Homosexuality in the Bible. Opinions?

[noelle]

Hey everyone. I am new to the website and am looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this forum. I actually am looking for some advice on a certain issue, homosexuality in the Bible. I am not gay but I do have gay friends and I recently started to attend a Methodist Church that has a high gay population in their congregation. I definitely do not have any problems with this as I was looking for a more liberal and open minded church. But here is where I need some advice.

I was telling my friend ( I'll call her Jane) about this new church I started going to. Jane is very religiously ( and politically) conservative in her beliefs-she believes that the Bible is infallible and should therefore be taken literally. Anyways she asked me how my new church (and I quote) "gets around what the Bible says about gays." I told Jane that they do not try to, they are just accepting of all people. She then told me that she wants to talk with me more about this and the church I am going to. I have known her for several years so I know that Jane is quite homophobic and judgmental when it comes to issues such as these.

So we are planning on getting together to discuss this and I want to be prepared when making my case. I should say that I believe the Bible is fallible and should not be taken literally. I know Jane will cite the verse from Corinthians 3:6-9 which states, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders..."

So basically, I am just asking for advice on how to approach this topic with Jane. I am not trying to change her mind, because I know that I can't, but I just want her to accept me the church that I have chosen to go to. I feel like she thinks I am wrong because I attend a church that is inviting to people who are in same-sex relationships.

For me personally, I have always believed that people should be allowed to love whoever they want and should be given equal rights no matter. I feel that is how God would want it. So, if anyone has any advice on how to approach this with her or any Bible verses that can back up my argument that would be great. Thanks so much and God Bless

-Noelle-

[bnmoore]

Originally Posted by noelle

So basically, I am just asking for advice on how to approach this topic with Jane. I am not trying to change her mind, because I know that I can't, but I just want her to accept me the church that I have chosen to go to. I feel like she thinks I am wrong because I attend a church that is inviting to people who are in same-sex relationships.
-Noelle-

If the "What the Bible Says" pdf file under "Resources" at the top of this page doesn't serve you could get a differently worded version here:

http://www.firstmcc.com/homosexuality/homosexuality.htm

It pretty much says the same things.

You could always ask her if she's Assyrian and if her Bible is written in Syriac (Aramaic). If not she may not be reading the Bible at all.

[koneill08]

I read an article by a man named Frank Viola who is a leader in the home church movement. He quoted someone else in his article where he receives a lot of negative criticism (including being called a heretic and evil) for his outright disagreement with the established, organizational, institutionalized system of church we have today. He speaks out against it because it's rooted in paganism. That said, this isn't about church organization, but I think the quote can be used here too. Even though I won't comment specifically about what the bible does or does not say about homosexuality, I think this quote and my own addition to it can apply here. I'll quote what the article said first then add my own addition to it.

The article is about people and how they make constructive vs. hurtful criticism. It said "Even if I am as wrong as you think I am, what good would it be to prove a wrong person wrong if in the process right people prove themselves mean-spirited, unfair, unreflective, inaccurate, dishonest, or hypocritical?"

My addition would be, even if I am as wrong as you think I am, what good would it be to prove a wrong person wrong if in the process right people prove themselves to be all that is mentioned above, plus, judgmental, rejecters of God's creation, intolerant, haters, violent, unjust, hateful, lacking in all the outward displays of the characteristics of love, and proving themselves to be like the priests and pharisees that walked by the man beaten by the side of the road before a samartian took him in.

Not that I think I am wrong in my views on homosexuality mind you. So don't take this as an agreement with the view that homosexuality is wrong or a sin. I don't agree with that. But the point is, the other side does, and in their arguing and debating the subject from a position of "superiority" they prove themselves just as wrong in their approach to the topic and to the people themselves as the subject they proclaim is wrong.

Anyway, that's my two cents for what it's worth.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by noelle

So basically, I am just asking for advice on how to approach this topic with Jane. I am not trying to change her mind, because I know that I can't, but I just want her to accept me the church that I have chosen to go to. I feel like she thinks I am wrong because I attend a church that is inviting to people who are in same-sex relationships.

Hi Noelle,

Welcome to Soulforce.

A couple questions ran through my head as I read your post.

Why do you need Jane's acceptance? If you can't change her mind (and I agree that trying to do so is probably futile) what is the goal here? Are you afraid she is going to talk about you, say you are a horrible person?

Does it really matter what she thinks about you?

I ask these things with the awareness that standing in our own truth isn't always convenient or comfortable. However, learning to be open, loving and accepting of others (even when their view clashes with our own) takes some practice.

