independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > No, the Bible is not homophobic.
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 02/23/21 10:22am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

No, the Bible is not homophobic.

The Bible has a vast history--sadly--of being weaponized for evil intent. But that does not mean it is the Bible's fault or what the writer or writers wrote. Right wingers have misused Bible quotes for their own socially obtuse gain. They use selective lines to crap on our gay and trans peeps. But what they use is taken out of context or merely lied upon.

There are several problematic verses that seem to lead one to thinking that gay behavior is a sin. Best to look into the words and adding context. First, there is the fact that the Bible is old, it was written when gay love was unknown. Just as germ theory was unknown. Jesus even says not to wash your hands. When they mention adultery they always mean the woman doing it not the man. Two factors are present: the Jewish Bible, Old Testament is about the law. It concerns personal behavior of the ancient Israelis, who are under the yoke of Egypt, Babylon, etc. The New Testament is about grace--The law is now about love--love of God, love of neighbor. Different verses are about different contexts.

Apostle Paul condemns Men having sex with males. Note that males is a different term than Men. Men means adult men, males mean young boys, slaves. Men could rape slaves and boys. Men could have sex with children. Back then it was about power, the powerful could lord their power over weaker people. It is where the term Cuck comes from.

In Leviticus it condemns the same thing, but the new context is men having sex with male prostitutes, in pagan societies. Back then it was about moral behavior. Note that it also says eating shell fish and touching pig skin is a sin. Wearing mixed garments is a sin. The Bible is ignorant toward gay love. Back then it was about power and weakness.

Gay love is all through history. God loves them equally.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 02/23/21 1:13pm

TrivialPursuit

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

The Bible has a vast history--sadly--of being weaponized for evil intent. But that does not mean it is the Bible's fault or what the writer or writers wrote. Right wingers have misused Bible quotes for their own socially obtuse gain. They use selective lines to crap on our gay and trans peeps. But what they use is taken out of context or merely lied upon.

There are several problematic verses that seem to lead one to thinking that gay behavior is a sin. Best to look into the words and adding context. First, there is the fact that the Bible is old, it was written when gay love was unknown. Just as germ theory was unknown. Jesus even says not to wash your hands. When they mention adultery they always mean the woman doing it not the man. Two factors are present: the Jewish Bible, Old Testament is about the law. It concerns personal behavior of the ancient Israelis, who are under the yoke of Egypt, Babylon, etc. The New Testament is about grace--The law is now about love--love of God, love of neighbor. Different verses are about different contexts.

Apostle Paul condemns Men having sex with males. Note that males is a different term than Men. Men means adult men, males mean young boys, slaves. Men could rape slaves and boys. Men could have sex with children. Back then it was about power, the powerful could lord their power over weaker people. It is where the term Cuck comes from.

In Leviticus it condemns the same thing, but the new context is men having sex with male prostitutes, in pagan societies. Back then it was about moral behavior. Note that it also says eating shell fish and touching pig skin is a sin. Wearing mixed garments is a sin. The Bible is ignorant toward gay love. Back then it was about power and weakness.

Gay love is all through history. God loves them equally.


You are making valid points. And let me give some personal context: I'm a gay man, as most know. In my 20s, I was convinced it was a "lifestyle" and I was in sin. I put myself through pray-the-gay-away therapy for years. It damaged me so much, and for so long. I'll be 53 in March, and there are still elements of that "therapy" that I fight. I used to quote Romans, Leviticus, etc., over and over trying to convince myself being gay was wrong. It did nothing but make me sucidial, make me hate myself, and carry extreme guilt for anything remotely gay (looking at a guy, feeling attraction, etc).

Paul hated women and endorsed slavery. The bible says you have to rightly divide the word of God, which I believe supports your statement of context. One has to understand the traditions and mindsets of people in the first century or second century. Everything was different. Folks had lives not like the life we live today. Everything was ceremony, laws, rules, and religion-centered. (I know, I know, sounds like 2021, but you get the point.) Paul's words are those of a mere mortal who was wrapped up in religiosity for a good part of his life. Doesn't mean he didn't have valid points and there aren't moments that we can take away as helpful in our own lives. But - context.

In Romans, when Paul talks about effiminate men, Christians connecting that to being gay is beyond homophobic; as if all gay men are effiminate? Those parts in Roman do talk about the young boy slaves around the temples that priests and others fucked. They were sex slaves. It's an easy confusion since the church lumps pedophiles, beastiality, sex work, child sex trafficking, and the like together. When I called the cops on my father for fucking a kid for 10 years, my mother (they were divorced) immediately asked if he was gay. So that whole conversation happened. ::sigh::

You make a great point about grace. I don't think people understand that word or really get the implication of it in Christianity and how it relates to human beings. Christ actually only gave two commandments. Love God, and love each other as God loved you.

I once interviewed someone from Westboro Baptist Church, and they tried to divide the different laws in the Old Testament: moral and practical. Of course, that would be the argument from someone who carries signs that says "God Hates Fags."

I don't think the bible is ignorant toward gay love. Moreover, it's quiet on it. Much the same way it's quiet on things like cremation. My mother called me a few years before she would suddenly pass away, and asked me when I thought the bible said about cremation and if it was a sin or right or wrong. I told her to my knowledge it didn't say anything, but that people cremated bodies for centuries through the years. And how would the bible stand on those who died in fires. They were, in effect, cremated. So did they die in sin or something? Of course not. (Just showing how one can go down a rabbit hole.) Ultimately, my mother, when she died April 21, 2012, was cremated per her wishes.

