Is a Gay-Friendly Interpretation of the Bible Possible?



Of the many sins stridently denounced by the “divine” words of the New Testament — murder, theft, deceit, lust, envy — there is included among them a trait which is inborn and utterly insulated from free choice. The sin to which I refer is of course homosexuality, the innate sexual orientation of some of my fellow human beings. But if to sin is to disgrace and displease the Father, then by the fact of one’s birth a homosexual has waged a wrong punishable by death. Indeed, if all humanity is sinful by nature, then this goes doubly so for homosexuals, for they are not deciding to be as they are in the way that I, as it happens, freely set on with the “sin” of manual pleasure. The question is, then, why ever would a human who favors his or her own sex capitulate to the grotesque, to the prude, to the barbaric pronouncements of a religion that casts out, shuns and vilifies their very nature?

I cannot see that the Bible is at all gentle toward homosexuals; particular Christian sects and persons, however, may prove more hospitable. But even in their gentleness, they talk of “ridding the illness” of homosexuality as a noble struggle, a malady to be righteously overcome. This is immoral. Countless souls have seen the dark, abysmal depths of fearing — yes, even loathing — their own selves because of the sex they’re attracted to.

Homosexuals, you are wonderful. It is the Bible that is by nature “sinful.”

Brian Gallagher is a fourth-year philosophy major.

I am glad that there are Christians who realize that same-sex attraction is an inborn trait that requires no special condemnation. To remain serious Christians, many adopt the belief that the Bible has been “misinterpreted.” When confronted with condemnations such as found in Leviticus 20:13, which requires a man who “lies with a male as one lies with a woman” to be “put to death,” they sometimes use the excuse that the verse is mistranslated. It is, of course, hard to see what the alternative translation would be and unlikely that a book written in a widely studied language like Hebrew would be so frequently mistranslated. The New Testament condemnations of homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, etc.) undercut the argument that these prohibitions are not applicable anymore because they are only found in the Old Testament.

Even if this were true, one can’t justify hundreds of years of executing homosexuals with the idea that God eventually changed his mind. This also applies to the argument that these verses were written for a different time. Did the homosexual who was executed in 800 B.C. suffer less than he would have in the year 2012? The silliest argument is that these verses should not be taken literally. Then, could you please provide me with the allegorical meaning of “kill the gays?” So, if you are a liberal Christian, especially a liberal gay Christian, isn’t it time to stop living a delusion and leave the Bronze Age myths behind?

Zoltan Mester is a UCSB graduate student of chemical engineering.

Please, Christians, read your Bibles. Please, look at your gay neighbors and friends and think about the words on the page. “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

That means that you should go find a gay friend or relative and murder them.

Am I misinterpreting some complex nuance? How can one misunderstand, “… they shall surely be put to death?” Oh, you just don’t want to kill your friends and family? Someone else should do it, I suppose? And how is that different? Don’t try to tell me that the New Testament changes anything; One Corinthians 6:9-10 still states that men who have sex with men will go to hell. Practice what you preach! Do you believe in the Bible or not?

“But,” you bleat feebly, “what about the flexibility of interpretation? What if it is a metaphor?” A metaphor for what, exactly? Come on, you know as well as I do that one could read Mein Kampf as an allegory, but everyone knows what it means when a book says, “Kill the Jews” or “Kill the gays.”

Humanity, snap out of it. That disgusted, scared feeling you get in the pit of your stomach when I say, “go find a gay friend or relative and murder them,” is what I feel when I read Leviticus 20:13. Why don’t you feel it, too?

Connor Oakes is a fourth-year political science major.

[media-credit name="Ian Sander" align="aligncenter" width="250"][/media-credit]

Print Friendly

44 Responses to Is a Gay-Friendly Interpretation of the Bible Possible?

  1. Danielle Reply

    February 23, 2012 at 12:51 am

    why do you even care? if the bible says to kill a person for his sexual orientation, but a christian decides to love him, what is the problem? since all sins are weighed equally–scripture says so–then premarital sex is also a sin; and if any christian has had sex before marriage, he should “read [his] bible”. surely he can’t be a christian? no. there are plenty of other things the bible says to do, but christians choose to not practice it (e.g. the bible forbids eating milk and meat together. crazy right?) christianity is not based on logic; it is based on faith.

