Christianity & homophobia

[airforsharon]

Hello, can anyone enlighten me re the specific bible passages that condemn homosexuality, and if there are others that counter that position? A relative voiced quite openly homophobic views this afternoon - he is a long time church goer & very involved with his church, his faith determines a great deal in his life so i'm assuming it's behind these views.
aUnfortunately they were said at a point it was pretty impossible for me to respond, and as my bible knowledge is limited i have nothing to counter it with, from a faith perspective.
It's troubling me especially as several of my closest friends are gay men, and my oldest daughter is a lesbian (relative doesn't know this).
If you are a church goer, what is your/your churches view on the subject? Are churches generally more accepting of homosexuality now, and if not, why not?
tia

I wouldn’t be too harsh on your relative OP. As you can see from the above links, the bible says very clearly that men who have sex with men should get the death penalty. Not what I believe (and I’m not religious) but if your relative believes the bible has any kind of authority, then it makes sense for your relative to be anti-gay.

Also worth bearing in mind that christianity originated in the middle east, where most countries do not accept homosexuality and many still have the death penalty for gay sex. So the bible’s position on it matches the culture in which it was written.

I assume the context was something about hygiene, fertility, and STDs - no antibiotics around in ancient times (which is why they were also so obsessed with women staying virgin until marriage / adultery etc). A man having unprotected anal sex could pickup bacteria that could do some very nasty things to his wife’s fallopian tubes and children…

Blah blah

How ironic really to be searching for bible passes to decide how harshly to judge your relative when the bible says ‘judge not lest you be judged’ 🤷‍♀️

@JulieYS

Thank you, I (possibly alone!) do appreciate your posts, and the analysis.

The passage from Leviticus I have always found extremely clear. I've always found attempts to reconcile that verse, and other parts of the bible l, with homosexuality contrived in the extreme. I sympthise with the cognitive dissonance that leads people to do it. But I really don't think bible-believing Christianity is compatible with a belief that gay sex is morally acceptable.

I was brought up as a devout Christian, but I find many of the teachings so much at odds with rational moral philosophy that I rejected it many years ago.

@JulieYS

I actually loved that family friend, went through a lot of heartache with him as he battled aids. I was in tears for him at one stage. I also really liked my husband's employer, and spent much time chatting jovially with him - even had him round for dinner once. Fantastic company.

You had a homosexual round for dinner? At your home?

Oh my!

I wouldn’t be too harsh on your relative OP. As you can see from the above links, the bible says very clearly that men who have sex with men should get the death penalty. Not what I believe (and I’m not religious) but if your relative believes the bible has any kind of authority, then it makes sense for your relative to be anti-gay.

So someone abdicates their own moral judgement to a ( man made) contrived dubious moral structure then it's OK?
Religion makes good people do and think bad things.
The bible supports slavery.

@Neverreturntoathread

I wouldn’t be too harsh on your relative OP. As you can see from the above links, the bible says very clearly that men who have sex with men should get the death penalty. Not what I believe (and I’m not religious) but if your relative believes the bible has any kind of authority, then it makes sense for your relative to be anti-gay.

Also worth bearing in mind that christianity originated in the middle east, where most countries do not accept homosexuality and many still have the death penalty for gay sex. So the bible’s position on it matches the culture in which it was written.

I assume the context was something about hygiene, fertility, and STDs - no antibiotics around in ancient times (which is why they were also so obsessed with women staying virgin until marriage / adultery etc). A man having unprotected anal sex could pickup bacteria that could do some very nasty things to his wife’s fallopian tubes and children…

Blah blah

How ironic really to be searching for bible passes to decide how harshly to judge your relative when the bible says ‘judge not lest you be judged’ 🤷‍♀️

