What does the Bible actually say about being gay?

BBC ^ | October 23, 2003 | BBC

[ejdrapes]

What does the Bible actually say about being gay?

Confused how two groups of church-goers can have such conflicting views about whether it's OK to be gay?

Both sides of the debate about homosexuality in the church, which threatens to split the worldwide Anglican church, hold their views sincerely and after much study. So how can their views be so contradictory?

The Bible makes very few mentions of homosexuality - lesbianism isn't mentioned at all in the Old Testament - and as the examples below show, interpretations of the verses that do exist differ hugely.

Following each of the verses below is a brief illustration of what a hardline pro- and anti-gay position might be. (Most Christians hold views somewhere in between these two stances.)

An illustration of the division can be seen by what either side might say about the friendship in the Old Testament between David and Jonathan. One verse reads: "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; dear and delightful you were to me; your love for me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women."

PRO-GAY A pro-gay position might be that this is a clear indication that King David had a gay relationship, and to pretend otherwise is naive.

ANTI-GAY An anti-gay opinion might be that the friendship between the two men was exactly that - a very close and loyal allegiance.

Similarly, the tale of Sodom is often debated. In it, Lot has two angels staying in his house. The men of Sodom surrounded the house. "They called to Lot and asked him where the men were who had entered his house that night. 'Bring them out,' they shouted, 'so that we might have intercourse with them.'"

To protect his visitors from an act which Lot describes as "wicked", he offers the crowd his two virgin daughters instead. The crowd are not satisfied and break the door down - the angels then make the intruders blind and Sodom is eventually destroyed by "fire and brimstone".

ANTI-GAY An anti-gay argument might say this story demonstrates the immorality of homosexuality, as has been accepted for generations, hence the term sodomy. Elsewhere in Genesis, God says of the men: "Their sin is very grave." It's an example of behaviour degenerating.

PRO-GAY Of course the men's behaviour was wicked, but it was wicked because it's a tale of sexual assault and rape. When Jesus mentions Sodom, hundreds of years later, it appears to be in a context of a discussion of hospitality, rather than one of sexual morality.

There are several verses in the Bible which are similarly contested - there are however a much smaller number of seemingly clear statements. The most famous of them is probably from Leviticus: "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination."

ANTI-GAY An anti-gay position would be that this line is unambiguous. It is also repeated elsewhere in the book. The speaker of the words is God, so this is an explicit indication that homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes. It was one of the sins that justified God in giving the land of Canaan to the Israelites

PRO-GAY A pro-gay argument might say that other verses in the same book forbid a wide range of sexual activities, including having sex with a woman who is having her period. This is an indication that the passage embodies specific cultural values rather than God's law.

There is some debate about how relevant rules in the Old Testament are to Christians. Some would say they are binding, since Jesus said he did not come to abolish the old laws. Others would say that Jesus set Christians free from the old laws, highlighting instead that people should love God and their neighbour.

Jesus himself says nothing explicitly about homosexuality. There are though two statements by him which have been interpreted as having a bearing on the subject.

"[A] man shall leave his father and mother, and be made one with his wife; and the two shall become one flesh."

ANTI-GAY This indicates Jesus saw heterosexual relations as the proper way of behaving.

PRO-GAY Jesus is actually talking about the sanctity of heterosexual marriage

Later in the same conversation, after Jesus has spoken about divorce, the disciples say to him it is better not to marry at all. Jesus says: "That is something which not everyone can accept, but only those for whom God has appointed it. For while some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, or made so by men, there are others who have themselves renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let those accept it who can."

PRO-GAY This shows that Jesus is more concerned with people looking after their own relationship with God, than with enforcement of rules. The reference to being "born so" indicates that heterosexual marriage is fine for those who are heterosexual, but it's OK to be different. Again and again Jesus reaches out to those on the margins of society, like prostitutes and tax collectors, to include them.

ANTI-GAY Jesus here is actually talking about people who were born incapable of having children, or people who were castrated - not about gays. He is actually saying that marriage and chastity are both within God's purpose. Jesus does appeal to the sinners, but once he has called them, he tells them to go and sin no more.

The letters of St Paul provide the other traditional support for the position that homosexuality is sinful. He writes: "God has given [people who worship false gods] up to shameful passions. Their women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and their men in turn, giving up natural relations with women burn with lust for one another; males behave indecently with males and paid in their own persons the fitting wage of such perversion."

Paul later writes: "Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolator, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers of drunkards of slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God."

PRO-GAY A pro-gay position might be that the word Paul uses for homosexual here could alternatively be translated as "male prostitute". In any case, Paul's writings are clearly of his time, and there are plenty of other verses which people have no difficulty in ignoring - for instance: "a woman brings shame on her head if she prays or prophesies bare-headed; it is as bad as if her head were shaved." This should be viewed like that.