    • Connor Oakes Reply

      February 23, 2012 at 1:34 am

      Thanks for the comment Danielle: I’ll re-post part of what I said to a poster below, who asked a similar (and similarly important!) question:

      “Thanks for the comment! Really, one of the most important on here. You are absolutely right that there are good people out there who are ignoring the bible as to (or even using the bible to defend!) the rights of homosexuals. But they are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, and it is important to have the right reasons – if you do not, but instead base your moral beliefs on an immutable, “infallible” text, you risk running into a moral problem that you can’t interpret your way out of, or unknowingly and blindly following a moral code that causes you to do wrong. If you do not evaluate and constantly criticize your moral code, you are vulnerable to making mistakes or being mislead / manipulated. That is the “point in telling them that they are interpreting their own book incorrectly.” i am pushing my views on them, absolutely – my views are that one should constantly be evaluating one’s own morality, and not basing it on a bronze-age fairy tale.”

    • Zoltan Reply

      February 23, 2012 at 7:46 am

      If Christianity is not based on logic, but faith, then how do you decide what to believe? Faith can tell me that Christianity teaches reincarnation, but surely this is false. Christianity is based on the false premise that the Bible is the word of God. This is faith! However, once people make this false assumption, they have to use some logic to figure out what the Bible says.
      Danielle, we actually care about intellectual honesty and logical consistency! There are a lot of things in the Bible that Christians don’t practice. For example, divorce and remarriage are explicitly forbidden. Indeed, any sex with the new spouse, according to the Bible, is adultery. Yet, Christians divorce all the time. Is this hypocrisy a credit to Christians? Of course, not!
      This is a call for people to examine their beliefs! Read your Bibles and see if you can stomach its stories and commandments. Cognitive dissonance is a poor way of dealing with the discomfort you get from reading the Bible.
      If we “felt” our way into all of our beliefs, we would still be in the stone ages.

    • Zoltan Reply

      February 23, 2012 at 7:52 am

      To address the topic of gay rights, “faith” is exactly the problem. The gay-bashers have “faith” that the Bible is correct in its condemnation despite all the evidence to the contrary. To have “faith” that the Bible doesn’t really say what it clearly says perpetuates the problem. How can you decide who is right when your personal faith is the only standard of truth?

  2. Robert Hagedorn Reply

    February 17, 2012 at 3:52 pm

    Bible interpretation? Challenge yourself. Google First Scandal.

  3. Copernicus Billingsley Reply

    February 17, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    So when people “bleat feebly” in defense of a gay friendly interpretation of the Bible, why would you condemn them for that? If one wishes to interpret the Bible as accepting of homosexuality, power to them. Isn’t the whole point of this column to call for a change in the antiquated attitudes of the religious right? If there are Christians who want to interpret the Bible as gay friendly, I don’t see the point in telling them that they are interpreting their own book incorrectly. You are just pushing your own pedantic views on them because you want to shit on Christians, which, based on your previous articles, you seem to hate; and that makes you an unctuous hypocrite.

    • Connor Oakes Reply

      February 17, 2012 at 10:53 pm

      Thanks for the comment! Really, one of the most important on here. You are absolutely right that there are good people out there who are ignoring the bible as to (or even using the bible to defend!) the rights of homosexuals. But they are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, and it is important to have the right reasons – if you do not, but instead base your moral beliefs on an immutable, “infallible” text, you risk running into a moral problem that you can’t interpret your way out of, or unknowingly and blindly following a moral code that causes you to do wrong. If you do not evaluate and constantly criticize your moral code, you are vulnerable to making mistakes or being mislead / manipulated. That is the “point in telling them that they are interpreting their own book incorrectly.” i am pushing my views on them, absolutely – my views are that one should constantly be evaluating one’s own morality, and not basing it on a bronze-age fairy tale. I don’t want to “shit on Christians” and I don’t “hate” them – I hate people who do immoral things and use Christianity to back them up or justify them, but I would hate people who did immoral things and used anything or nothing to justify it. I don’t believe it makes me a hypocrite to advocate for one position (skepticism, constant re-evaluation) – hell, I am not arguing that Christians should not push their beliefs, I am arguing that those beliefs are wrong! I would argue that some methods used to push Christian beliefs are wrong, but that is a totally different argument, and one where I am much less sure of where to draw the line in terms of how much pushing is appropriate.

