How does the Bible NOT condemn homosexuality?

So if you 'read in the context of the writer- then it is clear that Paul never condemns homosexuality- not as we define homosexuality.

http://www.mccgoodshepherd.com/#!homosexuality/c8de

First, you must always consider its context. In order to understand any writing (whether it be a letter, a speech, or even the Bible) it is necessary to understand its background. Think about who is speaking, to whom it is addressed, why it written, and what the culture was like.

In the New Testament there are three scriptures often cited to show the "sinfulness of homosexuality." There are many English translations of the Bible and each of them uses different English words to translate the passages from ancient Greek, so some words will depend upon which version or translation is used. Two Greek words are used by Paul in two similar passages. They are malakos and arsenokoitai. These words are used in I Corinthians 6:9 and in I Timothy 1:10. Literally translated, malakos means "soft" and arsenokoitai means "male-bed."



Neither word meant "homosexual" in the Greek used during Paul's time. Unfortunately, Biblical language scholars disagree on what these words really did mean in the context of these two passages or to the people to whom Paul wrote. There were many Greek words for same-sex activity or "homosexuals," but Paul did not select them. Somehow translators have attached various "homosexual" meanings to these two words.

Notice the following versions of an excerpt from I Corinthians 6:9 . (I Timothy 1:10 is very similar):

King James: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

New International: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders,

Revised Standard: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,

Jerusalem Bible: people of immoral lives, idolaters, adulterers, catamites, sodomites,

New English: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion,

Which version is closest to what was intended when the original words did not mean "homosexual"? It is strange that some preachers confidently condemn gays and lesbians when scholars and different translations of the Bible do not even agree upon what certain words actually mean!



Romans 1:26-27 is the third New Testament passage often cited: "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men . . ." (Revised Standard version)



Does this passage actually condemn people who are "naturally" or constitutionally" homosexual? It says you should not indulge in sexual behavior that is unnatural for you. It specifically says heterosexuals should not try to become homosexuals. It could equally be understood to say gays and lesbians should not try to become heterosexuals.



John McNeill, a Roman Catholic scholar, says there is ample evidence that Biblical authors probably had in mind what we would also call perversion, namely, the indulgence in homosexual activity by those who were, by nature, heterosexual.. However, the authors would have expected all people to be naturally heterosexual. In fact, their ancient understanding of "nature" itself was different.

For example, Paul declares that long hair is unnatural for men (I Cor. 11:14). Paul believed "nature" to reflect expected characteristics or cultural norms, rather than a modern belief in universal scientific or biological "laws of nature."



As Norman Pittenger, an Anglican theologian, states;
"For a man or woman who sexual desire and drive is inevitably towards the same gender, acting in homosexual physical expression is in fact a way of glorifying God and opening the self to the working of the divine love in human affairs."



"I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean". (Romans 14:14) Revised Standard version.

https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-18760988/gays-and-the-gospel-an-interview-with-troy-perry

I always say that as a Christian I cannot find any passage in the Gospels in which Jesus condemned homosexuality. I do believe that the apostle Paul, according to the original Greek of Romans 1:26-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10, condemned temple prostitutes--both male and female--and pederasts. But he did not condemn homosexual persons per se.

 

Homosexuality is not even mentioned in the Bible.

Not as we define homosexuality.

The Bible does condemn adultery- and the Old Testament does condemn men having sex with men- but never even mentions women having sex with women. The Bible therefore condemns a person for sexual acts. The Bible doesn't condemn men or women for being attracted to the same gender.

So how much of the Bible is focused on 'homosexual sex'?

It is barely mentioned.

When Jesus says what are the most important commandments- he doesn't mention it at all- what does he refer to instead?

And the 10 Commandments? Again- no mention of homosexuality. Of course the 10 Commandments does forbid any 'carved images' - and not using 'the Lord's name in vain'(would this apply to every athlete and politician that thanks God for his victory?)

And lets not even get into hair cuts........