Here's a thought: neither you or Jane have to be right. However, one of you can be loving in the face of adversity, disagreement and misunderstanding.

It takes a lot of strength to see one's adversaries in the Light of Love. And if she chooses to not be your friend anymore because you attend a welcoming church, then she is closing her heart to you, and to herself too.

What I am saying here is this: it's not about being right, it's about being happy. That's the choice. And being happy is about love- loving ourselves and others.

If you hold your heart open and not give into fear, she may - just may- in time- become more open to your thinking process on this issue.

Heart first.

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by noelle

Hey everyone. I am new to the website and am looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this forum. I actually am looking for some advice on a certain issue, homosexuality in the Bible. I am not gay but I do have gay friends and I recently started to attend a Methodist Church that has a high gay population in their congregation. I definitely do not have any problems with this as I was looking for a more liberal and open minded church. But here is where I need some advice.

I was telling my friend ( I'll call her Jane) about this new church I started going to. Jane is very religiously ( and politically) conservative in her beliefs-she believes that the Bible is infallible and should therefore be taken literally. Anyways she asked me how my new church (and I quote) "gets around what the Bible says about gays." I told Jane that they do not try to, they are just accepting of all people. She then told me that she wants to talk with me more about this and the church I am going to. I have known her for several years so I know that Jane is quite homophobic and judgmental when it comes to issues such as these.

So we are planning on getting together to discuss this and I want to be prepared when making my case. I should say that I believe the Bible is fallible and should not be taken literally. I know Jane will cite the verse from Corinthians 3:6-9 which states, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders..."

So basically, I am just asking for advice on how to approach this topic with Jane. I am not trying to change her mind, because I know that I can't, but I just want her to accept me the church that I have chosen to go to. I feel like she thinks I am wrong because I attend a church that is inviting to people who are in same-sex relationships.

For me personally, I have always believed that people should be allowed to love whoever they want and should be given equal rights no matter. I feel that is how God would want it. So, if anyone has any advice on how to approach this with her or any Bible verses that can back up my argument that would be great. Thanks so much and God Bless

-Noelle-

the conversation could go something like this: oh, my dear Jane, I love you dearly. However, I'm not going to have this conversation with you until you follow ALL of the rules of the Bible, because if it is as you say, infallible, and you want all to follow it to the letter, you'd better be doing just that. So tell me Jane, do you kill your sassy children? (Leviticus 20:9) Jane, do you wear a hat or scarf when you pray? (1 Corinthians 11:5) and what about all that jewelry and beautiful clothing? (Isaiah 3:16-24). have you ever eaten shrimp or lobster? that's an abomination according to the infallible Bible. It is wrong to wear clothing made of 2 fibers, so all poly-cotton blends are sinful for us to wear. Jane, I'd love to continue being your friend. Tend to your own sinfulness, I'll tend to mine. I'll listen to your criticism of my church, when you start walking the talk about your own beliefs.


OK, that might be a little over the top, and won't win you any friends, but it does point out how those conservative christians like to pick which verses they believe to be infallible, and which they have no intentions of following.

[Pablo Rafael]

Hi Noelle,

I think most conservative, anti-LGBT Christians are that way because they just have not been educated to see things in any different way. I myself was in that camp not too long ago so I know exactly what the mindset is. Most people do not intend any harm. They just need help in seeing things from another point of view.

There is only one place in the Bible that has any relevance to the issue and that is Romans chapter one. I like to bring this up to people because once Romans one is covered, everything else is very easy to deal with. A literalist will not listen to the argument that the Bible is fallible so digging straight into the Bible is best, I think.

I also like to start with asking if they think being a lesbian is sinful. (Of course the answer is yes.) Then quote Romans 1: 26 "Even their women exchanged natural relations with unnatural ones." NIV Does that verse say anything about sexual orientation or homosexual activity? What are these relations? Who are we talking about? Look at the earlier verses. The people we are speaking about were those who knew God but chose to worship their own minds and their own creations instead of God. It is about people who intentionally rejected God; it is about idolatry. This single verse cannot be used to condemn lesbian relationships, and there is no other verse. End of argument.

Then the argument goes to. "What about men?" Read Romans:1:27 "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another." Again whom are we talking about? We are talking about those who have given themselves over to idolatry. It condemns those men who abandon "natural" relations. A common practice in the Greco-Roman world was for upper class straight men to take young boys and use them sexually. Certainly pedophilia is against God's will. But that has nothing to do with gay men for whom attraction to other men is their natural orientation. This verse does not say that being gay is wrong, nor does it say that loving monogamous same-sex relationships are wrong. It talks about lust. Heterosexual people are just as prone to the sin of lust as are gays. Lusting after someone involves wanting someone not to show them love but to use them to fulfill one's own selfish desires. Using someone sexually is a sin for both straights and gays.