      Thanks again for the comment! You raise valid points – I just believe that pointing out the immorality of the bible, the belief in which I think does real harm to individuals and society is more important than the stopgap measure of endorsing those people who are using the text (incorrectly) for what luckily happens to be a good cause.

    • Zoltan Reply

      February 18, 2012 at 6:03 pm

      Unfortunately, the discourse has come to that unless you agree with someone and mutter some pre-approved mantra about their beliefs, you must hate them. If I hated everyone whom I disagreed with, then I’d hate everyone for some reason or other.

      No, I don’t hate Christians. I don’t even hate Pat Robertson or Rick Santorum or any other Christian extremist. I have no ill will towards my political or religious opponents. I just want honest discussions.

      Now that I have gotten this out of the way, let me address your concerns:

      “If one wishes to interpret the Bible as accepting of homosexuality, power to them.”

      This is a nice sentiment, but if a reasonable religious person gets into an argument with a fundamentalist regarding an interpretation of the Bible, who is going to win? Unfortunately, the fundamentalist will win everytime! I don’t expect all of a sudden that people become skeptics, but rather these verses should be a major source of embarrassement. Explaining them away does not fly in my book. They should cringe when they hear them!

      Right now, we live in a country that is about 70% Christian, but is a little over 50% pro-gay marriage. Of course, this means that there are Christians who are pro-gay rights. Many of these people just don’t think much about religion. However, I find it hard to believe that those who are “serious” Christians and actually actively think about these verses will easily be lead to the pro-gay marriage stance. The human mind is very susceptible to cognitive dissonance, but at some point something’s got to give. Taking the Bible seriously will lead back to the conservative position sooner or later.

      “Isn’t the whole point of this column to call for a change in the antiquated attitudes of the religious right?”

      That is the whole point! However, you do this with secularism! You say that you have every right to believe whatever you want, but don’t think your religion has to be the law that everyone lives by. Creating the “religious left” to match the “religious right” is not the correct approach. Creating the “religious left” legitimizes the “religious right.” Now every crazy religious group needs a seat at a table. I no more want to hear why Jesus “wants” you to pay your taxes, then why he doesn’t. I don’t care what Jesus “thinks” about the anything regardless of whether or not he “agrees” with me.

      • Zoltan Reply

        February 18, 2012 at 6:14 pm

        Please note also that I am happy with those who agree with me and work with me for common goals. This is regardless of whether I agree with how they come to their conclusions. However, I think “reinterpreting” the Bible is a losing battle. If they want to fight it, it is fine by me, and I am happy they agree with me.

  4. Miles Reply

    February 16, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    The “Ask an Atheist” column. 3 views and assertions that all say the same thing. No opposing views? What a joke. When whatever thoughts these articles provoke have to be discussed on the comments page of the newspaper website, you know that something has gone wrong.

    And for crying out loud. the writers would benefit from watching this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la5DBtOVNI

    Those opposed to their perfect, infallible arguments “bleat feebly”, trying to come up with something that can rebut them?

    Stupid as hell.

    • Zoltan Reply

      February 16, 2012 at 12:49 pm

      Disagreeing with you is not being a dick. It is just plain disagreeing. I believe if you disagree with something, you should be prepared to defend your reasons for disagreeing. That is what we are doing.

    • Connor Oakes Reply

      February 16, 2012 at 5:19 pm

      I will “be a dick about” things if those things are morally wrong. Are you arguing that we should, “not be a dick” about murder? Because people are murdered for being gay all around the world, including in America. What about discrimination? If someone was “being a dick about” racial or gender discrimination by writing a newspaper article and denouncing it as being a moral wrong, would that be “stupid as hell?”

