What Does The Bible Say About Being Gay?

[isanbirder]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3205727.stm

I wouldn't normally post a question like this, because the religion of individual members of ThaiVisa is nobody's business but their own. However, many posters like to refer to the Bible (often without really knowing what they are talking about). Many seem to think that Christians are bound by the rules laid down in the Old Testament, and few realise that Jesus actually said nothing about homosexuality. The only specific references in the New Testament come from St Paul.

I think this article gives a fair presentation of what pro-gay and anti-gay Christians think. I wouldn't agree in all points, but in general, yes.

My personal feeling is that St Paul was a man of his time, and in some ways his opinions reflect that. He was against the sexual licence of Imperial Rome, and even the most liberal of you would be pretty disgusted at what went on. Paedophilia was the least of it.

[rgs2001uk]

As an atheist, this is easy.

If you are a Christian, you follow the teachings of Christ.

If you want to follow the teachings of Paul, call yourself a Paulist.

[Mooner]

If you are a true follower of Christianity you have to go with both Testaments say as they are supposedly the word of God. You cant cherry pick bits!

If you believe what i believe i would say "Who cares!!".

The old testament is a book mostly based on the infancy of our species to explain natural phenomenem. When they experienced eathquakes, floods, famines they had to attribute this to God as they didnt have the benefit of science.

Many of these stories that are written down are 4th and 5th hand accounts if not more. I propose this scenario. If i thought i saw God while i was walking and he spoke to me. What would you think? I was mistaken? I was crazy? This is me claiming a visit from God in the 21st century. Now we are supposed to believe the accounts of a bunch of illiterate goat hearders in the middle east. Seriously?? The only reason this religion has taken root is the expansion of the Roman empire, nothing to do with the TRUTH!

The new testament is a mix and match of previous relegions. Jesus was not the first to have a virgin birth, rise from the dead etc.

If anyone takes the time to sit down and anaylize the bible, torah or the koran you will see what alot of nonsence it is. It has no more credentials than father Christmas or the tooth fairy! I believe if we disgarded these believes the world would be a better place

[endure]

I'm with the 'who cares' faction...

[isanbirder]

This is for information rather than discussion.

[uptheos]

Didn't Jesus supposedly say, I did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it.

Whatever the law was at the time, as a teacher (Rabbi) he would have gone along with it.

[fearless1]

If you are a true follower of Christianity you have to go with both Testaments say as they are supposedly the word of God. You cant cherry pick bits!

If you believe what i believe i would say "Who cares!!".

The old testament is a book mostly based on the infancy of our species to explain natural phenomenem. When they experienced eathquakes, floods, famines they had to attribute this to God as they didnt have the benefit of science.

Many of these stories that are written down are 4th and 5th hand accounts if not more. I propose this scenario. If i thought i saw God while i was walking and he spoke to me. What would you think? I was mistaken? I was crazy? This is me claiming a visit from God in the 21st century. Now we are supposed to believe the accounts of a bunch of illiterate goat hearders in the middle east. Seriously?? The only reason this religion has taken root is the expansion of the Roman empire, nothing to do with the TRUTH!

The new testament is a mix and match of previous relegions. Jesus was not the first to have a virgin birth, rise from the dead etc.

If anyone takes the time to sit down and anaylize the bible, torah or the koran you will see what alot of nonsence it is. It has no more credentials than father Christmas or the tooth fairy! I believe if we disgarded these believes the world would be a better place

Agree 100%

[LeCharivari]

If you are a true follower of Christianity you have to go with both Testaments say as they are supposedly the word of God. You cant cherry pick bits!

Not correct, either historically or by doctrine, although its a common misconception.

"Bits" have been "cherry picked" since Christianity began and have been revised constantly over the last 2,000 years, and it wasn't until the Protestant Reformation some 1,500 years after Christ that the doctrine of sola scriptura was established - and even now there are major differences between what constitutes "The Bible" under Catholic Canon Law, Protestant doctrine as defined by the Westminster Confession of 1864, and according to other orthodox churches.

If anyone takes the time to sit down and anaylize the bible, torah or the koran you will see what alot of nonsence it is. It has no more credentials than father Christmas or the tooth fairy! I believe if we disgarded these believes the world would be a better place

I wonder if you've taken the time yourself to read all three, or if you are basing your view on what you've been told or you imagine them to say?

I haven't read the Talmud and the Midrash much, but as I've read both the Catholic Bible and the Koran I'm familiar with the Pentateuch so the Torah is reasonably familiar ground. "Analyzing" them is something I would never even pretend to have tried, but to me they are stories to be read and understood in the context of their time and as such they are anything but "nonsence".

I agree with you that the world would be a better place without the "believers" forcing their beliefs on others, but that is not what those books you call "nonsence" advocate:

Christianity:

Micah 4:3-5 "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hat spoken it. For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever."