Plenty of Christians manage to not be homophobic

@JulieYS

Now, I know you used Leviticus as an illustration, but, actually, we are no longer under the Mosaic law of Leviticus, as this scripture shows: he “erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake.” Acts 2:14
So all those laws given to the Israelites back then – who were surrounded by pagan nations with quite disgusting practices, thereby needing to keep clean physically, spiritually, morally – are no longer valid to us today. However, the principles still apply, because God doesn’t change (James 1:17).
If they’re no longer valid today, then why quote Leviticus? Why is that the ONLY verse that you ever hear quoted from Leviticus? There’s a whole list of sexual “Do not’s” in Leviticus 18, but you never hear anything about those preached or quoted. Either it’s all valid, or none of it is – in which case, why quote it?
I agree that God doesn’t change, but the times in which we live and the cultures in which we live do. And I would agree that the principles don’t change either. Personally, I don’t take every single word and sentence literally, because I don’t think it’s meant to be read like that. For example, I don’t think that when Paul was writing his letters to different churches he sat there thinking ‘one day this will be holy scripture’… he was responding to particular issues and questions of the day.
We don’t ask women to cover their heads in church any more. Many churches now permit women to teach and lead, or be ordained. We now allow people to divorce and then remarry in church. We don’t frown on those who’ve had sex or children before marriage, or have lived together before marriage….. Things change.
We could – if we followed biblical sexual ethics to the letter – go back to insisting that people don’t live together before marriage, mustn’t divorce, don’t have sex before marriage (even though in Jewish culture people often had sex before marriage to ensure the wife-to-be wasn’t infertile. The ‘scandal’ with Mary and Joseph was not that she was pregnant, it’s that Joseph wasn’t the father)…but if we were following that to the letter surely we should take Paul’s words that he’d rather we remain single literally?
What I think is more important than the specifics is the overarching themes in the bible – loving one another, treating people kindly, looking after those in need, seeking justice for those who are oppressed and so on, and I don’t see how being in a consensual, loving, monogamous relationship where each wants the best for the other, falls contrary to that – whether it’s a straight or gay relationship.

Now there might be some physical reason why people have certain tendencies, but of course we’re talking here about the willful desire, females with females, men with men.
‘Wilful desire’ makes it sound as though there’s some choice in the matter. Which there isn’t. It sounds a bit like the ‘when did you choose to by gay’ question…. To which the answer is ‘the same time you chose to be straight.’ I like women. I don’t know why, I just do. There’s nothing wilful about it. If Psalm 139 rings true, then I don’t think God minds.

Strong’s concordance isn’t a translation tool, or a commentary on the bible – it’s an index of where words can be found in the KJV – a particular translation of the bible. So if KJV translates certain words as ‘sodomites’, then they’ll appear in Strong’s. Other translations (and interpretations) are available…

We could go back and forth between now and Christmas talking about different interpretations, meanings and translations, but I doubt either of us would come to a different point of view. And that’s ok by me. I ‘get’ your point of view – I was brought up with it. The church I went to as a kid was very ‘(Straight) Marriage good, single ok until you get married.’ Nothing else was talked about, but we knew even being gay was a BIG no no. So yeah, I get it. I don’t agree with you (obviously), but that’s life. We’re not all going to agree on everything.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think you come across as homophobic. People are allowed to have opinions. If folk then start saying ‘well you can’t teach Sunday school, or bring your partner to church, or take communion’, then I’d say they were homophobic, because they’re treating people differently based on their opinions of those people. But merely holding an opinion that someone else doesn’t agree with…. I don’t see how that’s homophobic.

I’m sorry to have ‘clobbered’ you or anyone with all of the above, it wasn’t my intention to go into such in-depth detail – I felt that you rather forced my hand…
I don’t believe I did… You quoted scripture further up the thread, then asked if I’d read it and how I’d interpret it, and I chose to respond to you. Now you’ve chosen to respond to me. I’m not sure anyone’s forcing anything.

Catina, do you think that if, hypothetically, somebody didn't want to deny black people any rights, but thought that they were sinful not to bleach their skin and straighten their hair, they would not be racist?

There's three negatives in there so I'm not sure if you're asking a positive or a negative thing.... but if I'm reading it right, you're using the example of a black person being sinful because they didn't try hide their blackness (by bleaching / straightening)?
And that makes the person who thinks they should hide their blackness, racist?

I think there's a difference here when it comes to sexuality, because there's being gay, and acting on it. Whereas (I don't think) you can 'act on' being black. Are there things (like a same-sex intercourse) which are distinctly 'black' which people can chose to do or not?
I could, if I felt I ought to, chose to remain single - be gay but not act on it; and some gay people do just that, for various reasons.
I don't think black people can do the same... it feels like an odd comparison to make.

So if you're asking if I think someone's racist for calling black people sinful if they don't lighten their skin or striaghten their hair, then yes.
If you're asking if I think someone's homophobic if they say people shouldn't be gay, then yes (but I"m not sure that's what anyone on this thread is saying).
If you're asking whether I think someone's homophobic if they think gay people shouldn't 'act on it' (being being in a same sex relationship), I'd say no. It's an opinion, and one I wouldn't agree with, but I'm not sure it makes them homophobic.
If the person that holds that opinion then starts being hateful or discriminatory towards gay people, then yes, that's homophobia. But I don't think merely holding an opinion is homophobic.

