Is the Bible Homophobic?

[Silvertusk]

Bit of a controversial question but there is going to be a "Grill a Christian" discussion at the school I teach which I am on the panel for. I have my own views on this question - but I would appreciated some more learned responses for the inevitable asking of this question.

Thank you in advance.

God Bless.

Silvertusk.

[Ivellious]

I guess it depends on your definition of "homophobic" is. If you simply take it to mean "disapproves/condemns homosexuality" then you would probably have a case to say yes. If you mean it as "hates homosexuals" or "teaches fear/hate/prejudice against homosexuals" then you would have more of a gray area. You'll probably find plenty of people who could argue it says both of those things...I guess this would be a question of interpretation in that sense.

[neo-x]

The bible can not be homophobic or racist or sexist...people can and are homophobic, racist and sexist. Hope that clears a confusion here.

Calling homosexuality shameful, as paul says in the N.T is not a homophobic behaviour because his objection to homosexuality does not arise from hatred of homosexuals, rather it being a sin in front of God, he disagrees with it on theological grounds, not personal prejudice or inherent hatred of gay people. I am sure there were many gay people in 1st century greece, rome and even israel, and I am certain that many of them would have followed jesus in the huge crowds he used to attract. That being said, the N.T specifically does not count homosexuality exclusive and atop of other unacceptable practices or lifestyles, which includes alcohol and drugs as well. So you cannot say or no one can say the bible is homophobic, what they can best say is that a certain author is, and you can tackle it from there.

Regarding the O.T well the O.T is sexist by the modern definition of the word but not exactly in the context of the culture of that time and that same goes for gay people back then. You have to know that gay sex or just sex was more often part of the idol worship, that is why they carry severe punishment, the same goes for a any hebrew girl who turned prostitute and the same for a pagan priests and murderers and people who had sex with beasts, in the levitical law. So if someone does say its homophobic then they should also admit and explain why beasiality is forbidden and carries the same punishment and if that is okay too and what kind of phobia is that? In fact the same goes for people who married their mothers or sisters or kept both mother and sister, so incest is punished equally.

Also its really hard to ascertain whether such punishments were carried out to the dot, assuming that prostitution in Israel was never fully closed nor prostitutes were burned or stoned often, it is easy to conclude that the same happened to the gay men too, and to top that I am sure such gay relationships were never even admitted in public.

Cheers, I a'm back, just after a month.

[Silvertusk]

Neo!!

Missed you man!

[neo-x]

Neo!!

Missed you man!

Same here bro, same here.

[Silvertusk]

The bible can not be homophobic or racist or sexist...people can and are homophobic, racist and sexist. Hope that clears a confusion here.

Calling homosexuality shameful, as paul says in the N.T is not a homophobic behaviour because his objection to homosexuality does not arise from hatred of homosexuals, rather it being a sin in front of God, he disagrees with it on theological grounds, not personal prejudice or inherent hatred of gay people. I am sure there were many gay people in 1st century greece, rome and even israel, and I am certain that many of them would have followed jesus in the huge crowds he used to attract. That being said, the N.T specifically does not count homosexuality exclusive and atop of other unacceptable practices or lifestyles, which includes alcohol and drugs as well. So you cannot say or no one can say the bible is homophobic, what they can best say is that a certain author is, and you can tackle it from there.

Regarding the O.T well the O.T is sexist by the modern definition of the word but not exactly in the context of the culture of that time and that same goes for gay people back then. You have to know that gay sex or just sex was more often part of the idol worship, that is why they carry severe punishment, the same goes for a any hebrew girl who turned prostitute and the same for a pagan priests and murderers and people who had sex with beasts, in the levitical law. So if someone does say its homophobic then they should also admit and explain why beasiality is forbidden and carries the same punishment and if that is okay too and what kind of phobia is that? In fact the same goes for people who married their mothers or sisters or kept both mother and sister, so incest is punished equally.

Also its really hard to ascertain whether such punishments were carried out to the dot, assuming that prostitution in Israel was never fully closed nor prostitutes were burned or stoned often, it is easy to conclude that the same happened to the gay men too, and to top that I am sure such gay relationships were never even admitted in public.

Cheers, I a'm back, just after a month.

Thanks for that.

Would you say it was more the act of homosexuality that was the issue - such as sodomy rather than being homosexual itself?

