sometimes be inferred from context. Sometimes it can be inferred from the character of the speaker. A lot of the time, it's wide open. Resorting back to the original hebrew, or latin or whatever, dosen't guarentee a clear meaning.

I could say, since the bible dosen't specifically prohibt lesbianism, I am not breaking any tennet, in the same breath I like anal sex and if you use the word sodomy, well, I'm off to look at asbestos curtains.

Intolerant people will interpret the words they way they want. You can't really argue with them, but at the same time, they can't really support what they are saying. The real problem with most fundamentalist christians (i.e. those who demand a literal trnslation of the bible as god's word) is that they don't read the bible in any meaningful way. They by and large, rely on their pastor to interpret it for them. That makes a certain amount of sense, who better than a pastor, who has been to seminary and studied these things to translate the rather arcane language for you?

Many right wing christians pick up the lable of being ignorant because they don't read the bible critically. They don't apply the words evenly. They ignore or marginalize whatever dosen't fit their program. But they don't do this in a vaccum. This is what pastor said it means and that's good enough for me, is a common phrase. When those pastors, entrusted with what should be the holiest of holys, interpreting the word of god for their flocks, are men of god only, it can be a sublime thing. When they have an agenda, especially a social or political one, it can lead to abuses of the power they have been entrusted with.

If the bible is the literal word of god, it still suffers from the frailties of humanity, since it is humans who do the reading and interpreting. No matter where you stand, if you use the bible as a choose your own adventure book, you can support your position with verses. It is the discernment of those passages in context and their relveance to the world today that holds the key. And it is around the concptual application that the real controversy is found.

Does god hate homosexuals? Probably. Does he hate them more than adulterers, fornicators, liars, thieves, the greedy, the covetous, the prideful? Probably not. All sin is abhorent to him. Even sins you only think about doing, but don't go through with. There is no heiracrchy. God is pretty inflexible about sin. If he judged each of us on our own merit only, none of us would get to heaven most likely. To the christian, they way out of that conondrum is that Jesus paid for your sins. His intercession is the only way any of us can get to heaven.

So it comes to this, the rich televangelist, who has been boffing secretaries left and right, denouncing homosexuals, is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. In the eyes of god, he is just as abhorent. Both have only one chance of attaining the kingdom of heaven, they both can accept Jesus.

That's the true fly in the oinment of using the bible to teach hate. The teacher, the hater and the object of their hatred are all in the same boat. And all have the same escape plan avialable to them.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

Hi Colly,

Those are excellent thoughts, by and large. Interpretation of the Bible is a tremendous task. It's complicated by the fact that most translator-groups work under supervision and veto of committees with a doctrinal agenda--e.g., the NIV. That's why I included Moffat and Lattimore, since they are more 'lone wolves.'

When one committee works to suit another committee, guess what ya got? Generally, dullnes and conformity, though the King James has some great prose.

Further if you look at the opening pages of the NRSV or the NIV--recent translations-- you'll see 'approving comments' from the leaders of various denominations, and in the case of some, approval by the Pope (or his rep.). "I recommend this Bible for use in my group."

It could be argued that if you want to find out what the Bible really says, you should find a translation and interpretation where the leaders of all major religions and denominations say, "We hate this thing, it's a travesty of the Bible as we were taught it."

I have two minor quibbles with you.

Paul does condemn woman/woman sex. The OT doesn't mention it, though the old rabbis added it to the lists of the commandments.

As to
Does god hate homosexuals? Probably. Does he hate them more than adulterers, fornicators, liars, thieves,....

I know this move is well intentioned, and takes the heat --so to say-- off queers, dykes, etc. They just become one class of sinners, and the person making the statement usually goes on to say God has mercy toward sinners, since we're all sinners.

At the same time, I don't see why living a gay life is at all like lying and thieving. Indeed I could see some gay person objecting to being included in that list. I think every gay person, or otherwise kinked, has the task of being moral, which is to say, avoiding antisocial acts-- the ten commandments is not a bad place to start (the ones to do with duties toward humankind).