As far as gay love, I think David's story was quite possibly - at least at its core - a bromance with benefits. Possibly a lot more. There was also a moment in the New Testament when Jesus blessed a man and his servant or something, which people saw as a gay couple.

"eye don’t really care so much what people say about me because it is a reflection of who they r."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 02/25/21 3:05pm

lust

avatar

lol

If you have to twist yourself into a pretzel to make that book sound morally relevant, maybe don’t bother and just chuck it out.

“Males is a different word to Men and it means kids and slaves”. Ffs.

1) No It doesn’t.
2) That’s English. Make a justification for the different meanings in the original language of the text.
3) A divinely inspired rule with life and death consequences to be so ambiguous as to be unintelligible is not great evidence of an all loving and all knowing creator.
4) If we put all that aside and accept that the law is a prohibition on raping young boys and slaves (pfft) then the next line becomes all the more grotesque and if that god exists then it’s evidence of an evil beyond reckoning. “

"If a man lies with a male (young boy according to Freaky) as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13[2]”
If the milk turns out to be sour, I aint the kinda pussy to drink it!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 02/25/21 3:27pm

TrivialPursuit

avatar

Well, since the majority of people don't have the original text, nor have degrees in language, anthropology, theology, or history, they're dependant on the people who spoke the King's English - and frankly spoke English differently than we do today because no one today says "thou" or "sayeth" - and translated it under King (homosexual) James in the early 17th century.

It's sad that white males have translated the texts over the years to constantly reflect an oppressive patriarchy (when none of the folks in the texts were white to begin with). Half of them probably sucked a dick at some point anyway.

And yes, those words were different, and things like "those who are effiminate" meant something very different than... wait, no one mentioned gay people in the New Testament anyway.

Next.

"eye don’t really care so much what people say about me because it is a reflection of who they r."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 02/26/21 12:46pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

lust, talk about twists. You get the same thing with the term virgin. The Greek is actually Young Woman, not Virgin. Mary was probably a teen. Hell is actually Gehenna, a seperation from God, not hell fire. Both Rome and Greece were rife with slavery and man-boy sex. The Christians condemned it because it was pagan. As I said Bible is ignorant of Gay love.

Bishop Spong has surmised that Apostle Paul was gay.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 02/26/21 1:47pm

lust

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

lust, talk about twists. You get the same thing with the term virgin. The Greek is actually Young Woman, not Virgin. Mary was probably a teen. Hell is actually Gehenna, a seperation from God, not hell fire. Both Rome and Greece were rife with slavery and man-boy sex. The Christians condemned it because it was pagan. As I said Bible is ignorant of Gay love.



Bishop Spong has surmised that Apostle Paul was gay.



And punishing a young boy who has been raped with death is ok because.....?
If the milk turns out to be sour, I aint the kinda pussy to drink it!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 02/26/21 2:01pm

lust

avatar

TrivialPursuit said:


Well, since the majority of people don't have the original text, nor have degrees in language, anthropology, theology, or history, they're dependant on the people who spoke the King's English - and frankly spoke English differently than we do today because no one today says "thou" or "sayeth" - and translated it under King (homosexual) James in the early 17th century.

It's sad that white males have translated the texts over the years to constantly reflect an oppressive patriarchy (when none of the folks in the texts were white to begin with). Half of them probably sucked a dick at some point anyway.

And yes, those words were different, and things like "those who are effiminate" meant something very different than... wait, no one mentioned gay people in the New Testament anyway.

Next.



If a divinely inspired rule book to last the ages is so open to misunderstanding and ambiguity as to render it largely useless of achieving its purpose of conveying God’s will to the people then that in itself is evidence that it’s not divinely inspired by an all knowing and all loving god because that claim is logically inconsistent with the reality it’s created.

If we can so easily manipulate the bible to match our own inherent views on morality then it becomes redundant. Stick it in the trash and trust yourself to be good person. I think slavery is abhorrent. End of story. I don’t have the burden of pretending that the bible doesn’t permit it with nonsense like “indentured servitude”.

Every system is perfectly designed for the results that it achieves.
If the milk turns out to be sour, I aint the kinda pussy to drink it!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 02/26/21 3:39pm

TrivialPursuit

avatar

lust said:


.... Stick it in the trash and trust yourself to be good person....


You keep talking about chunking it in the trash. You're not interested in it. That's fine. Others are, and that's fine, too. The conversation mostly involves those who do believe in it, and want to dig into the history.

"eye don’t really care so much what people say about me because it is a reflection of who they r."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 02/26/21 4:05pm

lust

avatar

TrivialPursuit said:



lust said:



.... Stick it in the trash and trust yourself to be good person....


You keep talking about chunking it in the trash. You're not interested in it. That's fine. Others are, and that's fine, too. The conversation mostly involves those who do believe in it, and want to dig into the history.



I misspoke. It shouldn’t be thrown in the trash. We need to know the mistakes of the past so that we don’t repeat them. To that end, I’m very interested in it.
But I do understand that it can be triggering to have someone shine a light on the dark side of something that people revere and suggesting that they keep quiet.

And it’s not about being “not being interested in it”. As long as it’s effects hurt people and inform how society treats people then we are all stakeholders in it whether we revere it or not.
[Edited 2/26/21 16:13pm]
If the milk turns out to be sour, I aint the kinda pussy to drink it!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > No, the Bible is not homophobic.