What does the Bible actually say about being gay?

BBC ^ | October 23, 2003 | BBC

[jocon307]

"They choose a handful of quotes out of a book that takes a year to read if you pace yourself conservatively."

Yes, I've just decided to finally read the Bible, I'm a fast reader, so far I've just been reading it before bed (not ideal, admitedly) and I'm on page 2! I'm very much thinking I'll have to read it during a more awake time, as, even from the very start, it really makes one think.

"This is similar to the "Bible contradicts itself" crap."

Yes, the big subject for this one is slavery, I venture. I was listening to the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC (NPR) a few weeks ago, I think the subject MIGHT have been slave "reparations", whatever it was the subject of how the Bible talks about slavery came up. The guest that day was very lefty, but this excellent caller called in and said, if you look at it with allowances to the existing cultures, the Bible is pretty clear that slavery is a negative thing. Well, he was very eloquent on it, and I'm doing him a disservice with my paraphrasing here, but he really kind of shut the guest up, and that was really because he was so obviously a Bible believer, and he very much seemed to be (altho' on the phone, you can never be sure) an African-American. They didn't have the nerve to ask him, it was really pretty amusing to me. He had really studied his Bible, that always impresses me.

[milan]

Here is a link for a Bible in a year program...many translations:

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/BibleInAYear/

You are right though; best to do it in the day when you are awake. I usually read Bible in the morning (before work) and try to do extra studies in the evening hours. To finish in a year, you will have to read between 15-30 minutes a day with no study. Add study and you can increase that to 1-3 hours easily.

There are many blatant misinterpretations of the Bible. Best thing to do is ignore those misinterpreting. If God wants to soften their heart, he will.

[jocon307]

That's a great site, thanks for sending me the link. It really has a bunch of translations, even Latin! I'm very impressed, and it also makes me feel welcome as a Roman Catholic, even though I've decided to read The King James Version. I'm actually reading hubby's confirmation Bible, I must have at least 3 others, but that was the one I found first.

"If God wants to soften their heart, he will."

This reminds me of that silly Irish saying I've seen in catologues, who knows if it's real or not? Something along the lines of:

Let those who love us, love us
And those who don't
Let God turn their hearts
And if He doesn't turn their hearts
Let Him turn their ankles so we'll know them by their limping.

[SuziQ]

the Greeks considered it different than marriage, and except for the elite, frowned on it

Apparently it was practice by the academic elites who were attracted to their young students. Since girls didn't attend school, the academic elites tended to lionize the young, educated men.

[longtermmemmory]

one of the reasons that Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is having such a tricky job keeping everyone on board.

*** **** ******

What a load of equivalency manure. This is just trying to set up an agree to disagree scenario. Sorry no sale.

Keeping everyon on board? Does this mean that the homosexuals are going to bandon the church AND the properties? don't think so...

Garbage anylysis to support an immoral position.

[longtermmemmory]

note also the article uses "gay" not the correct and accurate homosexual.

using "gay" demonstrates the authors preference.

[aruanan]

Intercourse can also mean to "join in conversation".

Yes, it can. Except that in the passage written by Paul above, it doesn't.

[AppyPappy]

Intercourse wasn't even mentioned. Paul rarely spoke that boldly about sexual issues. He literally said "Women exhanged natural uses for unnatural ones".

[BamaDave]

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

Gimme a break!

If people like you would drop their obsession with gays, the gays would probably stop being so "in your face" with their agenda. Stop trying to restrict their freedom to conduct their personal lives as they see fit. I just don't understand why you care so much about what other people do in their private lives.

[AppyPappy]

We wouldn't care if they didn't practice it in public so much. They can't have a parade without turning it into a pervert party and they infest our public parks and restrooms. Not to mention they want to destroy marriage as an institution and their promiscuity costs us hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars.

[aruanan]

It lays out the two sides of the argument and doesn't champion either. I am not familiar with the Bible "chapter & verse" and have oftened wondered where the homsexual activists found support.

