Homosexuality and the Bible

[fallingblood]

This is the first part of a small series of articles I will be presenting on the topic of homosexuality and the Bible. I wrote it for my website (www.belzian.com/articles), but thought I would share.

The Bible has been used to justify many forms of intolerance. During the early years of the United States, the Bible was used by some to justify slavery and the horrible treatment of anyone who was not a white male. Others have used it in order to justify persecution of people of various ideas, ethnicities, and religious beliefs. To an extreme, it has been used to justify the killing of innocent people simply because they were different, as well as genocide.

Today, one of the most widespread uses of the Bible in order to justify intolerance has come in the form of the opposition to homosexuality. This justification, by hiding behind one’s Bible, has caused Christianity as a whole to suffer. Like many atrocities committed in the name of Christianity or God, personal prejudices and ideals are at fault, not a religion or a “Holy” book. This is true in the case of homosexuality as well.

At the same time, instead of focusing on the real problem causing opposition to homosexuality, many focus on demonizing a religion that is not at fault. By focusing on Christianity, or the Bible as the reason to why individuals oppose homosexuality, the real problem is being masked. It is true that various Christians have had a tendency to use the Bible in justifying their beliefs that homosexuality is wrong or to an extreme, an abomination. However, such claims are primarily being motivated by those individuals personal biases. When the Bible is consulted, there is a different picture of homosexuality that is presented.

Most importantly, the idea of homosexuality did not exist in the time periods in which the books of the Bible were being written. The notion of sexual orientation was not developed until relatively recent times. For the writers of the Bible, the idea of homosexuality is completely foreign concept. It has only been over time, and repetition, that the idea of homosexuality has been attached to the Bible.

What we see in the Bible instead is not the condemnation of a sexual orientation, but that of an act. That act specifically being a male lying with another male as he would do so with a female (Lev. 18:22). Or, to put it simply, the act of male anal intercourse. Two chapters later, in Leviticus 22:13, one can read that the penalty for this act is death. However, this all needs to be put into a more complete perspective.

As I said earlier, these verses do not deal with homosexuality, but with an act. That act being male anal intercourse. Now, it is not only homosexuals (and in fact, many homosexuals do not engage in this act anyway. It must be remembered that females can also be homosexual) who engage in male anal intercourse. When we examine this act in the Bible, we see that it is not associated by those who would be deemed homosexuals, but it is portrayed as an act of force (rape), associated with humiliation, revenge, or subjection. Even in our present society, there are many cases in which a heterosexual male will engage in male anal intercourse. And the same motivation is still common for this act; humiliation, revenge, and subjection.

It is important to read the verses for what they are, and not to read one’s own preconceived biases into them. For centuries, that has been the problem regarding these verses. Instead of understanding what they mean, they have been used to justify one own’s prejudices. By doing so, individuals have been able to hide behind the Bible instead of just admitting to their own intolerances.

[tarasan]

Originally Posted by fallingblood

This is the first part of a small series of articles I will be presenting on the topic of homosexuality and the Bible. I wrote it for my website (www.belzian.com/articles), but thought I would share.

The Bible has been used to justify many forms of intolerance. During the early years of the United States, the Bible was used by some to justify slavery and the horrible treatment of anyone who was not a white male. Others have used it in order to justify persecution of people of various ideas, ethnicities, and religious beliefs. To an extreme, it has been used to justify the killing of innocent people simply because they were different, as well as genocide.

Today, one of the most widespread uses of the Bible in order to justify intolerance has come in the form of the opposition to homosexuality. This justification, by hiding behind one’s Bible, has caused Christianity as a whole to suffer. Like many atrocities committed in the name of Christianity or God, personal prejudices and ideals are at fault, not a religion or a “Holy” book. This is true in the case of homosexuality as well.