Luke 9:52-56: "...they did not receive him...And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village."

John 4:7-27: "......Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the

Father...And upon this came his disciples, and marveled that he talked with the woman..."

Judaism:

The Talmud, Sanhedrin 105a: "righteous people of all nations have a share in the world to come" (righteous meaning nothing more than adherence to the seven laws of Noah).

Islam:

2:62: and 5:69: "Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve."

[LeCharivari]

This is for information rather than discussion.

I thought it was a question!

... and to get back to it, John J McNeill (the former Jesuit priest whom I mentioned in another thread) wrote The Church and the Homosexual on this topic and published it in 1976 with full imprimi potest (permission to print), establishing pretty clear grounds why the Bible and Christ have never condemned homosexuality. Unfortunately the Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), the oldest and most active of the nine congregations of the Roman Curia, had this permission rescinded two years later. Prior to 1904 the Congregation were called the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition - better known as the Roman Inquisition.

For those who haven't read it (and I haven't, although I'd suggest its worth reading in full by anyone who is gay and a Catholic and sometimes has doubts if the two are compatible) he wrote a follow up article 10 years later ( http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=122 ) summarising his views and explaining why he was speaking out after ten years of silence. It answers a lot of the points that are repeatedly brought up here, and it really is well worth reading by anyone who has any serious interest in this.

Edited March 16, 2013 by LeCharivari

[geriatrickid]

One of the problems with the bible as we know it today is that the translations have buggered up many of the original nuances and taken events and teachings out of context. My understanding is that the early bible was written in ancient Hebrew with some sections written in Aramaic. The new testament was written in a coarse form of ancient Greek, with the old testament being translated into that language as well. Then it was translated into Latin and from that into various languages and rewritten several times. The problem that arises, is that along the way, there were a great many edits and rewrites of various passages to meet the social mores and political considerations of the day. The end result IMO is that we are left with a product that is neither accurate nor includes all the nuances of the original author(s). More significantly, passages written in a time period in respect to certain events are taken out of context. The Therefore, the question I ask you in return is which bible are you referencing when you ask your question? The beauty of some faiths is that one is allowed to question the intent of biblical passages. Such a view is a mainstay of Judaism and the reformed Protestant faiths. These are also the adherents of the bible that try to reconcile conflicting statements in the bible with the realities of life. There have always been gay people, and I expect there will always be. I think everyone has one in the family or as a friend or even as a lover. As such, one's interpretation of the bible will often reflect what one wants to believe. After all, it is very difficult to condemn someone you love very much. The people that toss their kids to the curb because they interpret the bible in a specific way, never loved their kids to begin with. It is an unfortunate aspect of life people do not want to accept, so it is easier to blame it on the bible. All the bible did in such a case was to serve as an excuse to engage in a despicable act.

[isanbirder]

This is for information rather than discussion.

I thought it was a question!

... and to get back to it, John J McNeill (the former Jesuit priest whom I mentioned in another thread) wrote The Church and the Homosexual on this topic and published it in 1976 with full imprimi potest (permission to print), establishing pretty clear grounds why the Bible and Christ have never condemned homosexuality. Unfortunately the Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), the oldest and most active of the nine congregations of the Roman Curia, had this permission rescinded two years later. Prior to 1904 the Congregation were called the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition - better known as the Roman Inquisition.

For those who haven't read it (and I haven't, although I'd suggest its worth reading in full by anyone who is gay and a Catholic and sometimes has doubts if the two are compatible) he wrote a follow up article 10 years later ( http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=122 ) summarising his views and explaining why he was speaking out after ten years of silence. It answers a lot of the points that are repeatedly brought up here, and it really is well worth reading by anyone who has any serious interest in this.

Well, it was a question, to which the link gave the answer! It was intended for people on this forum who claim that the Bible lays down laws about homosexuality.

The text of any ancient book can be questioned simply because the copying of MSS is an inexact art, and mistakes are made.

I have never studied the texts of the Old Testament, because I can't read Hebrew, and anyway the OT consists to a great extent of myth, history, and what I would call forerunner material. For those of you who laugh at Genesis and the Jewish creation myth, I would suggest you look at other creation myths (Ancient Egyptian, for example) and compare them.

The New Testament is a different matter. It is in Greek, of variable quality, Paul's Greek probably being the best, and the Greek of Revelation being the worst. The Gospels show internal signs of being written either in Aramaic or by authors whose first language was Aramaic. Luke was a Greek-speaker. The texts are pretty good on the whole (I've read most of them in Greek), but inevitably there are places where translation into exactly equivalent English is not even possible. (Most of you will recognise this problem with your knowledge of Thai, however limited; it occurs in any attempt to reproduce the exact meaning of one language in another).