Actually - to clarify that (above)...
Saying people shouldn't be gay is just.... nonsense, more than anything else.
It's like saying people shouldn't have blue eyes, or brown hair - or be black. You can't deny the reality of what is, so it's...a bit daft really.

If you're asking whether I think someone's homophobic if they think gay people shouldn't 'act on it' (being being in a same sex relationship), I'd say no

But they'd be saying that homosexuality is lesser than heterosexuality, and that gay people shouldn't have loving relationships. That too me is deeply homophobic.

I suppose a better comparison would be mixed- race relationships. Some people think that mixed-race relationships are wrong. Those people are racist, despite the fact that nobody has to be in a mixed-race relationship.

@JulieYS

What's willful desire? Do you honestly think people chose who their attracted to?

yes, voldr, that is a better analogy. MIne was a bit clumsy, but I guess what i mean is that someone who thinks black people should minimize outward signs of their blackness, is similar to someone who thinks gay people should not act on their desires to form same-sex relationships.

Catina, you could say that someone telling black people they were sinful if they didn't bleach their skin and straighten their hair is similar, in that you can't stop being gay or black, but you can choose not to outwardly express those parts of your identity by keeping your skin dark and hair frizzy, or by acting on you desires and forming a gay relationship. You would still be black or gay, but you wouldn't be outwardly expressing it, at least not in those particular ways. Sorry to be confusing!

OP what about another way of looking at it. Perhaps your relative has had bad, even painful abusive experiences with gay people and that's what it's really about, not really stuff the bible says, which is just something convenient he's pinning it on - or to look at it another way, those religious teachings you grew up with can sound convincing if you've been abused by a lot of gay people or a loved one has.

Maybe ask him if he's ever known any gay people (he will of course but) and if they were decent people.

I think many gay people grew up being bullied, especially older ones, and bullied people can bully in return and certainly when I mixed with LGBT people there was a lot of bullies there and approval for them, heard so many times that it was great this or that gay person was talking so nastily to everyone because they were once they were once the victim and were now, as they put it, giving it back. But it was so much to the wrong people.

I read the autobiography of Jane Walsh and she said she grew up being made to feel ashamed of being lesbian and her way of coping with it in her 20s was to do everything she could to make work colleagues feel inferior and to fail so she could build herself up in comparison and instead of feeling inferior to others for being gay, she could feel and seem superior to them. She also said she always chose non homophobic and inoffensive people. None of the people she bullied out of their jobs had said anything hurtful to her about her being gay, it was just totally about the issues she herself had very much with it. So she was a bully but it was because of great pain.

OP what about another way of looking at it. Perhaps your relative has had bad, even painful abusive experiences with gay people and that's what it's really about, not really stuff the bible says, which is just something convenient he's pinning it on - or to look at it another way, those religious teachings you grew up with can sound convincing if you've been abused by a lot of gay people or a loved one has.

People really will twist themselves in knots to excuse homophobia, won't they?

@ElvenMoonwings

OP what about another way of looking at it. Perhaps your relative has had bad, even painful abusive experiences with gay people and that's what it's really about, not really stuff the bible says, which is just something convenient he's pinning it on - or to look at it another way, those religious teachings you grew up with can sound convincing if you've been abused by a lot of gay people or a loved one has.

Maybe ask him if he's ever known any gay people (he will of course but) and if they were decent people.

I think many gay people grew up being bullied, especially older ones, and bullied people can bully in return and certainly when I mixed with LGBT people there was a lot of bullies there and approval for them, heard so many times that it was great this or that gay person was talking so nastily to everyone because they were once they were once the victim and were now, as they put it, giving it back. But it was so much to the wrong people.

I read the autobiography of Jane Walsh and she said she grew up being made to feel ashamed of being lesbian and her way of coping with it in her 20s was to do everything she could to make work colleagues feel inferior and to fail so she could build herself up in comparison and instead of feeling inferior to others for being gay, she could feel and seem superior to them. She also said she always chose non homophobic and inoffensive people. None of the people she bullied out of their jobs had said anything hurtful to her about her being gay, it was just totally about the issues she herself had very much with it. So she was a bully but it was because of great pain.

Being mistreated by someone who happens to be gay is not a reason to spout homophobic nonsense.

Would you say that about any other group of people?

I think its intolerance if it's one person but if someone repeatedly has bad experiences with a lots of a certain category of person, it's understandable that they might believe - or fear h that category of people aren't good.

Yes, any group of people at all. Of course bad personal experiences shape people's attitudes. Not everyone. Some people.

You can call it nonsense and dismiss it as homophobia but that's not going to change anyone homophobic.