Then 1 Corinthians 6:9 "...nor homosexual offenders... will enter the kingdom of God. It is a mistranslation. The word is "arseokoitai" and we are not sure what it means. It can refer only to men. We can't look anywhere else in the Bible because it is used nowhere but in Paul's writings. And Paul is the first person to use the term. It has something to do with some sort of sexual immorality and probably immorality between two men, though that is not at all certain. But it does not condemn homosexual relationships any more than the many verses which talk about heterosexual immorality condemns all heterosexual relationships. Certainly gays can sin, but that doesn't lead to the idea that being gay is a sin.

In Timothy 1:10 it speaks of "perverts". The term here is malokois and simply means "soft". Sometimes people say "effeminate". Jesus uses the term to speak of those who live lives of luxury and take advantage of others to get their wealth. If this term is sexual, it most likely refers to male prostitution. Again this has nothing to do with loving gay relationships. Prostitution is the exploitation of another person to satisfy one's own personal desires. It is a sin to exploit another person if you are gay or straight.

As for the Old Testament prohibitions against gay sex. It is one in a list of many regulations that were a part of the holiness laws of the ancient Hebrews. We no longer observe those laws. In Acts it was decided by church council that the Jewish regulations did not apply to the gentiles. (Acts 10 and 15)

And the story of Sodom... It is a case of gang rape that is about to happen here. That would have been a crime if it were gay rape or straight rape. It speaks nothing about loving gay relationships. Plus THE sin of Sodom is not homosexuality. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that and several places it says that it was something else. (Ezekiel 16:49. Matt 11:23-24)

And just because the majority of people are straight does not mean it is wrong to be gay.

The "Prove to me from the Bible that it is Ok to be gay" argument is worthless. If something is wrong, the burden of proof is on the person to prove that it is wrong. You don't have to prove that something isn't wrong. And the argument "if it were OK, the Bible would have said so" - that is an error in reasoning. It is a very, very weak argument.

I believe that the Bible is the word of God, and if I thought the Bible really did condemn gay relationships, I would would not hesitate to make that point. But I am firmly convinced that the Bible does not say anything against gay relationships. God has created a small minority of people to be gay. He knows what he is doing.

I hope this helps, Noelle. It comes from a more conservative Christian who very much believes that God loves all people gay and straight alike.

[stav]

hey there

I've had a look at three core features (noted above) of biblical scriptures.

The levitical prohibitions in the holiness code,
St Paul's address in 1:Corinthians 6:9 and then the more 'legal' focus in 1:Timothy 1:10.

My point goes to biblical hermeneutics and breaks with the grammatical principle and synthesis principle by the various translations of two words: arsenokoitai and malakoi in Corinthians and Timothy.

I don't think we can clearly say they definitely mean 'homosexual' as receptive homosexual (malakoi) and active homosexual (arsenokoitai).

Here is why (I'll put it in a separate post - it's very technical - my apologies and please ask me questions about confusing bits)

Kind Regards
stav

[stav]

1. 'koitai' is *feminine*. It has a wide semantic range, from meanings implying nothing to do with sex at all, to sex in the 'moral' sense all the way through 'morally depraved' sense. It also came to mean ‘the marriage bed’, or the place where coitus occurs. Generally, there is scholarly agreement from both camps of the debate that Paul’s 'arsenokoitai' is a euphemism for sexual contact in arsenokoitai. It's hard to argue that the -koitai stem means only ‘bed’ in his use of the word.

2. First Declension feminine nouns have the same plural endings (ai - alpha iota) in the nominative and dative cases as First Declension (agentic) masculine plural nouns (ai). The trouble is, we only see the word in its plural Declension, (once as a dative [a word following ‘with’, ‘in the’ or ‘on the’ or ‘under the’, or ‘over the’ in a sentence e.g. the man ran (with the) dog to the shop], and once in the nominative [subject of the sentence] grammatical case e.g (the man) ran with the dog to the shop).

We, unfortunately, do not see it in the singular case anywhere in the Bible. It is nominative in Corinthians (the shopping list of people who presumably won’t inherit the kingdom of God.....) and dative in Timothy (and as an aside the emphasis on lawbreakers in Timothy and on moral wrongness in Corinthians.

