Article: What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality

[jlhinton1]

Hello, My name is James. I have just read your article entitled: "What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality," by Rev. Mel White, co-founder of Soulforce.

I have a question about a statement (quoted below) which he made in the fourth paragraph under the heading: "My First Premise:."


Quote: "Only six or seven of the Bible's one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way -- and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it's understood today."

So this is my question: "Which version of the Bible did he use that has one million verses?" The whole Bible (1769 edition of the 1611 King James Version) contains a total of 31,102 verses and only 788,280 words.

Thank you. James Hinton, jlhinton1@bellsouth.net

[u-dog]

Man! You're like the MILLIONTH person who has come onto the forum and asked that question!

[Alecto]

Man! You're like the MILLIONTH person who has come onto the forum and asked that question!

::shrug:: if that's the most relevant critique...

[Northern_Imager]

Mr. Hinton - Have you ever heard of "hyperbole," an exaggeration and extravagant statement used as a figure of speech to make a point? “I’ve told you a million times!” The point Mel is making that in all the many verses of the bible, be they a million or 31,102, only nine refer to same sex behavior. These few verses in all the bible have been mistranslated, misinterpreted, and misapplied to support bigotry, prejudice, and spiritual, emotional as well as physical abuse against GLBT people by “good” church people. Hope that clears it up for you.

[tymejumper]

I would suppose it depends on which version of the Bible you read. I have seen the Torah, and it is MUCH larger than the King James version. There are always shows on Discover and History channel about Anthropoligists and Historians who have evidence that many different verses were excluded out of the King James Bible.

I would love noting more than to go back in time and sit at Jesus knee and hear for myselfwhat he said. That is really the only way that we will know.:pray:

[tdogg]

Yeah, maybe Mel's including the verses in all the books suspiciously left out of the Bible, as they didn't fit into the mold the religious icons of the day had in mind for it. ;)

[Daniel]

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi

What a great quote! Made me smile. Real big.

Thanks for sharing it.

[pnggrad79]

I have said it once and I will say it again, I will be loud about the things God is loud about and quiet about the things He is quiet about- same sex attraction it seems he was rather quiet about, and when he did say something it was only in the context of rape or idol worship. Hmmm, ya think God doesn't give a flip about it? I do....:rolleyes:

[heretotalk]

As far as what version Mel White was using, if it isn't sited, the easiest way to figure that out would be to quote the verse exactly, and then copy and paste it into www.biblegateway.com. There's a search engine there that should enable you to easily answer your own question.

[Daniel]

I've been musing on the matter of belief, a phenomena unto itself. It's a very interesting thing to 'believe' and organize one's life around what is written for a culture several thousand years hence. I mean- do we believe something just because it is old? Perhaps. Is that a bad thing? I guess it would depend on what one's beliefs are.

My thought is this: for a country which many think of as a Christan Nation- and one that follows ancient texts, we do a very poor job of taking care or the elderly- the ancient among us- those with the wisdom of their years. In fact, our nation makes a point of idolizing youth- which knows next to nothing. Why is that? It seems very strange to me. In like fashion, it seems like there is an idolization of scripture- that which is old - a worshiping of the letter of the law rather than it's spirit. And what about 'young' information? That is often tossed out. Very strange too. Do we go to doctors who aren't knowledgable about the lastest treatments? Do we ignore the lastest findings in research and study? Or course not! Then why- I ask you- do we do this with respect to gay people? No! The lilteralist ignores everything but those 8 verses. He/she will cling to them for dear life. Doing this seems like a sure fire way to project ones fears and yes- hatred- on to others. My sense is that real belief would act other than it does.

Whom does this serve? Only the one with the rigid views. And literalists- I would say- are rigid in their beliefs.

Have you known a literalist to be rather flexible about biblical matters?

I think not. I was at an AoG school, I can remember first hand: those who screamed the loudest had hearts of stone.

Is there a disagreement brewing here? Or is there a desire for understanding and commonality? Is this another case of legalistic thinking- is this going to be about who has the 'right' understanding of scripture?

The pharisee's thought they were 'right' too. And Christ has some pretty harsh thing to say about them.

Literalists take note.

[heretotalk]

Daniel, I'm confused about what you mean when you use the word "Literalist". As far as I'm familiar with the word it is used to refer to someone who takes the Bible to be 100% literal, which would mean that when the Bible says "the sky is a done over the Earth" they'd take that as a literal statement instead of realizing that the statement being made is a poetic one and that the Bible is not a scientific document but a theological and historical one.

Anyway, if I can try to explain a little, people who take the Bible literally when it comes to what it says about homosexuality do so because those eight verses are there. As a disciple I can say that the Bible isn't something that we can pick and choose over at our own yearnings. If I don't like part of it I cannot ignore it or rip it out.