Well, the second sentence explains the sentiment of the first. Just by laying things out as pro and con and in the end talking about how hard and tricky it is to decide when different people interpret the same thing in two different ways, the author has already accorded the pro-homosexual side a great deal of legitimacy in this matter that it has never had. Such a structuring of the "argument" is due either to ignorance or deviousness. Neither is a good thing.

But you're correct in stating that the pro-homosexual position has very flimsy support when trying to use scripture. On the one hand, it has to beg the question to make what it calls pro-homosexual verses support its position and, on the other, it has to explain away clear, unambiguous language that undercuts it or engage in fallacies such as the shrimp equivalency ploy alluded to above ("G-d abominates the eating of shrimp. G-d abominates homosexual behavior. Eating shrimp is no big deal. Therefore, homosexuality is no big deal either. Either that, or G-d's a real dork for making the eating of shrimp a bad thing.")

[Lazamataz]

He said the same about eating shrimp.

So don't eat shrimp and don't be gay.

[Friend of thunder]

Intercourse can also mean to "join in conversation".

It can, but the NIV translate it as “have sex with them”.

[AppyPappy]

Most pro-homosexual activists don't seem Biblically-literate enough to know that the cleanliness laws were thrown out in the New Testament.

[Lazamataz]

I know when I eat shrimp and drink beer I do some strange things.

Gay things?

[Lazamataz]

And the penalty, in the Bible, for eating shrimp is??

The elders of the tribe make you turn gay.

[Held_to_Ransom]

He said the same about eating shrimp

Eating shrimp in the desert before refrigeration was a very poor idea. A good way to get sick. Perhaps there's a clue there in terms of HIV and all those other STD's.

[Lazamataz]

Does anyone else have problems imagining God....puking?

That's how the universe was formed, y'know.

You don't wanna know how he created gassy giant planets.

[Held_to_Ransom]

It also says, by the way, that deviating from the plan is abominable-but in this context, it's not the characterization of the deviation that is important, but the fact that is not part of the Creator's design.

As Darwin noted, natural selection is redundant to the notion of God being alive and well in the world. What most folks get wrong is that natural selection does not, per se, control the way man lives, though it is not entirely irrelevant. Man lives more often by unconscious selection or methodological selection. In the case of gays, the process of society relaxing it's restrictions against it is, obviously, a method by which the body of society diminishes in itself periodically of the gay influence. While the standard for most of the Roman Empire did eschew gay relationships, the upper crust did indulge, but with time, such behaviour is an end to itself. God is alive and well and active in the world, and yes, gays, while part of the plan, are not the essential part of the plan. The correct parallel is the tares and the wheat. Tares have a useful function, but they are not the bread of life as is the wheat. Sometimes they are left in the field for a time, but ultimately they are all separated from the wheat.

[aruanan]

Intercourse wasn't even mentioned. Paul rarely spoke that boldly about sexual issues. He literally said "Women exhanged natural uses for unnatural ones".

Don't go all Janet Reno on us by looking at a couple words in isolation. I was referring to "intercourse" in the translation in the text above. The use of the word in that translation, though, is consistent with the text as seen in the NIV translation below and "uses" is, indeed, referring to sexual relations, sexual intercourse, boinking, screwing, the horizontal mambo, the beast with two backs, getting down and dirty, going down, riding the skinboat to tuna town, whatever the phrase used to denote the activities included in this class of acts (see v. 24 which gives the context for the specifics of verse 26 and 27--note the "therefore" and "because of this").

And "rarely" is irrelevant. The operative words are "clearly" and "appropriately". When something is stated clearly and in the right context, it need not be stated more often than that. The few places Paul speaks specifically to sexual sin, it's evident that the context warrants it (his overview of G-d's relationship to the world or sexual immorality in the Corinthian church, to mention two instances).

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.