I would be remiss if I did not post in this thread:
http://www.whosoever.org/bible/
The Bible and Homosexuality
Of the negative or critical e-mails I receive from critics of this magazine and its mission, I'd estimate 90% of them advise me to read my Bible. Specifically, I am urged to read at least one or all of the six passages we as GLBT Christians know as the "clobber passages". These are verses, we're told, where God condemns homosexuality in no uncertain terms.
As I inform those letter writers, I have read my Bible, and I've paid close attention to those "clobber passages." So have many Bible scholars. We all agree that nowhere in the Bible are same-sex committed and loving relationships condemned. It's just not there. Instead, the Bible holds much joy, comfort and love for GLBT Christians willing to wade into its pages and hear the loving voice of God.
In this section of Whosoever we explore the 6 "clobber passages" and several other verses used as "prooftexts" of homosexuality's condemnation.
Before we begin we must clarify the concept of "prooftexts" or isogesis. To defend their assertion that God condemns homosexuals, people always use small passages from the Bible to prove their point. Using the Bible in this manner is destructive. Instead of "exegesis" which involves examining the history of scripture to find out what it means and how it applies to us, "eisegesis" approaches scripture with a preconceived idea of what you will find there. It is abuse of scripture.
In eisegesis you search the Book until you find a passage you think applies and use it as your "proof" that God backs you up. You isolate that phrase or passage, take it out of context and improperly use it to back up your argument. It's like a friend taking a sentence or phrase out of a letter you wrote and using it to represent what you believe as a whole. It's easy to be taken out of context. You wouldn't want your views represented that way, but that's how the ideas and beliefs of the Bible's authors are presented everyday!
It is my sincere hope that GLBT Christians and our critics alike will approach this material with open hearts and minds. Not everyone will come away convinced, but I've discovered it takes time to unlearn all the misinterpretations of scripture we've been taught through the years. I invite you to sit with this information, pray and meditate on it, and let God speak to your heart. I hope that when your journey is complete you'll see God's word with new eyes and realize GLBT Christians are welcomed in Jesus' one word, "Whosoever."
In biblical times, same-gender sexual interactions could take many forms. For example:
1. Kings of conquered tribes were sometimes raped by the invading army as the ultimate symbol of defeat and humiliation.
2. Some non-Jewish tribes in the area had male prostitutes in their temples that may have engaged in same-sex activities; this horrified the ancient Israelites.
3. It is reasonable to assume that many loving gay and lesbian relationships existed, but these would normally have been conducted in secret.
Only the third type would have any similarity to today's gay and lesbian consentual, committed, loving relationships.
Many versions of the Bible exist in the English language. Each reflects the world view, beliefs and mind sets of its translators. Their personal biases distort their work. There is an additional complexity facing translators: today's society is very different from that of Biblical times. It is sometimes difficult to find a current English word that matches a Hebrew or Greek term.
Many words have been translated from the original Hebrew and Greek texts as "homosexual", "sodomite", "homosexuality". However, most (perhaps all) of the references bear no similarity to today's lesbian and gay partnerships. By carefully reading the original texts and considering the societies in which they were written, one comes to surprising conclusions:
* The Bible has a lot to say about temple prostitution. It talks about being kind to strangers in a way that has been incorrectly interpreted as referring to homosexual acts
* It says almost nothing about homosexual feelings;
* It says nothing about sexual orientation. The writers of the Bible assumed that everyone was heterosexual (or "straight"); the concept of sexual orientation was not developed until the late 19th century.
Genesis 19 describes how two angels visited Sodom and were welcomed into Lot's house. The men of the city gathered around the house and demanded that Lot send the visitors to the mob so that they might know the angels. [The Hebrew verb yada (to know) is ambiguous. It appears 943 times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). In only about a dozen of these cases does it refers to sexual activity; it is not clear whether the mob wanted to rape the angels or to meet with them, and perhaps attack them physically. From the context, it is obvious that their mood was not friendly]. Lot refused, but offered his two virgin daughters to be heterosexually raped if that would appease the mob. The offer was declined. God decided to destroy the city because of the wickedness of its inhabitants. The angels urged Lot and his family to flee and to not look back. Unfortunately, Lot's wife looked the wrong way, so God killed her because of her curiosity.
God was apparently not critical of Lot for offering his two daughters to be raped. However, God was angry at the other inhabitants of the town. He destroyed Sodom with fire and brimstone (sulfur). He presumably killed all of the men in the mob, their wives and other adults, as well as children, infants, newborns, etc. It is unclear from these few verses whether God demolished the city because the citizens:
1. were uncharitable and abusive to strangers
2. wanted to rape people
3. engaged in homosexual acts.