As to adulterers, I'll leave that alone. It's clear many have broken promises to their partners, and have cause or contributed to marriage break up. OTOH, the strict application of even this rule leads of odd results: A woman who's husband disappears, and then finds another man counts. A woman who can't obtain or doesn't have a divorce (possibly because of male refusal). Etc.
A Catholic woman who doesn't go through the annulment process, and who then sets up with another, after a civil divorce, is in the eyes of the RC Church, an adultress. Similarly, as Jane Eyre taught us, a man with a wife in a loony bin, long term, who takes up with another is also an adulterer.

In a word, it's best to leave the judging of adulterers to God.

As to gays and lesbians, imo, they should all be given a clean slate to begin with, provided you have adult to adult situations, consent, etc. If they lie and cheat and betray, then *as liars and cheaters* they sin; but not through buttfucking or muffdiving.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hi Colly,

Those are excellent thoughts, by and large. Interpretation of the Bible is a tremendous task. It's complicated by the fact that most translator-groups work under supervision and veto of committees with a doctrinal agenda--e.g., the NIV. That's why I included Moffat and Lattimore, since they are more 'lone wolves.'

When one committee works to suit another committee, guess what ya got? Generally, dullnes and conformity, though the King James has some great prose.

Further if you look at the opening pages of the NRSV or the NIV--recent translations-- you'll see 'approving comments' from the leaders of various denominations, and in the case of some, approval by the Pope (or his rep.). "I recommend this Bible for use in my group."

It could be argued that if you want to find out what the Bible really says, you should find a translation and interpretation where the leaders of all major religions and denominations say, "We hate this thing, it's a travesty of the Bible as we were taught it."

I have two minor quibbles with you.

Paul does condemn woman/woman sex. The OT doesn't mention it, though the old rabbis added it to the lists of the commandments.

As to
Does god hate homosexuals? Probably. Does he hate them more than adulterers, fornicators, liars, thieves,....

I know this move is well intentioned, and takes the heat --so to say-- off queers, dykes, etc. They just become one class of sinners, and the person making the statement usually goes on to say God has mercy toward sinners, since we're all sinners.

At the same time, I don't see why living a gay life is at all like lying and thieving. Indeed I could see some gay person objecting to being included in that list. I think every gay person, or otherwise kinked, has the task of being moral, which is to say, avoiding antisocial acts-- the ten commandments is not a bad place to start (the ones to do with duties toward humankind).

As to adulterers, I'll leave that alone. It's clear many have broken promises to their partners, and have cause or contributed to marriage break up. OTOH, the strict application of even this rule leads of odd results: A woman who's husband disappears, and then finds another man counts. A woman who can't obtain or doesn't have a divorce (possibly because of male refusal). Etc.
A Catholic woman who doesn't go through the annulment process, and who then sets up with another, after a civil divorce, is in the eyes of the RC Church, an adultress. Similarly, as Jane Eyre taught us, a man with a wife in a loony bin, long term, who takes up with another is also an adulterer.

In a word, it's best to leave the judging of adulterers to God.

As to gays and lesbians, imo, they should all be given a clean slate to begin with, provided you have adult to adult situations, consent, etc. If they lie and cheat and betray, then *as liars and cheaters* they sin; but not through buttfucking or muffdiving.

I should have phrased the statement a little differently. What I meant to say was that everyone has sinned, be they gay or straight, so yes, the OT god would find Gays abhorent. If not for their sexual practices then for any number of other sins they have probably commited. My understanding of god and sin is that he brooks no sin period and since none of us can even aspire to lead sin free lives were are all doomed by our pasts. You are correct though, it wasn't phrased well and I of course don't find it a sin to be gay or lesbian.