@ElvenMoonwings

You can call it nonsense and dismiss it as homophobia but that's not going to change anyone homophobic.

No, but it does have various very important consequences. For example, public money should not be spent on schools based on a homophobic ideology.

@ElvenMoonwings

I think its intolerance if it's one person but if someone repeatedly has bad experiences with a lots of a certain category of person, it's understandable that they might believe - or fear h that category of people aren't good.

Yes, any group of people at all. Of course bad personal experiences shape people's attitudes. Not everyone. Some people.

If someone thinks that gay people (or ant group) are all bad people because of limited experience then frankly they are a small-minded idiot who is likely looking for any excuse to justify existing prejudice.

Do you really think OP's relative is making homophobic comments because a few nasty gays were mean to them once? Talk about victim blaming.

@Catinabeanbag

My responses to you were because, on the whole, your opinions inferred that we can decide for ourselves to pick and choose which scriptures from the Bible we should take seriously. You were also twisting scripture. God being omniscient surely has the ability to future-proof his word? Being all-knowing and all-wise, surely he has a superior and supreme intelligence to write an infallible book? But your arguments were making the Bible appear fallible and outdated. That is why I felt my hand was forced to write back to you. It is humans that are fallible, not God/the Bible.

Personally, I don’t take every single word and sentence literally, because I don’t think it’s meant to be read like that.
You may not think that these verses are meant to be read like that, but what is more important is what God was intending to mean when those verses were preserved in his word the Bible? That is why it was necessary to go back to the original meaning of the Hebrew and Greek terms, to fully understand the intent. Forgive me for being blunt, but you have openly admitted your orientation and are therefore biased. That bias is colouring your view of the Bible.

Why is that the ONLY verse that you ever hear quoted from Leviticus.
Clearly it's not. I also cited, then quoted Romans and 1 Corinthians.

I agree that God doesn’t change, but the times in which we live and the cultures in which we live do. And I would agree that the principles don’t change either. Personally, I don’t take every single word and sentence literally, because I don’t think it’s meant to be read like that.
So you're implying that God is outdated in his thinking, and can't keep up with changing times and cultures? Please don't project faulty human reasoning onto a supremely perfect and everlasting God. The writing of the bible book of Leviticus was completed around 1512 BCE; homosexuality was prevalent then. Romans was written around 56 CE, and 1 Corinthians around 55 CE; homosexuality was prevalent at that time too. This means that God's view of homosexuality has not changed one bit in thousands of years. Homosexuality is prevalent today - so why would God suddenly change his view?
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." Revelation 1:8 - so God is the beginning and end, he is past, present, and future. He is able to foresee things before it's even happened.

Many churches now permit women to teach and lead, or be ordained. We now allow people to divorce and then remarry in church. We don’t frown on those who’ve had sex or children before marriage, or have lived together before marriage….. Things change.
You mention 'we' a lot, as well as the church - but just because people in general/the church say something, doesn't make it right vis-a-vis God. Jesus blatantly condemned the religious leaders, scribes and Pharisees, of his day: "you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition." Matthew 15:6

Strong’s concordance isn’t a translation tool, or a commentary on the bible – it’s an index of where words can be found in the KJV – a particular translation of the bible.
What are you talking about? Of course Strong's Concordance is a translation tool. It gave the definitions of each word as to their original meaning in Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek, as well as in various phrases, and idioms of the language at the time - it's not just an index of the old English words in the King James Version. If you check the BibleHub link I sent, you will clearly see that. Check also the various other bibles that BibleHub contains online.

People on this thread don't seem to understand that I'm standing up for God and the Bible, and quoting scripture - not expressing my own personal views. Whether it's immorality, murder, injustice, theft, slander, child abuse, bestiality, etc etc. All these things are disapproved by God/the Bible. Our eternal lives are at stake, so when I see smoke, I'm going to shout out at the top of my voice "FIRE!!!"

They keep saying the Bible is open to interpretation, but how easy is it to misinterpret when a scripture simply says don't do this, or don't do that. More likely these 'easy to misinterpret' people are using that as a get-out clause because they don't like what the Bible is telling them. Dig deep enough into the scriptures, and the truth can be found by anyone who is really searching.

By the way, the word 'truth' is mentioned hundreds of time in the Bible, because God stands for truth. So surely God would want us to know the truth of what he thinks. "For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is on the side of truth listens to my voice" - said Jesus to Pontius Pilate, because the religious leaders wanted to kill Jesus for speaking out against their wrong practices and wrong thinking. (John 18:37)

So yes, I know you and I, and many on this thread, are never going to agree. Which is why I will make no further comments on this topic. I just felt compelled to stand up for God's words in the Bible.