With that as a background, I can see where geriatrickid gets his ideas from, but I think he has greatly exaggerated the inaccuracies which have crept into the text. BUT if you take one line out of context, you can almost prove what you want.

[Scott]

I really don't care what the Bible says. I know what I think. I know the difference between right and wrong.

I don't care how it was translated--I don't think people were any wiser or better then than they are today. There were lots of nasty people around then and there still are today.

[isanbirder]

I really don't care what the Bible says. I know what I think. I know the difference between right and wrong.

I don't care how it was translated--I don't think people were any wiser or better then than they are today. There were lots of nasty people around then and there still are today.

Yes, Scott, that's fine.... but then you're not one of the people on this forum who says, "The Bible says...." when it just doesn't!

[KhunNene]

Be aware not to mistake sexual orientation with sexuality or with sexual acts, regardless of what bible says.

[rgs2001uk]

This is for information rather than discussion.

I thought it was a question!

... and to get back to it, John J McNeill (the former Jesuit priest whom I mentioned in another thread) wrote The Church and the Homosexual on this topic and published it in 1976 with full imprimi potest (permission to print), establishing pretty clear grounds why the Bible and Christ have never condemned homosexuality. Unfortunately the Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), the oldest and most active of the nine congregations of the Roman Curia, had this permission rescinded two years later. Prior to 1904 the Congregation were called the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition - better known as the Roman Inquisition.

For those who haven't read it (and I haven't, although I'd suggest its worth reading in full by anyone who is gay and a Catholic and sometimes has doubts if the two are compatible) he wrote a follow up article 10 years later ( http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=122 ) summarising his views and explaining why he was speaking out after ten years of silence. It answers a lot of the points that are repeatedly brought up here, and it really is well worth reading by anyone who has any serious interest in this.

Well, it was a question, to which the link gave the answer! It was intended for people on this forum who claim that the Bible lays down laws about homosexuality.

The text of any ancient book can be questioned simply because the copying of MSS is an inexact art, and mistakes are made.

I have never studied the texts of the Old Testament, because I can't read Hebrew, and anyway the OT consists to a great extent of myth, history, and what I would call forerunner material. For those of you who laugh at Genesis and the Jewish creation myth, I would suggest you look at other creation myths (Ancient Egyptian, for example) and compare them.

The New Testament is a different matter. It is in Greek, of variable quality, Paul's Greek probably being the best, and the Greek of Revelation being the worst. The Gospels show internal signs of being written either in Aramaic or by authors whose first language was Aramaic. Luke was a Greek-speaker. The texts are pretty good on the whole (I've read most of them in Greek), but inevitably there are places where translation into exactly equivalent English is not even possible. (Most of you will recognise this problem with your knowledge of Thai, however limited; it occurs in any attempt to reproduce the exact meaning of one language in another).

With that as a background, I can see where geriatrickid gets his ideas from, but I think he has greatly exaggerated the inaccuracies which have crept into the text. BUT if you take one line out of context, you can almost prove what you want.

No mention made of whole chapters being deliberately ommitted for political/theological expediency.

No mention of The Dead Sea scrolls, didnt the pope ban them or try to have them covered up and forbade Catholics from reading them?

[nidieunimaitre]

LeCharivari, on 16 Mar 2013 - 21:42, said:

Mooner, on 16 Mar 2013 - 17:09, said:

If you are a true follower of Christianity you have to go with both Testaments say as they are supposedly the word of God. You cant cherry pick bits!

Not correct, either historically or by doctrine, although its a common misconception.

"Bits" have been "cherry picked" since Christianity began and have been revised constantly over the last 2,000 years, and it wasn't until the Protestant Reformation some 1,500 years after Christ that the doctrine of sola scriptura was established - and even now there are major differences between what constitutes "The Bible" under Catholic Canon Law, Protestant doctrine as defined by the Westminster Confession of 1864, and according to other orthodox churches.

Mooner, on 16 Mar 2013 - 17:09, said:

If anyone takes the time to sit down and anaylize the bible, torah or the koran you will see what alot of nonsence it is. It has no more credentials than father Christmas or the tooth fairy! I believe if we disgarded these believes the world would be a better place

I wonder if you've taken the time yourself to read all three, or if you are basing your view on what you've been told or you imagine them to say?

I haven't read the Talmud and the Midrash much, but as I've read both the Catholic Bible and the Koran I'm familiar with the Pentateuch so the Torah is reasonably familiar ground. "Analyzing" them is something I would never even pretend to have tried, but to me they are stories to be read and understood in the context of their time and as such they are anything but "nonsence".

I agree with you that the world would be a better place without the "believers" forcing their beliefs on others, but that is not what those books you call "nonsence" advocate:

Christianity:

Micah 4:3-5 "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hat spoken it. For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever."

Luke 9:52-56: "...they did not receive him...And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village."

John 4:7-27: "......Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the

Father...And upon this came his disciples, and marveled that he talked with the woman..."