3. So, the word in Corinthians and Timothy appear only in the plural nominative and dative forms.

Those who want or make it to mean 'male, active, homosexual' need the word in the singular, to coincide with an otherwise unknown masculine plural nominative and dative.

We are left either to assume that the compound noun is, as usual, feminine (because of the -koitai stem), or to posit that in this unique instance it has been changed into a masculine grammatical form: a case of trans-gendered linguistics.

Some argue that this ignores the fact that in Greek, "the bed" as a concrete object and as colloquialism for a prostitute or very promiscuous person, is feminine: he koite. Arsenokoites matches the spelling we would expect for the female prostitute or promiscuous woman--she (not he) makes herself available to any man who comes along.

If it were shown to us in the singular, we would have either [O ἀρσεvoκoίτης (singular, masculine, agentic)], or [H ἀρσεvoκoίτa, (singular, feminine)].

Unfortunately, we don’t have that luxury: all we have is ἀρσεvoκoίται and ἀρσεvoκoίταις; Corinthians and Timothy). From the plural, we cannot know, definitively what the singular is. Although, to restate it, so we are left either to assume that the compound noun is, as usual, feminine (because of the koitai), or to posit that in this unique instance it has been changed into a masculine grammatical form: a case of trans-gendered linguistics.

4. Also we do not know if the word is what is called an objective compound, or a determinative compound. As an objective compound, that would translate he/she who beds males (depending on the whether the word is taken as masculine or feminine). As a determinative compound, that would translate as he who beds--and the 'who is bedded' is male/female (take your grammatical pick of options, given my prior arguments).

Also, as an adjunct, someone called Boswell in his famous 1980 critique argues that the term ‘arreno’ (a term from the ancient Greek Attic dialect [Plato's mob]) is used for objective compounds and arseno for determinative compounds. That limits options, if you accept Boswell (he argued that the term referred to promiscuous woman, or prostitute).

5. To ‘understand’ does not mean to ‘stand under’. ‘Chairman’ does not mean ‘a man who is a chair’. This is highly relevant to the argument that St Paul was reinstating the Levitical prohibitions in his famous Epistle.

he levitical prohibition referring to arseno and koitin (had the words placed separately) is obscure. There are other translations of the Hebrew. E.g. violating a woman’s marital bed (with male-male sexual behaviour--i.e. male homosexual adulterer).

Also, in the whole levitician reinstatement arguments, there are also a number of assumptions you need to make to support the view taken by people who argue St Paul was back-referencing Leviticus in his Epistle to the Corinthians. The conservatives say St Paul was ‘Hebraising’ (translating, 'literally', from Hebrew, adapting the Hebrew grammatical mode, into Greek, which creates grammatical translation errors—also this is termed ‘translationese’, loosely).

6. St Paul’s epistle is famous. There is also the question of why his euphemism (arsenokoitai) disappeared. Then, if he was falling into tranlationese, he may well have committed the mistake that goes with that—of being overly literal.

7. Also, Malakoi usually referred to male heterosexual ‘softness’ and usually referred to sexual contact with the OPPOSITE sex. It carries gender stereotypes and assumptions, a bit offensive in today's world, as does arsenokoitai.

Malakoi only sometimes referred to receptive male same-sex contact. Catamite (the boy in the sexual relationship with the adult male in Ancient Greek times) is too narrow a term for it (those who say St Paul meant 'receptive homosexual' take the word to mean 'catamite'--a problem because there already was a word for catamite--why didn't St Paul use it).

Further, malakoi referred to any weakness of character, degeneracy, ‘weakling’, the softness of expensive clothes, richness, delicacy of gourmet food, and even the gentleness of light winds. When used for moral condemnation, it still meant lazy, degenerate, decadent, cowardice, and feminine (again, the stereotype is a bit offensive, really).

A male could be a malakos if he allowed himself to be penetrated, but those charges are about the feminising of the man, not to the act itself. A Malakoi was also accused of being unable to do hard work. He ate and slept too much. He was weak in battle, and reluctant to suicide when cornered by foes. A malokoi was a man who pretties himself up for OPPOSITE SEX exploits. He enjoyed sex too much. He enjoyed being dominated by females in sex.

Thus, the competing view, to put it simply, was that the malakoi were the sexually lascivious, lazy, males who usually had sex with the OPPOSITE sex.

The arsenokoitai were FEMALE, who were sexually lascivious, open, and bedded any male she could get her hands on.

There is no necessity to be so semantically narrow with the term to limit it to male male sexual contact. Paul was doing a broad sweep of the then 'morally depraved' behaviors....

kind regards
stav