As a teacher on this panel I obviously have to be careful what I say so I need to get the right angle for it.

My own view is this:
Israel in the OT was picked out to be a holy race (a light on a hill) and so very strict rules were enforced on them to prevent them falling prey to the pagan civilisations surrounding them. They were also told to multiply. The actual physical act of homosexuality (sodomy) was seen as a sin because it was going against God's commands at the time and not because people might have been homosexual themselves.

In today the strict rule of Leviticus do not apply here because we are under grace and Leviticus has played its part in highlighting our sinful nature and our need for salvation. The sin today is now being promiscuous and that is irrelevant whether you are straight or gay. Being in a loving gay relationship I personally do not see as problem but being promiscuous is. Although the physical act itself is still not appropriate for biological reasons as well as moral reasons.

Am I way off the mark here?

[Silvertusk]

In fact 1 Timothy 1:10 seems to point to that is was the practice itself that was the sin - i.e. the act.

At least in the NIV version

for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

[neo-x]

The bible can not be homophobic or racist or sexist...people can and are homophobic, racist and sexist. Hope that clears a confusion here.

Calling homosexuality shameful, as paul says in the N.T is not a homophobic behaviour because his objection to homosexuality does not arise from hatred of homosexuals, rather it being a sin in front of God, he disagrees with it on theological grounds, not personal prejudice or inherent hatred of gay people. I am sure there were many gay people in 1st century greece, rome and even israel, and I am certain that many of them would have followed jesus in the huge crowds he used to attract. That being said, the N.T specifically does not count homosexuality exclusive and atop of other unacceptable practices or lifestyles, which includes alcohol and drugs as well. So you cannot say or no one can say the bible is homophobic, what they can best say is that a certain author is, and you can tackle it from there.

Regarding the O.T well the O.T is sexist by the modern definition of the word but not exactly in the context of the culture of that time and that same goes for gay people back then. You have to know that gay sex or just sex was more often part of the idol worship, that is why they carry severe punishment, the same goes for a any hebrew girl who turned prostitute and the same for a pagan priests and murderers and people who had sex with beasts, in the levitical law. So if someone does say its homophobic then they should also admit and explain why beasiality is forbidden and carries the same punishment and if that is okay too and what kind of phobia is that? In fact the same goes for people who married their mothers or sisters or kept both mother and sister, so incest is punished equally.

Also its really hard to ascertain whether such punishments were carried out to the dot, assuming that prostitution in Israel was never fully closed nor prostitutes were burned or stoned often, it is easy to conclude that the same happened to the gay men too, and to top that I am sure such gay relationships were never even admitted in public.

Cheers, I a'm back, just after a month.

Thanks for that.

Would you say it was more the act of homosexuality that was the issue - such as sodomy rather than being homosexual itself?

As a teacher on this panel I obviously have to be careful what I say so I need to get the right angle for it.

My own view is this:
Israel in the OT was picked out to be a holy race (a light on a hill) and so very strict rules were enforced on them to prevent them falling prey to the pagan civilisations surrounding them. They were also told to multiply. The actual physical act of homosexuality (sodomy) was seen as a sin because it was going against God's commands at the time and not because people might have been homosexual themselves.

Would you say it was more the act of homosexuality that was the issue - such as sodomy rather than being homosexual itself?

I think it would be be problematic, and it would further push your point into an area where it may not be refuted but can be substantiated either. For example, imagine a student asking you, that one could equally argue regarding having lust towards animals, the act is sinful but the sinners are somehow not wrong to think or view it as such...does that makes sense?

My own opinion is, homosexuality was seen a sin and homosexuals were sinners, the same as the guy who broke the sabbath and was stoned. It is near impossible to separate the sinner from the sin in the O.T.

While you can draw that line, between sodomy and homosexual love, in the mind of the O.T they are one and the same. Sex is an expression of intimate love and a homosexual who loves another homosexual falls under that. And also that in context the levitical law promotes, man women relationships and disfavors same sex relationships whether they have sex or not is irrelevant. So to be proper, the same-sex relationship is the problem. Imagine a man-man couple in the O.T wanting marriage, taking oath that they will never perform sodomy? In your opinion would that be acceptable in the O.T? by the logic you are using it should be, but in context it isn't. The idea of same-sex relationship is forbidden in levi law.