Paul condemned any kind of sex. If you read him closely, he was about as close to a shaker as you will find in the bible. Even going so far as to raise celibacy to the devine, which many argue contradicts god's edit of be fruitful and multiply. The quibble is duly noted, yo wouldn't happen to know which epistle thats in would you? I'm just curious, not gainsayng you

-Colly

 

[GodBlessTexas]

The real problem with most fundamentalist christians (i.e. those who demand a literal trnslation of the bible as god's word) is that they don't read the bible in any meaningful way. They by and large, rely on their pastor to interpret it for them. That makes a certain amount of sense, who better than a pastor, who has been to seminary and studied these things to translate the rather arcane language for you?

Many right wing christians pick up the lable of being ignorant because they don't read the bible critically. They don't apply the words evenly. They ignore or marginalize whatever dosen't fit their program. But they don't do this in a vaccum. This is what pastor said it means and that's good enough for me, is a common phrase. When those pastors, entrusted with what should be the holiest of holys, interpreting the word of god for their flocks, are men of god only, it can be a sublime thing. When they have an agenda, especially a social or political one, it can lead to abuses of the power they have been entrusted with.

If the bible is the literal word of god, it still suffers from the frailties of humanity, since it is humans who do the reading and interpreting. No matter where you stand, if you use the bible as a choose your own adventure book, you can support your position with verses. It is the discernment of those passages in context and their relveance to the world today that holds the key. And it is around the concptual application that the real controversy is found.

Does god hate homosexuals? Probably. Does he hate them more than adulterers, fornicators, liars, thieves, the greedy, the covetous, the prideful? Probably not. All sin is abhorent to him. Even sins you only think about doing, but don't go through with. There is no heiracrchy. God is pretty inflexible about sin. If he judged each of us on our own merit only, none of us would get to heaven most likely. To the christian, they way out of that conondrum is that Jesus paid for your sins. His intercession is the only way any of us can get to heaven.

So it comes to this, the rich televangelist, who has been boffing secretaries left and right, denouncing homosexuals, is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. In the eyes of god, he is just as abhorent. Both have only one chance of attaining the kingdom of heaven, they both can accept Jesus.

That's the true fly in the oinment of using the bible to teach hate. The teacher, the hater and the object of their hatred are all in the same boat. And all have the same escape plan avialable to them.

-Colly

Bravo...I couldn't have stated any of that any better.

The Bible is pretty clear that it is up to each of us to understand it and follow it. Those who rely on the word of others are just asking for trouble.

I like to think of the Bible as a recipe. If I have a recipe for bread, I have to follow it as a whole. If I decide I want to omit the yeast, I'm not really gonna end up with bread. If I really like flour, so I put twice as much flour in, it's not going to come out with bread. God's instructions are the same. People who pick and choose the parts they want to follow probably aren't going to end up where they would like to be in an eternal, spiritual sense.

In answer to someone's comment about me asking forgiveness for being sexually immoral, right on! Guilty as charged.

Which brings up the point of the different in "committing a sin" and "living in sin." If I cheat on my wife, that's bad. But if I am sorry about it, confess it to God and ask his forgiveness, I'll have it. If I continue to cheat on my wife with no intention of stopping, I'm just out of luck.

As Colleen pointed out, the same goes for lying, envying, and anything else.

That's all the commentary you're going to get out of me, because Colleen summed it up nicely.

GBT

 

[Pure]

Hi Colly,
I've been ridiculed, insulted, dismissed, derided, but not ever 'gainsaid'.. I wouldn't want that!!

Here's a piece I found that answers your query, at 4,
marked ###; also 5 H.

Gay and Lesbian Centre, Fort Lauderdale. A nice summary adressing your question and some early postings about translation of 'homosexual' (offender)

http://www.glccftl.org/library/coming_out/bible.htm


The following is a set of questions and answers commonly asked about homosexuality and religion. This material was prepared by Wilfrid R. Koponen, Ph.D., M.B.A., M.A.R., M.A.

[start verbatim excerpt]
1. What did Jesus say about homosexuality in the Holy Bible?

Jesus never mentions the subject of homosexuality in the Holy Bible.