ANTI-GAY Anti-gay argument might say this line is crystal clear in establishing that Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible. Paul is actually quite clearly referring to homosexual behaviour, and includes lesbianism. You can't just pretend that St Paul, who did so much to influence our understanding of Jesus, didn't know what he was talking about. He's clear that homosexuality is an offence against God and against people's own bodies.

Part of the reason the views diverge so much is because Christians think of the Bible differently. Some see it as literally the word of God, divine inspiration which humans should not question. Others see it rather as a book which is a witness to God's message, but one which was written by humans and thus has flaws.

Trying to find common ground between the two positions is no simple matter - one of the reasons that Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is having such a tricky job keeping everyone on board.

Quotations are taken from the New English Bible.

References are on this page

[eastsider]

The translation of arsenokoitai as "homosexual" in this passage is misleading. It's funny that the Bible translation uses "homosexual," because it is never translated that way in any other text.

In what other text does arsenokoitai appear, and how is it translated in that other text?

[SirAllen]

A few other verses the author conviently forgot:

Romans 1:26, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

(Read the whole chapter for better context)

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."

Deuteronomy 23:17, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel."

I believe homosexuality is a sin just like other sins. Some people seem more prone to it than others, just like some people are more prone to alcholism. I believe that if a homosexual truly believes and accepts Jesus into their life, that they will see that he does not approve of their lifestyle. I think a lot of these professed homosexual Christians are just professing it to feel better about themselves, but have not truely accepted Christ. It also has the added impact of tearing the church apart to argue that the Bible in any way condones homosexuality.

[Kleon]

It's usually translated as meaning a male pervert, prostitute or child molester. The sex of the victim or reciever is unimportant.

I think it's important to note that the word is not found in the diologues of Plato (or any pre-scripture Greek authors) who certainly would have used a word meaning "homosexual" if it was in his lexicon.

[stands2reason]

I know. I was just using the Socratic Method on StonyBurk.

[eastsider]

I'm leery of drawing any conclusion about the meaning of arsenokoitai in the NT based on the absence of such word in the Plato. For one thing, the classical Greek of the Platonic dialogues and the Koine of the NT are separated by four centuries. Compare, for example, the english of four centuries ago as found in the King James Version with the english of the NIV -- it should come as no surprise to anyone that the word arsenokoitai is not translated as homosexual in the KJV but is translated as homosexual in the NIV when one considers that the english word homosexual wasn't even coined until a little over a century ago!

Another point worth noting is that there is evidence that some of the NT koine is itself a translation of another language. For example, there's ample evidence to suggest that the koine found in the gospel of Matthew is a translation of an earlier semitic text. (This, too, should come as no surprise when one considers the hellenization of semitic names, such as Petros for Kephas.)

[punster]

""To protect his visitors from an act which Lot describes as "wicked", he offers the crowd his two virgin daughters instead."

It is interesting to note that Lot was offering to sell his two young daughters into prostitution, to placate the townspeople. It sure shows a bad attitude towards women, doesn't it?"

"It also displays that some sins are more evil than others and homosexuality ranks extremely perverse. It would have been better for a single instance of submission by the father and his daughters than to condone or not oppose homosexuality, especially an attempt to corrupt messengers of God.

It's an outstanding example though of the severity in our present day situation. In Lot's case, messengers of God were being attacked by homosexuality with the consequence of the entire people and their city being destroyed.

Consider now that the highest offices of the church are being assaulted again by homosexuality. In parallel, the US is in jeopardy of divine destruction to the point that even believers might be destroyed unless we remain steadfast in our faith to Him and oppose the homosexual advance upon any and all aspects of society."

Perhaps, we should examine what Lot was doing. Lot was a pimp. Furthermore, Lot was also engaging in running a child prostitution enterprise.

[L.N. Smithee]

But not Jesus. In fact, He never said a word on the subject. He had plenty to say on divorce, though, and that practice is promoted by the government. Go figure.

What did Jesus say about prostitution?

[Donaeus]

Excellent post!

Another fact that people quoting the verses from II Samuel regarding David and Jonathan's relationship fail to point out is that David had 300 wives and 700 concubines. I defy any claim that a man intimately surrounded by 1,000 women had a homosexual tendency of any kind.

[BobS]

I wonder if Jesus ever considered using the term "butthole surfers"?

[kancel]

>>Why don't we discuss fornicators, slanderers, thieves, adulterers, like we do homosexuals?<<

I think that we are discussing homosexuals becasue we are already at the bottom of that slippery slope of sexual immorality. Society has already given the fornicators and adulterers a pass in previous generations and homos are the last bastion we have to fight in this generation. In previous generations it was just as taboo to have sex outside of marriage, or to cheat on your spouse but those days are no longer.

It doesn't make the Bible wrong- it just makes us wrong.

[MEG33]

Thank you for your thoughtful answer.