      Or do you just think that it’s not morally wrong? That believing in the moral teachings of a book that calls for the murder of gays and endorses slavery can’t possibly lead to anyone, I don’t know, murdering gays? That is the definition of “stupid as hell.”

      And you’re correct, there is consensus among the three writers, because we all agree that the bible is unequivocally anti-gay. Maybe that’s because the dissenting opinion is so dumb as to be laughable? How can you possibly defend it?

    • Brian Gallagher Reply

      February 16, 2012 at 9:35 pm

      We should speak loudly and forcefully about the immoralities and fallacies of our society that go largely unaddressed in our mainstream public discourse. People that are silent about the vices of our culture are almost useless.

      And none of the writers of Ask an Atheist plan on agreeing with each other in our statements. The responses are written independently.

  5. Mark Reply

    February 16, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    It seems like there are many people chalking it up to a matter of interpretation. This implies that there is some sort of objective, correct interpretation. Since the Bible is a holy book, we have to remamber that many people who read it are going to take what it says at face value. In the end, the Bible does say that if a man is to lie with another man as he would a woman, that is an abomination and he will surely be killed. You can interpret it any way you like to make it fit with the morals of a 21st century society, but in the end history has shown us (as Zoltan said in his article) that people tend to take that line pretty seriously and have killed gay people because of it. Why would you ever ever want to defend something like that??

    • feetxxxl Reply

      February 16, 2012 at 1:56 pm

      no one knows what that prohibition in lev meant to the jews, because there is no case presented in scripture like was presented about violation the sabbath in numbers 15:32. even in that case moses who had the law didnt immediately respond to it, but went to god who then told him the man must be stoned for gathering firewood on the sabbath.

      what was also true at the time was that there was no free love. all intimacy was done under contract either with ones property or under financial payment. for the isrealites male prostitution was out of the question and no isrealite male was to be property of another. its also interesting that in subject of concubines or slaves there were no laws as to whether and at what age the owner could have sex with his female slaves, and there was no prohibition about anal sex with women.

      • Connor Oakes Reply

        February 16, 2012 at 5:30 pm

        I’m kinda confused by what you are trying to say. You said a lot of things about the biblical stories, but I’m just not sure what point you are trying to make. Is it that we just don’t know / can’t know what the Bible really commands? Or just that the prohibitions are not all-encompassing? Sorry, just looking for clarification.

        • feetxxxl Reply

          February 16, 2012 at 7:19 pm

          lev says take slaves of ethnic pagans in the surrounding countries for life to pass omto your children as inheritance.
          under the covenant of christ slavery is an intolerable evil because it comes against christ’s love.

          in deut women wearing men’s clothes was called an abomination, joan of arc was executed for it.

          • Zoltan Reply

            February 16, 2012 at 8:57 pm

            The Bible is immoral on many issues. You are proving our point.

            • feetxxxl Reply

              February 16, 2012 at 9:55 pm

              immoral according to what standard? to 2000 years western civilization? actually the laws of the old testment were quite liberal compared to the cultures of the surrounding countries.

              • Zoltan Reply

                February 16, 2012 at 10:11 pm

                People don’t follow the cultures of the surrounding countries anymore. Why follow the Bible?

  6. feetxxxl Reply

    February 16, 2012 at 9:24 am

    i look for the time when it becomes common knowledge among believers that we have died to the law, in christ(who is greater than the written code) and are raised by christ, to be under christ(not the written code….ten commandments),to be under his love(god is love) which surpasses all knowledge. it is his love that says what the written code is, and what it says, of the new covenant(not the other way around). his love is our standard as in” loving one another as i have loved you”, as you love your neighbor as yourself, which he shows us directly in our intimate relationship with his living spirit, living in us. his spirit lives in ALL, and has always lived in all because he created all. there is no love that loves god that does not godlove his neighbor also. we are holy because of his spirit living in us and not from anything we do. what ever we receive of him we receive thru grace. grace is his life in us.