People have done that in the past and they've done horrible heretical things; and I'm referring to people who aren't identified as heretics by the church. There have been people throughout the ages who have waged wars, executed people, and done an untold of evil things in the name of Jesus Christ. If you want a good example, of "good" people doing "good" things, look no further than the Spanish Inquisition. These are the people that are like the Pharisees, those who keep the letter of the law but not the heart of it.

Still, a disciple isn't going to suddenly rethink and rewrite to blot out passages from the Bible because the times have changed. God's word and God's law are unchanging and absolute. Yes the Bible does contain some very specific laws meant strictly for the Hebrew people; however none of these laws was simply a law for the sake of having a law. Each and every law that is found in the Torah is theologically important because it set apart the Jews from the civilizations that surrounded them. So the Hebrews were forbidden to participate in fertility rituals like their neighbors did and human sacrifice was not an appropriate way to make it rain; even the construction of the Jewish Temple was to be set apart from Israel's pagan neighbors.

I'm explaining the Jewish people's history because Christians also share in that history because our Messiah was a Jew. We know from our history, in addition to our calling, that we are supposed to be set apart from the rest of the world. That means that when society enters into a new philosophical age or has a sexual revolution (both of which have happened in the last century and had a profound impact on everything) it is the Church's job to recognize that the rest of the world is changing, to see what is good about the change and what is not, and then to continue to preach the Eternal Word in a temporal society.

There are people out there who are modern day Pharisees, they hold the word of the law perfectly in their lives but they fail to remember the heart of the law. Christ said "Love the LORD with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself, these are the two greatest commandments." Upon these commands every Christian should reflect day and night so that when we "uphold" the law in anger and hatred we realize that the law is love and that such a law cannot be upheld in hatred.

I'm sorry that at your school you felt that people were hard hearted. Christians must uphold their beliefs and they cannot change their morals as society changes its morals however Christians must also remember, above all else, to love. It was a radical love that took our savior to the cross where he died and a radical love that brought him out of the grave.

A lot of the time, if not almost all the time, we Christians are nowhere near as radical in our love as Jesus is. Sometimes some of us think that we're especially special because we're set apart and that it gives us the right to persecute others who we think are so different from us. However we do forget two important things that connect each and every human on this planet. First "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"; that's Biblical, whether you believe in it or not is up to you but to Christians that is a binding truth. Second "for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." Christ is for everyone. Some people hate to admit it because they like their pure and stainless ivory tower that's rotting on the inside but looks good on the outside.

There are many "literalist" Christians out there who can still uphold their convictions, in regards to many things besides homosexuality, and still love the people they disagree with.

Literalists, show love.

[Daniel]

Daniel, I'm confused about what you mean when you use the word "Literalist". As far as I'm familiar with the word it is used to refer to someone who takes the Bible to be 100% literal, which would mean that when the Bible says "the sky is a done over the Earth" they'd take that as a literal statement instead of realizing that the statement being made is a poetic one and that the Bible is not a scientific document but a theological and historical one.

Anyway, if I can try to explain a little, people who take the Bible literally when it comes to what it says about homosexuality do so because those eight verses are there. As a disciple I can say that the Bible isn't something that we can pick and choose over at our own yearnings. If I don't like part of it I cannot ignore it or rip it out..

I don't believe for a second that you are confused. So how about dropping the pretense? It's silly.

It's ironic that you display literalist thinking by asserting that one can't 'pick and choose', and then go on and assert that the verses in question are 'there', which amounts to picking and choosing.

(It's called circular thinking)

Ironic indeed, for that is indeed what literalist's, in fact, do. They focus on what they want to condemn in others and forget about the rest of the inconvenient stuff like eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics.

That's what makes a literalist a literalist. The narrowness of their view. ;)

I really don't see the love in that.

[tdogg]

"love the sinner, hate the sin" isn't an indication of love. It's a justification for those who believe 'gay' = 'sin'. A justification so they can feel good about not loving us. In my opinion.

If you engage one who professes to love the sinner - hate the sin, long enough, they will cave and what comes out of their mouth is nothing close to love. In my experience.

[keltic63]

"love the sinner, hate the sin" isn't an indication of love. It's a justification for those who believe 'gay' = 'sin'. A justification so they can feel good about not loving us. In my opinion.

If you engage one who professes to love the sinner - hate the sin, long enough, they will cave and what comes out of their mouth is nothing close to love. In my experience.


hey, have you seen the exchanges in the comments section of my latest blog entry??? the most hateful things have come from the people who claim to be christians.

[Juls]

I read the article too, and my question is what does this mean ".....and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it's understood today."

What does "as it's understood today" mean

[nervezapper]

I read the article too, and my question is what does this mean ".....and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it's understood today."