The Church has traditionally accepted the third explanation. In fact, the term sodomy which means anal intercourse is derived from the name of the city, Sodom. But the first explanation is clearly the correct one. As recorded in Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:7-16, Jesus implied that the sin of the people of Sodom was to be inhospitable to strangers. In Ezekeiel 16:48-50, God states clearly that he destroyed Sodom's sins because of their pride, their excess of food while the poor and needy suffered, and worshiped many idols; sexual activity is not even mentioned. Jude disagreed with God; he wrote that Sodom's sins were sexual in nature. Various biblical translations describe the sin as fornication, going after strange flesh, sexual immorality, perverted sensuality, homosexuality, lust of every kind, immoral acts and unnatural lust; you can take your pick.
We are faced with the inescapable and rather amusing conclusion that the condemned activities in Sodom had nothing to do with sodomy.
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah actually condemns inhospitality and idolatry, not homosexuality. Read the Scriptural cross-references: Deuteronomy 29:23, Isaiah 1:9, Jeremiah 23:14, Lamentations 4:6, Ezekiel 16:49-50, Amos 4:11, Zephaniah 2:9, Matthew 10:15 / Luke 10:12, Luke 17:29, Romans 9:29, Jude v.7, Revelation 11:8
NOWHERE in the Scriptures does it say that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexual sex. Even if the specific point of the story was concerning a sexual matter, rather than hospitality, the issue is rape not homosexuality. Jesus claimed the issue was simply one of showing hospitality to strangers (Luke 10:12). How ironic that those who discriminate against homosexuals seem to be the true practitioners of the sin of Sodom.
Leviticus 18:22 states: "Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." The term abomination (to'ebah) is a religious term, usually reserved for use against idolatry; it does not mean a moral evil. The verse seems to refer to temple prostitution, which was a common practice in the rest of the Middle East at that time. Qadesh referred to male religious prostitutes. (See the discussion of Deuteronomy)
Leviticus 20:13 states: "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they should surely be put to death....". The passage is surrounded by prohibitions against incest, bestiality, adultery and intercourse during a woman's period. But this verse is the only one in the series which uses the religious term abomination; it seems also to be directed against temple prostitution.
These passages are part of the Jewish Holiness Code which also:
* permits polygamy
* prohibits sexual intercourse when a woman has her period,
* bans tattoos
* prohibits eating rare meat
* bans wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles
* prohibits cross-breeding livestock
* bans sowing a field with mixed seed
* prohibits eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood
* requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath
Churches have abandoned the Holiness Code; it is no longer binding on modern-day Christians. They can wear tattoos, eat shrimp, wear polyester-cotton blends and engage in temple prostitution without violating this particular section of the Bible. Although this code is obsolete for Christians, many clergy still focus on those passages which deal with homosexuality.
It is likely that the prohibition thou shall not lie with a male as with a woman came about for one of the following reasons:
* Only sexual acts which could lead to procreation were valued as the tribes needed to grow in numbers in order to survive.
* Male homosexual sex may have been connected in the Hebrew mind with idolatry. Notice that Lev. 18:2 deals with idolatry. In fact many of the prohibitions in the Holiness Code were probably connected with idolatrous practices, see 19:26-29.
* Women were second class citizens in the Hebrew culture and were generally treated as property. If a man was penetrated in sexual intercourse he was being treated like a woman and so was degraded in the Hebrew mind. The offense was not that this was a homosexual act, the offense was that a MAN was treated like a WOMAN.
If this line of thinking is correct it would serve to explain why there is no prohibition against female homosexual acts in the Old Testament. Women could not be degraded by such an act as they were already not held in high esteem. There is a theory that the Hebrew people believed in a perfect order of creation and anything that violated that order was considered unclean or an abomination. A probable example would be that fish were considered the perfect sea animal, hence anything in the sea that did not have scales and fins was unclean. (Lev. 11:9-10) Cattle were the perfect cud chewing animal, hence anything that chewed cud, but didn't have hooves was unclean. (Lev. 11:6). If this theory is correct then the prohibition against male sex acts would be violating the role of the perfect ideal human: man. It would seem to mix the sex role of the imperfect woman with the ideal role of the man.
Even if the reader disagrees with the theories stated above they should take note that these verses are a part of the Hebrew scriptures often called the 'Holiness Code'. This 'code' is no longer followed by the Christian church.