At the same time, instead of focusing on the real problem causing opposition to homosexuality, many focus on demonizing a religion that is not at fault. By focusing on Christianity, or the Bible as the reason to why individuals oppose homosexuality, the real problem is being masked. It is true that various Christians have had a tendency to use the Bible in justifying their beliefs that homosexuality is wrong or to an extreme, an abomination. However, such claims are primarily being motivated by those individuals personal biases. When the Bible is consulted, there is a different picture of homosexuality that is presented.

Most importantly, the idea of homosexuality did not exist in the time periods in which the books of the Bible were being written. The notion of sexual orientation was not developed until relatively recent times. For the writers of the Bible, the idea of homosexuality is completely foreign concept. It has only been over time, and repetition, that the idea of homosexuality has been attached to the Bible.

What we see in the Bible instead is not the condemnation of a sexual orientation, but that of an act. That act specifically being a male lying with another male as he would do so with a female (Lev. 18:22). Or, to put it simply, the act of male anal intercourse. Two chapters later, in Leviticus 22:13, one can read that the penalty for this act is death. However, this all needs to be put into a more complete perspective.

As I said earlier, these verses do not deal with homosexuality, but with an act. That act being male anal intercourse. Now, it is not only homosexuals (and in fact, many homosexuals do not engage in this act anyway. It must be remembered that females can also be homosexual) who engage in male anal intercourse. When we examine this act in the Bible, we see that it is not associated by those who would be deemed homosexuals, but it is portrayed as an act of force (rape), associated with humiliation, revenge, or subjection. Even in our present society, there are many cases in which a heterosexual male will engage in male anal intercourse. And the same motivation is still common for this act; humiliation, revenge, and subjection.

It is important to read the verses for what they are, and not to read one’s own preconceived biases into them. For centuries, that has been the problem regarding these verses. Instead of understanding what they mean, they have been used to justify one own’s prejudices. By doing so, individuals have been able to hide behind the Bible instead of just admitting to their own intolerances.

ohhh contraversal!! I have been on the fence with this topic for a while now, it will be really interesting to see your articles!

[TheKnight]

A good article. I don't actually think I can outright disagree with anything you've said. Very well written.

[Agnostic75]

Originally Posted by fallingblood

This is the first part of a small series of articles I will be presenting on the topic of homosexuality and the Bible. I wrote it for my website (www.belzian.com/articles), but thought I would share.

The Bible has been used to justify many forms of intolerance. During the early years of the United States, the Bible was used by some to justify slavery and the horrible treatment of anyone who was not a white male. Others have used it in order to justify persecution of people of various ideas, ethnicities, and religious beliefs. To an extreme, it has been used to justify the killing of innocent people simply because they were different, as well as genocide.

Today, one of the most widespread uses of the Bible in order to justify intolerance has come in the form of the opposition to homosexuality. This justification, by hiding behind one’s Bible, has caused Christianity as a whole to suffer. Like many atrocities committed in the name of Christianity or God, personal prejudices and ideals are at fault, not a religion or a “Holy” book. This is true in the case of homosexuality as well.

At the same time, instead of focusing on the real problem causing opposition to homosexuality, many focus on demonizing a religion that is not at fault. By focusing on Christianity, or the Bible as the reason to why individuals oppose homosexuality, the real problem is being masked. It is true that various Christians have had a tendency to use the Bible in justifying their beliefs that homosexuality is wrong or to an extreme, an abomination. However, such claims are primarily being motivated by those individuals personal biases. When the Bible is consulted, there is a different picture of homosexuality that is presented.

Most importantly, the idea of homosexuality did not exist in the time periods in which the books of the Bible were being written. The notion of sexual orientation was not developed until relatively recent times. For the writers of the Bible, the idea of homosexuality is completely foreign concept. It has only been over time, and repetition, that the idea of homosexuality has been attached to the Bible.

What we see in the Bible instead is not the condemnation of a sexual orientation, but that of an act. That act specifically being a male lying with another male as he would do so with a female (Lev. 18:22). Or, to put it simply, the act of male anal intercourse. Two chapters later, in Leviticus 22:13, one can read that the penalty for this act is death. However, this all needs to be put into a more complete perspective.