    • Connor Oakes Reply

      February 16, 2012 at 5:31 pm

      Ok, what did any of that mean? You have died to the law? There is no love that loves god that does not godlove his neighbor also? Dude these sentences are completely grammatically ridiculous. I can’t understand what you’re trying to say.

      • feetxxxl Reply

        February 16, 2012 at 7:23 pm

        are you aware of all the atroscities committed throughout history in the name of loving god?

  7. feetxxxl Reply

    February 16, 2012 at 8:55 am

    first of all there is no scripture that says that homosexuality of itself is a sin. believers have attempted to make it one by assigning meaning to verses in spite their words, inferring words that were never written and by standing on legalities that come against their own faith.

    as a rule very few believers even know what is written in scripture and the biggest offenders are priest, bishops and pastors, and theologians, etc. they are constrained by their adoption of a particular understanding handed down thru institutions and they cherry pick to hold onto that understanding. and of this group few appear aware of how culturally influenced their understandings are from what has been handed down generationally. as in all sciences, the science of religion is innately influenced by money and power and the politics of acceptability.

    it is not a religious outlook that shapes the culture but a cultural outlook that shapes the religion, because it allows embracing what what all along was written. a cultural understanding that has been shaped by numbers of revolutions, civil rights,religous, individual expression(sex), individual opinion, etc.

    romans 9,10,11 has said for 2000 years that the jews were his chosen people and would always be his chosen people, that he had hardened their hearts(not they themselves) until the right number of gentiles(for the benefit of gentiles,a blessing to them) had entered the kingdom, then he would bring in all the jews.

    and yet there has been 2000 years of antisemetism, instigated and led by the church(7 inquistions , the leader of the last was made pope,with mulitiple genecides , internment centers, deportments, etc) which, at its WORLDWIDE height, culminated in halocaust in a country(30 million), the first to receive the bible in its own language(1500′S) translated by their national hero, martin luther,a country 50% catholic and 50% lutheran.

    • Connor Oakes Reply

      February 16, 2012 at 5:33 pm

      “First of all there is no scripture that says that homosexuality of itself is a sin.”

      Have you read Corinthians? It says that men who have sex with men will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Does that not mean it is a sin? Define sin, please, if you are making the semantic argument I think you are making.

      • feetxxxl Reply

        February 16, 2012 at 7:30 pm

        the original translation of the wythe and kjv was “defiling oneself with mankind”. it was a 1946 transposition of homosexual into 1cor and 1tim that attempted to make homosexuality a sin, and put homosexuals under the law. not based on the spirit that was in a person’s life, their character, the sincerity of love that was in their heart, but a physicality. under the new covenant physicalities account for nothing. “he can make children of abraham out of these stones” spirit accounts for everything.

  8. BibleLoveVerses Reply

    February 16, 2012 at 8:40 am

    The Bible does not saying clearly in any way that Gay = Bad or forbidden.
    Human nature stays Human nature and nothing new under the sun! Gays have been and are part of our society, maybe one of our tests as human beings is to try and accept this idea that the strange or the unacceptable must be accepted.

    • Zoltan Reply

      February 16, 2012 at 8:50 am

      “Gays have been and are part of our society, maybe one of our tests as human beings is to try and accept this idea that the strange or the unacceptable must be accepted.”

      I completely agree! Unfortunately, people still believe in a book that does not belie in this. By the way, the Bible was written by humans, and reflects human nature.

      • feetxxxl Reply

        February 16, 2012 at 2:33 pm

        actually scriptures selected to be included in bible was written thru the inspiration of the spirit of god rather than human understanding. that is why they are so consistent. there were hundreds written. these were selected as being of his spirit(life).

    • Connor Oakes Reply

      February 16, 2012 at 5:34 pm

      “The Bible does not saying clearly in any way that Gay = Bad”

      Am I misunderstanding Leviticus? What does Abomination mean if not bad or forbidden? Why must they be put to death if it is not forbidden?