2. Does the Bible condemn the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians?

Strictly speaking, the Bible nowhere condemns homosexuality as a sexual orientation. The concept of "sexual orientation" does not appear in the Holy Bible; the idea is only about a century old; the word "homosexual" was not even coined until the 19th century; no such word existed in the Greek in which the New Testament was written. Certain Biblical passages do condemn particular homosexual acts (see #5).


[...]

4. Many Fundamentalists suggest that women should remain in the home, submitting to their husbands. Does the Bible especially condemn Lesbianism?

[###]No, only one passage in the entire Bible (both Old and New Testaments) refers to homosexual activity among women: St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (1:26). St. Paul's attitude towards women is generally critical; he views marriage as merely a last resort against burning with (heterosexual) lust. (see 1 Corinthians 7:9)


5.Some TV Evangelists act as if homosexuality among men were the worst sin. What Biblical texts do they base this on? Is their approach legitimate?

The supposedly sweeping Biblical condemnation of homosexuality rests almost exclusively on only the following eight (brief) passages; (all other references merely reiterate or comment upon these eight passages, and so are merely cited in parenthesis):

A. Deuteronomy 23:17-18 (cf 1 Kings 14:22-24, 15:22, 22:46, and 2 Kings 23:7) This passage, in the most scholarly, reliable, modern translations, refers only to (now defunct) male and female temple prostitutes. Old translations of the Hebrew term for "male temple prostitute" as "sodomite" are simply inaccurate; some scholars think that male prostitutes serviced female customers, not males. This passage hardly applies to today's gays and lesbians.

B and C. Genesis 19:4-11: Judges 19:22 (cf Jude 6-7; 2 Peter 2:4, 6-8) Most people assume Sodom was destroyed due to God's judgments upon the homosexual lusts of the inhabitants. Yet, many now argue that the sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality to the angelic visitors who stayed with Lot. How does the rest of the Bible explain the "sin of Sodom"? It is clear from Ezekiel 16:49-50 that Sodom's sin was primarily pride, wealth, and indifference to the needy; it is also evident from Luke 10:10-12 that Jesus explicitly stated that many sins would be punished more severely on the day of judgment than the sins of Sodom. Even if the sins of Sodom were in part sexual, it is important to note that it is the violence of the treatment of the strangers that is condemned -- something that hardly applies to the acts performed between consenting adults.

D and E. Leviticus 18:22, 20:13-14. "you shall not lie with a man as a woman: that is abomination" (New English Bible). This part of the "Holiness Code" of the Old Testament, which also condemns the practice of eating rare meat or wearing a fabric from more than one material -- anyone eating a rare steak while wearing a cotton/polyester outfit is doubly violating the holiness code! (Funny: these things don't seem to bother Fundamentalists.) Leviticus also states that any man or woman caught in adultery "must be put to death" (Leviticus 20:10). Preachers quick to call homosexual acts an "abomination" are not insisting that Jim Baker must be "put to death" ! And for good reason: the New Testament repeatedly declares the Hebrew Holiness Code or "law" has been replaced by the new dispensation in Christ. Jesus said of the woman caught in adultery: "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" (New International Version; John 8:3-11).

Furthermore, the "detestable" nature of lying "as a woman: refers to a male's assuming the passive role in anal intercourse, which was held as an abomination because of taking on the inferior status of women. Apparently it does not view the "Active" role in anal intercourse as an abomination, nor other homosexual acts, e.g. fellatio (John Boswell's book examines this -- see #7).

F and G. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10. The key words are translated differently in different versions: from 1 Corinthians: "catamites, sodomites" (Moffat); "effeminate, homosexuals" (ASV); "homosexual perversion" (New English Bible); "male prostitutes, homosexual offenders" (New International Version); etc. 1 Timothy is also variously translated.

However, there was no noun in Greek for homosexual; apparently the translations condemning homosexuals are inaccurate. The Greek words suggest not "homosexual" but effeminate" or "morally weak or soft" or "cowardly".