 

I agree with you, where it concerns the "faith" Maccabee and those who think the way he expresses the same does. I'm against those who have such an 'exclusive' tent of compassion, acceptance and forgiveness.

I love humanity and try to show love to ALL of the people who pass through or become a part of my life; I became a Christian BECAUSE that's what I saw in "Christ".

But this anti-human thing I see... flowing like a river of dark-poison from the hearts, minds and actions of far too many calling themselves "Christian". I will be frank and say, I almost became a militant, anti-Christian atheist... because of militant, anti-human Christians. (Much the same effect that some cops have on young men of color... related to another topic.)

O don't give a DAMN what any given believe does in their own lives, as far as dealing with what they view are wrong or sin... but when they purpose to affect the lives of others, persecuting or oppressing others according to their interpretation of their 'beliefs'... then that is (and ALWAYS HAS BEEN) a problem.

You see... Jesus didn't FORCE people to follow or obey Him; and THAT is incredibly important in the grand scheme of things.

 

Religions are precisely an exclusive tent. They say it on the billboards in front of them. They might say all are welcome but right above that they say catholic or Methodist indicating if you agree with them you're welcome.

 

Dear Truest Followers of Christ:

If you want to do something good for this world, spread the LOVE of Christ, by exhibiting the Golden Rule as a living example; not by deploying fear, hatred, authoritarianism and violent attitudes. In that, you are not helping/furthering your cause for Christ... people (their hearts) WILL cast you away, just as dust swept up from a dirty floor.

If not for the good and loving believers who embraced me as I was crawling (sometimes falling)... I would have simply hated anyone or anything 'religious'. I'm glad 'compassion' and 'love' (Christ) came my way.

 

Same guys who quote Leviticus against gays......


eat a mess of shrimp and clams and then go outside and throw around the ol' pigskin on Sundays after the game.

 

I can see that. But also, I've met very 'human' people wearing the labels, who are far more 'human' than the label indicates. I'm thankful for them. (BTW, some of those people in my life are also "atheists". Go figure.)

 

Your reference is from the Metropolitan Community Church, a gay church formed by gays for gays. So its not at all surprising that MCC comes up with something that runs counter to all historical attitudes about sexual misbehavior, including homosexuality. There is a group of people who want to modify Christianity to accept the main social trends of the day - specifically to accept homosexuality. MCC is one. You will have to come up with a much better source than that.

 

No, you have to come up with a better source than historical opinion. That's an appeal to tradition and it's a logical fallacy.

 

I have as well, but I can't remember when. And they often tell me that the bible is the word of God. I have asked, "Even the part where people are commanded to stone gay people to death?" And it changes.

 

LOL, total BS. The interpretation that homosexuality is a sin goes back 1,000's of years, and all of a sudden a couple of people with a secular agenda come up with a new interpretation - the burden of proof is solidly in the camp of the new interpretation. Come back when you have something of substance.

 

No, that is an appeal to tradition or argumentum ad antiquatum. Where you suggest just because something is traditional is correct. It's absolutely a logical fallacy and it's intellectually lazy.

No it isn't. You are relying on the fallacy of the appeal to tradition.

It was the interpretation for thousands of years that God created the world in 6 days. That's proven false, all of the sudden by a new interpretation.

All you have is "Duh it's right cuz it's old." That's nothing but a logical fallacy. And intellectual laziness but what should i expect from someone who believes the earth is flat. (Keep in mind that was the interpretation for thousands of years until a new secular agenda came up with a new interpretation. )

 

Total FAIL. Its traditional because that's the historical understanding of the Bible, it is reflected in the culture of Judaism and early Christianity. Homosexuality is a sin in the Old and the New Testament. No matter what foolishness you claim, no matter what BS you shovel, you cannot change that fact.

 

An illogical poster telling me i failed because i pointed out her fallacy and her just doubling down on a fallacy is ab total success by debate standards.

You just used the exact same fallacy to prove your fallacy correct.