  9. Jack g Reply

    February 16, 2012 at 8:25 am

    I am an American episcopalean. My church is mainstream and gay friendly. The reference in Leviticus does not say that. It is the last line in a long list of crimes directed at a sex neutral ‘you’ or simply mankind, which typically refers also to women. The prohibition is referencing back to the long list of incest no-nos and basically states that if you reverse the sexes above, the same prohibition applies. Otherwise, a male is permitted to copulate with his niece. I don’t believe that having sex with your niece would have been ok therefore this interpretation is far more likely than the current one in vogue. Eunuchs are refered to in the bible including by jesus and traditionally refer to third sex or males who do not have sexual relations with women whether they choose to, by birth, or by force(current definition of eunich). Paul is referring to some sort of temple whore using a term no longer in use which has been translated as homosexual. Also Paul was specifically talking to specific congregations to address their ills , and believed all forms of sex were undesirable. He was forced by the Romans under threat of death to say that women had to submit to their husbands. Paul also clearly drafted that his words are not gospel but his opinion. Jesus does discuss some eunuchs being born that way, and so they are not to marry a woman.

    • Zoltan Reply

      February 16, 2012 at 12:46 pm

      I do agree that your church is mainstream and gay friendly. This is great! However, your church came to this conclusion in response to secular knowledge that indicates that people are born gay (or at least it is something that is very ingrained). Reading the Bible on its own does not lead to the conclusion that being gay is OK. Your interpretation of Leviticus 20:13 is a huge stretch. If you read the prohibitions that are listed in this part of the book, it is a collection of various prohibitions, and there isn’t a very strong theme in what these prohibitions are. Some of them are sexual, and some are specifically related to incest. Others are related to cursing your parents, divination, etc. Thus, this does not lead to your conclusion that the verse that is apparently related to homosexuality has to be a commentary on verses on incest. It is more natural to regard it as a prohibition in its own right. This is especially true since this prohibition isn’t just preceded by but also followed by prohibitions of incest and various other prohibitions.

      Romans 1:27 uses very plain language that does not involve terms that do not exist in the English language. “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet,” I think is very clear, and nothing in the context indicates temple prostitution.

      The point on eunuchs is irrelevant. Eunuchs are men without testicles. They have no sexual attraction. It has nothing to do with homosexuality.

      Do not take our criticism as an attack on your church. There is much to appreciate in your church. We, as skeptics, try to take things to their logical conclusions. We feel that the Bible is not a moral book. Its condemnation of homosexuality is one of many reasons we feel this way.

      • feetxxxl Reply

        February 16, 2012 at 2:40 pm

        “Reading the Bible on its own does not lead to the conclusion that being gay is OK. ”

        i disagree. it was thru my reading of scripture that i came to the conclusion the new testament said over and over that being gay was of god. i then started attending gay churches(mcc) to see if there was a spirit of denial, deceit, or delusion in their supporting being gay from the pulpit. there was only love, joy, peace, kindness,…….etc the fruit of the spirit of christgal5.

        • Brian Gallagher Reply

          February 16, 2012 at 9:47 pm

          I can’t take anything you say seriously when (1) you don’t punctuate anything, (2) you aren’t attempting to be clear, and (3) you named yourself “feetxxxl,” which I can’t help but read as “extra, extra, extra, large feet.

          • feetxxxl Reply

            February 16, 2012 at 9:59 pm

            i disagree. it was thru my reading of scripture, that i came to the conclusion the new testament said over and over, that being gay was of god. i then started attending gay churches(mcc), to see if there was a spirit of denial, deceit, or delusion in their supporting being gay from the pulpit. there was only love, joy, peace, kindness,…….etc the fruit of the spirit of christ,gal5.

    • Connor Oakes Reply

      February 16, 2012 at 5:38 pm

      Your conclusions are an ENORMOUS stretch of interpretations. I cannot fathom the cognitive dissonance that leads you to believe that interpreting “mankind” as sex-neutral makes this verse acceptable.