H. Romans 1:26-27. The only passage in the Bible mentioning lesbian acts.

Conclusion: The supposedly sweeping Biblical condemnation of homosexuality simply does not hold up to close scrutiny, as it is limited to acts of prostitution, idolatry, violent or non-consensual acts, inaccurate translations, or outmoded prejudices against women and their purposed inferiority. How can these be applied to a committed relationship based on love (rather than mere lust) between two consenting adults of the same gender? [end excerpt]

=====
From the Bibliography


See

England, the Rev. M.E., The Bible and Homosexuality, (Beulahland Press, 1979). A 39 page pamphlet, containing a three page bibliography. This is the primary source for the specific Biblical passages here.

 

[GodBlessTexas]

Paul condemned any kind of sex. If you read him closely, he was about as close to a shaker as you will find in the bible. Even going so far as to raise celibacy to the devine, which many argue contradicts god's edit of be fruitful and multiply. The quibble is duly noted, yo wouldn't happen to know which epistle thats in would you? I'm just curious, not gainsayng you

-Colly

OK, I'm a liar. THIS is the last you'll hear from me. I believe you're talking about the first part of I Corinthians 7. Paul's argument is that we should be wholly devoted to God, and God alone. Obviously, being married takes some of that devotion and places it on our spouse. Even Jesus required his disciples to leave their families and give all of themselves to him (latter part of Luke 14).

Paul goes on to say in that passage that anybody who can't control themselves in a sexual sense should get married and get it on and avoid sexual sin.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hi Colly,
I've been ridiculed, insulted, dismissed, derided, but not ever 'gainsaid'.. I wouldn't want that!!

Here's a piece I found that answers your query, at 4,
marked ###; also 5 H.

Gay and Lesbian Centre, Fort Lauderdale. A nice summary adressing your question and some early postings about translation of 'homosexual' (offender)

http://www.glccftl.org/library/coming_out/bible.htm


The following is a set of questions and answers commonly asked about homosexuality and religion. This material was prepared by Wilfrid R. Koponen, Ph.D., M.B.A., M.A.R., M.A.

[start verbatim excerpt]
1. What did Jesus say about homosexuality in the Holy Bible?

Jesus never mentions the subject of homosexuality in the Holy Bible.


2. Does the Bible condemn the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians?

Strictly speaking, the Bible nowhere condemns homosexuality as a sexual orientation. The concept of "sexual orientation" does not appear in the Holy Bible; the idea is only about a century old; the word "homosexual" was not even coined until the 19th century; no such word existed in the Greek in which the New Testament was written. Certain Biblical passages do condemn particular homosexual acts (see #5).


[...]

4. Many Fundamentalists suggest that women should remain in the home, submitting to their husbands. Does the Bible especially condemn Lesbianism?

[###]No, only one passage in the entire Bible (both Old and New Testaments) refers to homosexual activity among women: St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (1:26). St. Paul's attitude towards women is generally critical; he views marriage as merely a last resort against burning with (heterosexual) lust. (see 1 Corinthians 7:9)


5.Some TV Evangelists act as if homosexuality among men were the worst sin. What Biblical texts do they base this on? Is their approach legitimate?

The supposedly sweeping Biblical condemnation of homosexuality rests almost exclusively on only the following eight (brief) passages; (all other references merely reiterate or comment upon these eight passages, and so are merely cited in parenthesis):

A. Deuteronomy 23:17-18 (cf 1 Kings 14:22-24, 15:22, 22:46, and 2 Kings 23:7) This passage, in the most scholarly, reliable, modern translations, refers only to (now defunct) male and female temple prostitutes. Old translations of the Hebrew term for "male temple prostitute" as "sodomite" are simply inaccurate; some scholars think that male prostitutes serviced female customers, not males. This passage hardly applies to today's gays and lesbians.