As I said earlier, these verses do not deal with homosexuality, but with an act. That act being male anal intercourse. Now, it is not only homosexuals (and in fact, many homosexuals do not engage in this act anyway. It must be remembered that females can also be homosexual) who engage in male anal intercourse. When we examine this act in the Bible, we see that it is not associated by those who would be deemed homosexuals, but it is portrayed as an act of force (rape), associated with humiliation, revenge, or subjection. Even in our present society, there are many cases in which a heterosexual male will engage in male anal intercourse. And the same motivation is still common for this act; humiliation, revenge, and subjection.

It is important to read the verses for what they are, and not to read one’s own preconceived biases into them. For centuries, that has been the problem regarding these verses. Instead of understanding what they mean, they have been used to justify one own’s prejudices. By doing so, individuals have been able to hide behind the Bible instead of just admitting to their own intolerances.

Do you belief that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God, died for the sins of mankind, and physicially rose from the dead, and that Christianity is the one true religion?

[javajo]

I think there are only six places in the Bible about it. In Leviticus it is in there with all the other laws about not eating pork and lobster, so. And Sodom and Gomorrah was about in-hospitality, rape, violence, pride, idleness, materialism, and oppressing the poor. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. Ezekiel 16:49. Sodomites were Jewish male temple prostitutes who had turned from God to serve idols. And in the NT people did the same thing to worship idols. Also some verses could refer to the man-boy relationships that were common. And Paul just said the same, that they turned from God to serve idols and left their natural use and did what was unnatural. That would be the same as a gay person living like a straight person, they are going against their natural use. So, anyway, one should not use the Bible to condemn gay people. I'm not gay and I do not judge them. And I can say I have a family member who when they hit puberty told us they were gay and even bravely came out in 7th grade. So you know it is their natural orientation. Ok, then (I could've done a better, more thorough job on the verses, but perhaps people should do some of their own research.

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by Agnostic75

Do you belief that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God, died for the sins of mankind, and physicially rose from the dead, and that Christianity is the one true religion?

What does that have to do with anything?

[fallingblood]

Thanks for the comments so far.

[Jeneshisu]

What we see in the Bible instead is not the condemnation of a sexual orientation, but that of an act. That act specifically being a male lying with another male as he would do so with a female (Lev. 18:22). Or, to put it simply, the act of male anal intercourse.

They don't deal with the orientation but rather the act?

To be honest, I really don't see the difference.

Also, I'd like to point out that anal intercourse isn't the only means of intercourse between two males.... Lol

And if I recall correctly, in the old testament, the men are actually permitted to rape the women of enemy nations when they went and conquered them... and forcibly made them their wives.

So I don't think that's the message here.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.

Also notice how it states that if they offer peace, enslave them anyway. Lol

[javajo]

Originally Posted by Jeneshisu

And if I recall correctly, in the old testament, the men are actually permitted to rape the women of enemy nations when they went and conquered them... and forcibly made them their wives...Also notice how it states that if they offer peace, enslave them anyway. Lol

Where does it say that, exactly?

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by Jeneshisu

They don't deal with the orientation but rather the act?

To be honest, I really don't see the difference.

Also, I'd like to point out that anal intercourse isn't the only means of intercourse between two males.... Lol

The difference is that a form of sexual intercourse does not define homosexuality. Like you said, two males can participate in a different means of intercourse as well. More so, not all homosexuals participate in male anal intercourse. Lesbians for one do not.

In addition, it is not just male homosexuals who do participate in male anal intercourse. Straight guys can do so as well. Be it just experimenting, in order to humiliate another, because that is all they can get (such as in a prison situation or the like) etc.

And if I recall correctly, in the old testament, the men are actually permitted to rape the women of enemy nations when they went and conquered them... and forcibly made them their wives.

So I don't think that's the message here.

Also notice how it states that if they offer peace, enslave them anyway. Lol

I don't see what that has to do with anything I said.