What does "as it's understood today" mean

Juls I think what they are refering to in the Bible if you literally translate the texts about homosexuality it's most likely referring to male prostitutes and sex with young boys. I know you have read What the Bible Says-And Doesn't Say-About Homosexuality so I won't repeat that. If you would like a more historical view of homosexuality you can go to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/. There you will find that the word homosexual didn't even exist during the time the Bible was written or even when the King James Version was translated.

[keltic63]

I read the article too, and my question is what does this mean ".....and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it's understood today."

What does "as it's understood today" mean

nervezapper is right. in addition, it's not been too long since the major medical, psychological, and psychiatric organizations removed homosexuality from their lists of mental disorders. Research shows that there is nothing pathological about being gay, it is just another characteristic, much like handedness or eye color.

it also means that the possibility of two people of the same gender enjoying a committed, loving relationship, was not a concept that was even considered in the culture of Biblical times.

[u-dog]

I read the article too, and my question is what does this mean ".....and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it's understood today."

What does "as it's understood today" mean

Juls, in the twenty-first century we have come to understand that persons ARE homosexual (or gay) That is that we are a particular KIND of human beings characterized by emotional and sexual attractions to members of our own sex. Because of this it is possible for us to refer to someone as being A gay person or A homosexual.

In ancient times the assumption was that everyone was heterosexual but that certain people, for whatever reason, decided to act in this perverse way and have sex with people of their own sex. So they were not considered to be something different they were considered to be DOING something different.

This is a major change in the way we think. So any Biblical translation or interpretation that implies the notion that people ARE homosexual (rather than DOING homosexual things) is an "anachronism" or something that is out of place in time. and its a distortion of the original meaning of the text.

For instance, Paul says in Romans 1 that people are "given up" to unnatural lusts for persons of their own sex as a result of idolatry. They are idolatrous and so God "gave them up" to these desires. It is not so much a sin as it is the consequence of sin. This sort of makes sense in the context of ancient Rome where the illegal cult of Bacchus was popular. The rite of initiation into the cult of Bacchus (for both men and women) included being penetrated anally by the priest of the cult. You can see why Paul would draw a connection between homosexuality and idolatry. But that was his world and not ours. We understand that people emerge into puberty with their sexual orientation already established and that it is pretty much immutable

[BruceChris]

We are learning that we are not all either male or female, with nothing in between.

We all start out, in the first few weeks of life, with a female body. In the presence of a Y chromosome, male hormones, and hormone receptors, the child will usually become a Fully Differentiated Male. That means a male body, attraction to women, self-identification as a male, and fertility.

In the absence of all of the above, we usually get a Fully Differentiated Female.

There are some women in this world with female bodies and XY chromosomes, and some men with XX chromosomes. There are all kinds of possibilities

If a person does not have a normally gendered body, or is not attracted to the "opposite" sex, or does not identify with their assigned gender, or is not fertile, they are not Fully Differentiated. This may be almost half of us.

We still have to be legally male, or female, of course. But if you're transsexual, some states or counties will only recognize your original birth certificate, while others will recognize an amended one. So you could only marry boys in some places, and only girls in others. (!!!!)

To fail to offer this as a starting point is to assume that we must all be either 100% male, or 100% female. Well, some of us are gay, some are trans, and some of us are not fertile.

We all, male and female, have the same organs and tissues, and almost all of the same hormones, they're just in a little different place, or size and shape.

The differentiation of our bodies, identities, and orientations occurs in slightly different ways, and at slightly different times. This is why our sexualities come up in mix or match patterns. _You are just as God made you

But "as it is understood today" is still based on the belief in absolute gender


Bruce Chris

[tdogg]

hey, have you seen the exchanges in the comments section of my latest blog entry??? the most hateful things have come from the people who claim to be christians.

Excellent blog Keltic. The only thing I hate more than "love the sinner, hate the sin" is the use of lies and deceit by those who profess to be "Christians" in order to further their own invalid opinions. I know the Prop 8 stuff is getting boring, but interestingly, the proponents of Prop 8 have introduced their commercial where they cry that if Prop 8 passes, all little kids in school will be taught all about gay marriage. A bunch of BS and they know it, but they aren't above sinking to the lowest of the low places in order to argue that gay=bad. It makes me sick (not to mention pissed).

[mjules]

Bruce,

Have you been reading up on the gender thing? Can you share some of your sources? I'm very intrigued by it.

[Daniel]

it also means that the possibility of two people of the same gender enjoying a committed, loving relationship, was not a concept that was even considered in the culture of Biblical times.


A commitment ceremomy was, however, part of the church as early as the 11th century as noted by John Boswell in his tome Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality.

Ain't that something? It also pre-dates marriage as we understand it.