A question for christians accepting of homosexuality

[crashhelmet]

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the NIV:

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

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

CH

[Hyena Dandy]

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

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

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

[fireheart17]

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them"


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

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

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

The Bible didn't arrive by Fax from heaven.

[Nyoibo]

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

New International Version (©1984)
"'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Webster's Bible Translation
If a man also shall lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

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

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

[Ree]

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

Exactly.

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

Excellent point.

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

Whaaa????

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

Thank you.

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

[linguist]

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

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

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

[Greenday]

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

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

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

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

[Amanita]

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

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

[HYHYBT]

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

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

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

[protege]

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

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

[jackfaire]

It would make the heads of Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, etc, explode!

Mmmmm exploding heads.

[protege]

LOL I thought someone would like that

Seriously though, with all the hatred towards homosexuals because of various twisted religious crap, it would be interesting. I mean, Jesus has always been *assumed* to be straight, God has always been *assumed* to be human, etc. I don't really care one way or the other, but it would be awesome to see the whackos get the "deer-in-headlights" look when they found out that their Messiah was gay, or that God was really a purple two-headed yak. Now *that* would be a sight to behold!

[crashhelmet]

LOL I thought someone would like that

Seriously though, with all the hatred towards homosexuals because of various twisted religious crap, it would be interesting. I mean, Jesus has always been *assumed* to be straight, God has always been *assumed* to be human, etc. I don't really care one way or the other, but it would be awesome to see the whackos get the "deer-in-headlights" look when they found out that their Messiah was gay, or that God was really a purple two-headed yak. Now *that* would be a sight to behold!

That's actually an interesting thought when you... uhh... think about it. There are those that say the Church took out just about everything they could that would make him seem more man than God, including relationships.

So... What is one to think about a man that runs around everywhere with his mother, an unmarried woman, once possessed and later accused of being a whore, and 12 other guys of varying ages.

Jesus was 30 years old before he began his Ministry. In that day and age, you didn't have many people unmarried at that age. Did he have another wife that died prior to him accepting his role? Did he leave that family behind? Did they stay at home with the rest of the family while He and Mary went out? Was he married to Mary Magdalene? Was he gay? Far too many unanswered questions that will remain that way.

The truth of the matter though is that the answers are not important. People should be more concerned with His message than whether or not He was the pitcher or the catcher or if He had 5 wives or none at all.

CH

[Shangri-laschild]

I have heard so many different explinations for mistranslations. For instance, someone I used to know once told me that what they were refering to was anal basically. That it was bad no matter what gender but that any other form of homosexuality was not part of that. Not saying I agree with that or not, just that most of the explinations I've heard come down to different translations.

Growing up, even in church, I was always taught to question things. Pray about them myself and see how I felt about them. I'm guessing the goal was to gain a stronger personal testimony on the commandments rather than just believing it because you're told. Homosexuality was always just something that never seemed wrong to me no matter what else I learned. Of course I don't know what I consider myself anymore as far as religion. While Christianity would possibly be the closest I come to any form of organized religion, I've already decided that if I start going back to any church, it's going to be the Unitarian.

From the NIV:
14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

This always makes me giggle. I had a sunday school teacher who taught it to us a bit different. God told them to "go forth and multiply" only they couldn't in Eden. The original sin was actually sex and so they because mortal or however it describes it and left Eden so that they could actually multiply. Dunno if it's true or not or if other religions teach it or not (that particular teacher was the only one I heard it from), but he didn't actually believe that it was this huge sin she had committed.

[jackfaire]

God told them to "go forth and multiply" only they couldn't in Eden. .

Why not? No multiplication tables?