Thank you for understanding that I'm not homophobic. Often those who accuse others of such hatred, themselves harbour a lot of hate...

I will bow out of this thread now.

People on this thread don't seem to understand that I'm standing up for God and the Bible

Your standing up for your personal subjective opinion of God and the Bible. You're just arrogant enough to think that it's the only one.

Thank you for understanding that I'm not homophobic. Often those who accuse others of such hatred

Well you did just compare homosexuality to immorality, murder, injustice, theft, slander, child abuse and beastiality so...

But your arguments were making the Bible appear fallible and outdated. That is why I felt my hand was forced to write back to you. It is humans that are fallible, not God/the Bible.

Parts of the Bible are outdated though. I don’t know anyone who keeps slaves any more. I don’t know of any women who go to a separate house (or tent) during their period. I don’t know of any men who refuse to touch women when they’re having their period.

You may not think that these verses are meant to be read like that, but what is more important is what God was intending to mean when those verses were preserved in his word the Bible?
And how are we to know for sure what God intended? I would suggest we can’t, because we’re not God. Preachers and scholars over centuries have debated translations and interpretations of scripture and have had differing viewpoints. They can’t all be right (or wrong).
We probably naturally gravitate towards those with a viewpoint that matches our own biases – because we are ALL biased – when we read the Bible. I read the Bible as a white, western, middle aged, gay woman with all that brings, and in whatever way my upbringing, background, worldview, life experience and so on ‘gets in the way’ of my reading. You have similar biases – everyone does, whether they recognise it or not. People who’ve had bad experiences with father-figures may have difficulty calling God ‘father’. Does that make then biased against the concept of ‘God as father’? Probably, but also understandably.
I used to look at things from your point of view. I was brought up with a very black and white view of the Bible – ‘if that’s what it says, that’s what it means’. But it’s a lot more nuanced than that. So I do get a bit twitchy when people say ‘the Bible clearly says’ in relation to certain things, because sometimes it’s really not that ‘clear’ at all.

Why is that the ONLY verse that you ever hear quoted from Leviticus.
Clearly it's not. I also cited, then quoted Romans and 1 Corinthians.
That’s not what I said. I asked why the only verse ever quoted from Leviticus is that one. It’s in amongst a whole other list of sexual ‘sins’, but you very rarely hear those quoted at straight people. It’s always the ‘gay verse’ that gets trotted out.
If the whole of Leviticus is relevant, then I’d love to hear some sermons in church against other bits of that chapter, but I don’t think I ever have. If (as you said) Leviticus is ‘no longer valid to us today’, then why quote that verse?
(and if it’s no longer valid doesn’t that also, by your own reasoning, mean that bit of Bible is ‘outdated’…even though you claim it’s not)

So you're implying that God is outdated in his thinking, and can't keep up with changing times and cultures?
Homosexuality as we understand it today was understood very differently back then. The modern understanding of it came about in the late 19th C. The word ‘homosexuality’ was only added into Bibles in the late 1940s. As I’ve said, because times and cultures change, we can’t be 100% sure that what was meant back then is what we think it is now.
Divorce is mentioned more than 20 times in the Bible. Homosexuality (or that interpretation of it) 6 times. Yet people get FAR more hung up about homosexuality than they do about divorce.
I don't know of anyone who follows all 613 laws in the OT to the letter these days... because, as we've already agreed, they're out of date.

You mention 'we' a lot, as well as the church - but just because people in general/the church say something, doesn't make it right vis-a-vis God.
Well, good luck telling the vast majority of CofE, Methodists, Baptists, URC, Quakers.. even some evangelical/charismatic churches… that they’re ‘wrong’ because they allow people who have been divorced to marry, they allow people who’ve had sex before marriage to marry, they allow women to preach, or to be ordained… they don’t require men to cover their heads when they’re praying… and so on.
You mentioned the Pharisees… they were always the ones sticking rigidly to the law and trying to catch Jesus out on points of legality in scripture, but Jesus always emphasised greater principles of love, justice and how to treat others in society rather then getting caught up in nit-picking over specifics. I’d suggest the many Churches in this country aren’t the ones being Pharisaical.

What are you talking about? Of course Strong's Concordance is a translation tool. It gave the definitions of each word as to their original meaning in Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek, as well as in various phrases, and idioms of the language at the time.
Yes – the KJV. It explains the translation of the KJV. It’s an index to the KJV.
Other translations and interpretations are available. That was my point.

@JulieYS

Do you actually believe people can change their sexual orientation at will?

@Scautish I love that west wing clip