[Cvengr]

Lot recognized the homsexuals were consumed in their lust of the flesh. Lot recognized the homosexuals sought to make the messengers of the Lord unholy. Lot, in keeping obedient to God by faith, even offered up the flesh of his daughters whom he greatly loved, in order not to defile his relationship with God. Lot's act was in a sense a foreshadowing of the love exhibited by Christ on the Cross, wherein Christ remained obedient to the Father even unto the separation of his body from his soul and spirit as a man, thereby offering the Perfect Sacrifice.

Those who were not believers, knew nothing of the spirit and only saw a man on the cross perishing, even while they mocked Him. Similarly, the homosexuals with Lot saw nothing of his act other than probably how you have presented it in your last post.

[JesseHousman]

...well, duh, it's because of stupid, hateful shit like this.

What a telling retort!

You have a way with words, Alabama Dave, that is astounding.

God didn't create a sub-class of humans so self-righteous Christians could beat up on them. You should know better than that if you're familiar with the God-given tenet of free will.

By not speaking out against these perverts and their sick agenda for Americans and their children you are a sycophant.

[FrankR]

"God stated that homosexuality is an abominiation - literally that it makes him want to puke. "

Well, homosexuality makes me want to puke, even if it wasn't in the Bible.

So what do the Pro-Gays think? Do they think if they twist the meanings of Bible verses pertaining to homosexuality enough, that everyone will say it's ok? Or, are they just trying to relieve that inner guilt for being perverted?

If most liberals think the Constitution is a "living document", to be re-interpreted at the drop of a hat, then why shouldn't they also think the Bible is a "living document"? They wouldn't even be reading it, except that they want to try and convince everyone that it's "OK to be Gay".

If I want the Bible interpreted, I'll call a true, Bible scholar who has no ulterior motives, or I'll just rely on my own upbringing and religious beliefs.

nuff sedd

[punster]

"Those who were not believers, knew nothing of the spirit and only saw a man on the cross perishing, even while they mocked Him. Similarly, the homosexuals with Lot saw nothing of his act other than probably how you have presented it in your last post."

That's an awful lot of rationalization of Lot's inequities.

How about this case as an example of hypocrisy?

---

http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=23709

Published Thursday, October 23, 2003
White faces charges for asking minor for sex
Pa. police arrest firebrand 'Brother Stephen'

BY GILLIAN GILLERS
Contributing Reporter

Reverend Stephen White, infamous for preaching against homosexuality and sexual promiscuity at Yale and other college campuses, now faces charges that he solicited sex from a teenage boy in a Philadelphia suburb.

In recent years, White -- known to students as "Brother Stephen" -- has made informal speeches on Cross Campus and Beinecke Plaza denouncing minorities, homosexuals, religious groups and aspects of popular culture.

White was arrested in June after he allegedly offered $20 to a 14-year-old boy in West Chester, Pa. for permission to perform oral sex on him.

According to the boy's sworn affidavit, White approached him in a green Ford van and asked if he knew of any strip clubs, adult book stores or shops that sold sexually explicit videos. When then the boy said he did not, White unsuccessfully attempted to lure the boy into the vehicle. White then told the boy he could "make some money" by letting White perform fellatio on him.

After the encounter, the boy reported the van's license plate number to his mother, who then contacted the police.

White will be tried on Nov. 24 on four charges, including criminal attempt to lure a child into a motor vehicle and criminal solicitation to involuntary deviant sexual intercourse.

---

[HitmanLV]

The Bible makes very few mentions of homosexuality - lesbianism isn't mentioned at all in the Old Testament

The author begins to lose me here. Isn't lesbianism considered homosexuality? Isn't a lesbian a homosexual? Doesn't homosexual mean "Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex?"

What is the author thinking here?

[milan]

Why don't we discuss fornicators,slanderers,thieves,adulterers,like we do homosexuals?

We do: "fornicators,slanderers,thieves,adulterers"=politicians

;)

[milan]

Now I can clearly see from the quotations here that their platform rests on some pretty flimsy boards.

Yeah, pretty flemsy alright. They choose a handful of quotes out of a book that takes a year to read if you pace yourself conservatively. If you do indepth study, it could easily take you 2-3 years to get through the Bible. They have no clue about the entirety of the Bible. They just pick a few lines and shazaam! God says being gay is okay.

This is similar to the "Bible contradicts itself" crap. They find a handful of passages that have been translated the best they could be and all of a sudden "well, the Bible contradicts itself in 20 places...it is false." They don't take into account translation, interpretation, or anything.

[milan]

Another fact that people quoting the verses from II Samuel regarding David and Jonathan's relationship fail to point out is that David had 300 wives and 700 concubines. I defy any claim that a man intimately surrounded by 1,000 women had a homosexual tendency of any kind.

Whaaaaahhhhh!!!! That is one of those amazingly memorable quotes that I will cherish and share with the grandkids...when they are older of course.