      Even if we assume your ridiculous interpretation is somehow correct, you still think that it is morally correct to execute someone for having sex with their niece? how is that an appropriate punishment for sex between two consenting adults? That is criminally insane.

  10. Fred Conwell Reply

    February 16, 2012 at 8:20 am

    Note that Jesus defines ALL sin as lack of love (Matt. 22:36-40). So who is unloved or hurt in a homosexual relationship? All other sins (adultery, divorce, theft, lying, etc.) have unloved victims. Neither Jesus, His prophets nor the gospel writers mention homosexuality, let alone condemn this love-sin. Throw out any New Testament references to homosexuality as lies: the word “homosexual” wasn’t coined until about 1865. (Heaven forbid that the King James Version might be closer to a true translation.)

    • Zoltan Reply

      February 16, 2012 at 8:33 am

      “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

      1 Corinthians 6:9-10

      The KJV refers to “abusers of themselves with mankind” where other translations refer to homosexuals. This is based on the translation of the word “arsenokoitēs,” which outside of the Bible is used to mean “one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual.” (Strong’s Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon)

      The Greeks and Romans may not have had a clear concept of homosexual identity, but they knew of homosexual behavior. This is what the Bible is condemning.

      • feetxxxl Reply

        February 16, 2012 at 9:43 am

        romans 1 they exchanged the truth of god’s love for a lie and worshipped served the created(powers and principalities (the things jesus said we were to battle against) and were given over to the things that served them……………shameful lust.

        homosexual bonding is no more about shame or lust than heterosexual bonding.

        natural is those things of the fruit of the spirit of christgal5, fruit of the spirit that created us. those who are gay, their lives and marriaages are full of the fruit of the spirit of christ in the same way as those of heterosexual. romans1 is about the basis of all sin, how replete it is, to show that all need a savior

        1cor and 1tim(the transposition) was an attempt to put those who are gay under what we ourselves are not under………the written code. legalities are not our standard, christ’s love is. it is his love that shows us what the scripture says, which is actually a reference to the shame and lust of romans 1 which is also not about being gay.

        paul never taught thru the law not even with the man who had his father’s wife. paul said we were not under the law. surely he would not then write a law to put believers under what he said we were not under.

      • Connor Oakes Reply

        February 16, 2012 at 5:39 pm

        Thanks for the etymology lesson!

    • Connor Oakes Reply

      February 16, 2012 at 5:41 pm

      This is a semantic argument, and nothing more – just because they hadn’t coined the term homosexual doesn’t mean that the references to having sex with men don’t really apply to homosexuality. That’s a ridiculous conclusion.

  11. Rena Reply

    February 16, 2012 at 7:00 am

    I agree with Paul, and http://www.gaychristian101.com is a very good page to study this question.

    I know several gay and lesbians who are Christians and they do not have problem with these verses after studying them.

    It is the Christians which refuse to study the verses in the context who become the problem.

  12. Paul Reply

    February 16, 2012 at 2:57 am

    Yes, in fact, the Bible is misinterpreted when it comes to passages used to condemn gay people. Context is important when doing biblical translation. The context of these misinterpreted passages is sex for idol worship, and that it was is specifically being condemned. It is not a wholesale condemnation of gay people. Gay people should not throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because homophobic Christians say the Bible condemns gay people does not make it true, and gay people should not reject the Bible or God because of their error. Doing that is exactly what they want. For more information go to http://www.gaychristian101.com

    • Blake Reply

      October 24, 2013 at 7:50 am

      I have readed and prayed and talked about this subject alot and i have come up with this it is my own take . I sometimes find myself thinking very hard on trying sex with another man and i have always thought that faith is following blindly and being that the holly bible tells me very clearly without having to read very deep that god made woman from the rib of man and following this witch i point out is in the very first book in the bible . that by thoughs words being said there is a woman out there made for me from a part of me and i feel i want to be fruitful and multiply and not have my sin be inherited by my sons.plus it
      Being gay displeases my father in heaven i cannot risk my eternal soul by testing him . and on finial judgement day i hope to see ever believer im my god with me behind the golden gates that is my prayer

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>