Judaism:

The Talmud, Sanhedrin 105a: "righteous people of all nations have a share in the world to come" (righteous meaning nothing more than adherence to the seven laws of Noah).

Islam:

2:62: and 5:69: "Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve."

In all those books you can find whatever you want to find.

How about: "slave, obey your master?" As a young child I stumbled upon that quote, and got repremanded for that.

[Phronesis]

Which version of THE bible.

[isanbirder]

No mention made of whole chapters being deliberately ommitted for political/theological expediency.

No mention of The Dead Sea scrolls, didnt the pope ban them or try to have them covered up and forbade Catholics from reading them?

(Quote from rgs2001uk)

Contemporary examples, please.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are largely Essene, not Christian.

[Mooner]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B4WAi-UcOc

Ill let the late great Mr Hitchens clear this up!

[Mooner]

[transam]

I don't believe anything written by a bloke 2,000 years ago unless it's to do with mathematics.

[Ridler]

How can anyone follow both the old and the new testament when the old says an 'eye for an eye' when Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek.

[rgs2001uk]

No mention made of whole chapters being deliberately ommitted for political/theological expediency.

No mention of The Dead Sea scrolls, didnt the pope ban them or try to have them covered up and forbade Catholics from reading them?

(Quote from rgs2001uk)

Contemporary examples, please.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are largely Essene, not Christian.

In other words, one is perfectly free to accept the teachings of the

Church, but not to question or reject them.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, however, are not

articles of faith, but documents of historical and archaeological

importance which belong properly not to the Catholic Church, but to

humanity as a whole. It is a sobering and profoundly disturbing

thought that, if Cardinal Ratzinger has his way, everything we ever

learn about the Qumran texts will be subject to the censorship

machinery of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - will

be, in effect, filtered and edited for us by the Inquisition.

Both quotes above are from this sorce,

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scrolls_deadsea/deadsea_scrollsdeception/scrollsdeception07.htm

[Mooner]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3766TOukRo

[transam]

Our Henry Vlll had good reason to change stuff.

[Maestro]

As an atheist, this is easy.

If you are a Christian, you follow the teachings of Christ.

If you want to follow the teachings of Paul, call yourself a Paulist.

You've got a good point there. If I remember correctly from what I was taught many decades ago the book commonly referred to as the bible has four sections: old testament, new testament, psalms, letters of the evangelists.

Again if I recall correctly, it was the evangelist Paul who in his letters to his followers came across as being totally against sex and if the whole world had followed him mankind might have died out. "Do not have sex", he kept repeating over and over, and only as an afterthought he sometimes added "...but if you can't help it, get married first"

Regarding the bible's position on homosexuality, a Google search will give you a lot of hits, for example https://www.google.com/search?q=bible+paul+hoosexuality&aq=f&oq=bible+paul+hoosexuality&aqs=chrome.0.57.10680&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=6&gs_ri=psy-ab&pq=bible%20paul%20hoosexuality&cp=14&gs_id=4&xhr=t&q=bible+paul+homosexuality&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=bible+paul+homosexuality&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43828540,d.bGE&fp=bee96ee03151c7e&biw=1097&bih=554, and the following in one of these hits:

...the words traditionally mistranslated as ‘homosexual,’ ‘effeminate,’ ‘impure,’ and so forth, are really targeting selfish, unloving, unjust activity and have nothing to do with sexual orientation...

[uptheos]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B4WAi-UcOc

Ill let the late great Mr Hitchens clear this up!

Hitch....gone far too soon.

[watcharacters]

.

Did you google this?

you might get an unbiased reply.

[rijb]

http://uberhumor.com/argument-obliterated

[isanbirder]

No mention made of whole chapters being deliberately ommitted for political/theological expediency.

No mention of The Dead Sea scrolls, didnt the pope ban them or try to have them covered up and forbade Catholics from reading them?

(Quote from rgs2001uk)

Contemporary examples, please.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are largely Essene, not Christian.

In other words, one is perfectly free to accept the teachings of the

Church, but not to question or reject them.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, however, are not

articles of faith, but documents of historical and archaeological

importance which belong properly not to the Catholic Church, but to

humanity as a whole. It is a sobering and profoundly disturbing

thought that, if Cardinal Ratzinger has his way, everything we ever

learn about the Qumran texts will be subject to the censorship

machinery of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - will

be, in effect, filtered and edited for us by the Inquisition.

Both quotes above are from this sorce,

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scrolls_deadsea/deadsea_scrollsdeception/scrollsdeception07.htm

You sidestepped my query nicely. Contemporary examples of chapters omitted for doctrinal reasons, please.

The Qumran texts are not the property of the Vatican. Some may be; others are in Tel Aviv and the Bodleian. When a new ancient text is discovered, it is common practice to study it before publication.