B and C. Genesis 19:4-11: Judges 19:22 (cf Jude 6-7; 2 Peter 2:4, 6-8) Most people assume Sodom was destroyed due to God's judgments upon the homosexual lusts of the inhabitants. Yet, many now argue that the sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality to the angelic visitors who stayed with Lot. How does the rest of the Bible explain the "sin of Sodom"? It is clear from Ezekiel 16:49-50 that Sodom's sin was primarily pride, wealth, and indifference to the needy; it is also evident from Luke 10:10-12 that Jesus explicitly stated that many sins would be punished more severely on the day of judgment than the sins of Sodom. Even if the sins of Sodom were in part sexual, it is important to note that it is the violence of the treatment of the strangers that is condemned -- something that hardly applies to the acts performed between consenting adults.

D and E. Leviticus 18:22, 20:13-14. "you shall not lie with a man as a woman: that is abomination" (New English Bible). This part of the "Holiness Code" of the Old Testament, which also condemns the practice of eating rare meat or wearing a fabric from more than one material -- anyone eating a rare steak while wearing a cotton/polyester outfit is doubly violating the holiness code! (Funny: these things don't seem to bother Fundamentalists.) Leviticus also states that any man or woman caught in adultery "must be put to death" (Leviticus 20:10). Preachers quick to call homosexual acts an "abomination" are not insisting that Jim Baker must be "put to death" ! And for good reason: the New Testament repeatedly declares the Hebrew Holiness Code or "law" has been replaced by the new dispensation in Christ. Jesus said of the woman caught in adultery: "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" (New International Version; John 8:3-11).

Furthermore, the "detestable" nature of lying "as a woman: refers to a male's assuming the passive role in anal intercourse, which was held as an abomination because of taking on the inferior status of women. Apparently it does not view the "Active" role in anal intercourse as an abomination, nor other homosexual acts, e.g. fellatio (John Boswell's book examines this -- see #7).

F and G. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10. The key words are translated differently in different versions: from 1 Corinthians: "catamites, sodomites" (Moffat); "effeminate, homosexuals" (ASV); "homosexual perversion" (New English Bible); "male prostitutes, homosexual offenders" (New International Version); etc. 1 Timothy is also variously translated.

However, there was no noun in Greek for homosexual; apparently the translations condemning homosexuals are inaccurate. The Greek words suggest not "homosexual" but effeminate" or "morally weak or soft" or "cowardly".

H. Romans 1:26-27. The only passage in the Bible mentioning lesbian acts.

Conclusion: The supposedly sweeping Biblical condemnation of homosexuality simply does not hold up to close scrutiny, as it is limited to acts of prostitution, idolatry, violent or non-consensual acts, inaccurate translations, or outmoded prejudices against women and their purposed inferiority. How can these be applied to a committed relationship based on love (rather than mere lust) between two consenting adults of the same gender? [end excerpt]

=====
From the Bibliography


See

England, the Rev. M.E., The Bible and Homosexuality, (Beulahland Press, 1979). A 39 page pamphlet, containing a three page bibliography. This is the primary source for the specific Biblical passages here.

thanks J

 

[Belegon]

It never fails to amaze me how much of modern Christian rhetoric is based on the writings of a misogynist murderer who fell off a donkey on a road to Damascus.

I wish I could go back in time with a video crew and tape the real preachings of this man from Nazareth. It seems like he had some real great points. Too bad his religion was left in the hands of folks with other agendas.

If God really feels the way about homosexuality he is portrayed as feeling by the Christian right, then why did he create it in the first place? God is the only creator, right? Lucifer is a fallen angel, comparable in power to Michael or Gabriel, although apparently their superior prior to his fall.

As someone who has seen people struggle with their sexual orientation vs, their upbringing I will never believe the "it is a choice" argument. People are born with it. So how could it be such a sin? Is God that cruel?

I suppose my opinion of Saul/Paul and the organized church is pretty obvious here...

 

[LadyJeanne]

I wish I could go back in time with a video crew and tape the real preachings of this man from Nazareth. It seems like he had some real great points. Too bad his religion was left in the hands of folks with other agendas.

I agree with Belegon on this - although I can't begin to imagine how it would be 'spun' today, even with a video as reference.