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]
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
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.)
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Thanks for the etymology lesson!
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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).
“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?
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… Read more »
“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.
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.
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… Read more »
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.
are you aware of all the atroscities committed throughout history in the name of loving god?
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
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.
The Bible is immoral on many issues. You are proving our point.
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.
People don’t follow the cultures of the surrounding countries anymore. Why follow the Bible?
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.
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.
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
Bible interpretation? Challenge yourself. Google First Scandal.
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… Read more »
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”… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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?