You do understand the difference between genius and insanity right?

And i love how you completely avoided the idea that the earth is flat because the same logic you used was applied. It's how i priced your logic is fallacious. But you completely dodged it.

That is a total fail on you.

It's ironic that you address this to me. You're the one denying facts.

 

Homosexuality is a sin in Judaism, it always has been, and since Christianity has its roots in Judaism and 1st Century society, not to mention accepted understanding of the Bible - and you saying "Fallacy!" is totally irrelevant. You cannot change historical fact. Get used to it.

 

I know. My journey included that range of time, where I went from being a Biblical 'literalist'... to someone who realized that wasn't the way to make sense of things overall.

 

A flat earth has been the interpretation of the bible since it's beginning 5000 years ago.

Thousands of years of tradition doesn't make something right.

Your logic fails.

 

I don't think i was ever a biblical "Literalist."

I find those that are too be excruciatingly difficult to talk to. Because they know the morality in the bible is deplorable compared to ours. But still want to believe it's the word of God. To me its weak faith. They need a tangible understandable thing in order to believe in God. Nothing can contradict it or it's exposed as the shifty sand it is.

 

If you take the literal translation of Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-28 then they don't have anything to do with homosexuality. The problem is that under translation with bias words are changed, interpreted and added to ensure it aligns with the dogma of the church at that time.

Most English bibles get the translation of Leviticus 18:22 wrong, usually showing it as something like Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (KJV), when the actual translation reads And with a male, thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is an abomination. . This is the correct translation of Leviticus 18:22. It can be seen that, rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply forbids two males to lie down in a woman’s bed, for whatever reason. Culturally, a woman's bed was her own. Other than the woman herself, only her husband was permitted in her bed, and there were even restrictions on when he was allowed in there. Any other use of her bed would have been considered defilement. Other verses in the Law will help clarify the acceptable use of the woman's bed (Lev. 15).

Romans 1:26-28 - The question that should always be asked when someone cites Romans 1:26-28 as evidence that the bible condemns homosexuality is what is that persons take on Romans 2:1 - “Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgement on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.”. Romans 1:26-28 must be read in context and not in isolation from what precedes it and what follows it, if one does that then it is plain to see that Paul is choosing to highlight the worst possible transgression of pagan Gentiles, the sin of idolatry, so that the Jews in his reading audience will be saying, "Yes, Yes, they're guilty!" Then Paul will spring his trap in 2:1 when he declares that Jewish idolatry is just as sinful as Gentile idolatry and therefore, in chapter 3:23, everyone is guilty.

 

Homophobes Might Be Hidden Homosexuals

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/homophobes-might-be-hidden-homosexuals/

I know this isn't really 'on topic'. But nonetheless it might explain a lot.

 

You apply the "tradition" meme incorrectly.

Its not true because its tradition, its tradition because its true and it has been for 1,000's of years.

Homosexuality has been considered a sin from the beginning in Judaism and Christianity, that's the understanding in both the Old and New Testaments, that's the understanding in other Christian writings.

You can complain all you want, it does not change reality.

 

Jesus was supposed to be the last one,ever.
The thing with Abraham was a test to see if God was going to sacrifice his own son or not for the human race.

 

Why such a concern for 1 sin that affects less than 4% of the world? BTW - its not a sin to those who aren't religious.
There are infinite amount of sins in the world, and in the christian world, adultery is near 50%.

So there is a 50/50 shot of you being an adulterer.
Even if not, you still sin, everday, 24/7.

Sinners should work on their sins and not worry about the person next door or down the street.

- - - Updated - - -

Who'da thunk that. I thought God knows everything, being omniscient and all.

 

Tell me more about this bible/flat earth correlation.

 

And you are citing yourself- someone who is opposed to homosexuals.

I don't have to come up with any source- you are the one who has proclaimed that you are entitled to interpret the Bible 'in context'- I provided another person's opinion- 'in context'- so far we have two contrary opinions.

Both of them with an obvious bias.