In today the strict rule of Leviticus do not apply here because we are under grace and Leviticus has played its part in highlighting our sinful nature and our need for salvation. The sin today is now being promiscuous and that is irrelevant whether you are straight or gay. Being in a loving gay relationship I personally do not see as problem but being promiscuous is. Although the physical act itself is still not appropriate for biological reasons as well as moral reasons.

I don't think you will have much trouble from the N.T side.

[RickD]

Silvertusk wrote:
The sin today is now being promiscuous and that is irrelevant whether you are straight or gay. Being in a loving gay relationship I personally do not see as problem but being promiscuous is. Although the physical act itself is still not appropriate for biological reasons as well as moral reasons.

I think that's the politically correct answer. You'll have a difficult time justifying that from scripture. Sexual relations outside of marriage is a sin. And biblically, marriage is between one man and one woman. So, any sexual relations outside of that is sinful. So, a "committed" same sex, sexual relationship is sinful. I can't see any getting around that, biblically.

[Silvertusk]

Silvertusk wrote:
The sin today is now being promiscuous and that is irrelevant whether you are straight or gay. Being in a loving gay relationship I personally do not see as problem but being promiscuous is. Although the physical act itself is still not appropriate for biological reasons as well as moral reasons.

I think that's the politically correct answer. You'll have a difficult time justifying that from scripture. Sexual relations outside of marriage is a sin. And biblically, marriage is between one man and one woman. So, any sexual relations outside of that is sinful. So, a "committed" same sex, sexual relationship is sinful. I can't see any getting around that, biblically.

But at least that is not exclusive to homosexuals though - that applied for all relationships.

[Silvertusk]

Looking at all the different translations it exchanges the word homosexual with male prostitutes or sodomites or men who abuse other men - this does seem to be referring to people who are not in a loving relationship.

Also in the OT the neighbouring countries seemed to be into that sort of thing as part of their idolatry - so maybe it was a reference to that sort of behavior and not in reference to genuine loving relationships.

Possibility - or grasping at straws?

[neo-x]

Looking at all the different translations it exchanges the word homosexual with male prostitutes or sodomites or men who abuse other men - this does seem to be referring to people who are not in a loving relationship.

Also in the OT the neighbouring countries seemed to be into that sort of thing as part of their idolatry - so maybe it was a reference to that sort of behavior and not in reference to genuine loving relationships.

Possibility - or grasping at straws?

Matthew Vines has a similar view. I would say, ask yourself this, place yourself in the O.T for a minute and think about a same-gender relationship, being alright with the law, even without sex.

Anyway if you think this is best for you to say, than go for it. My humble remarks would be that its a "out of context" eisegesis, its built on the understanding of 21st century humanitarian christian mindset.

From the mindset of a hebrew in the times of the levi law, the conclusion would be different. In principle it should be read in context with its intended purpose.

[Silvertusk]

Looking at all the different translations it exchanges the word homosexual with male prostitutes or sodomites or men who abuse other men - this does seem to be referring to people who are not in a loving relationship.

Also in the OT the neighbouring countries seemed to be into that sort of thing as part of their idolatry - so maybe it was a reference to that sort of behavior and not in reference to genuine loving relationships.

Possibility - or grasping at straws?

Matthew Vines has a similar view. I would say, ask yourself this, place yourself in the O.T for a minute and think about a same-gender relationship, being alright with the law, even without sex.

Anyway if you think this is best for you to say, than go for it. My humble remarks would be that its a "out of context" eisegesis, its built on the understanding of 21st century humanitarian christian mindset.

From the mindset of a hebrew in the times of the levi law, the conclusion would be different. In principle it should be read in context with its intended purpose.

That is what I am trying to figure out - the true context of it. Was in reaction to the promiscious going on in neighbouring cultures especially with sodomy and male prostitution or was it just an outright ban on being gay. I will check out that link - thank you.

[RickD]

Silvertusk wrote:
The sin today is now being promiscuous and that is irrelevant whether you are straight or gay. Being in a loving gay relationship I personally do not see as problem but being promiscuous is. Although the physical act itself is still not appropriate for biological reasons as well as moral reasons.

I think that's the politically correct answer. You'll have a difficult time justifying that from scripture. Sexual relations outside of marriage is a sin. And biblically, marriage is between one man and one woman. So, any sexual relations outside of that is sinful. So, a "committed" same sex, sexual relationship is sinful. I can't see any getting around that, biblically.

But at least that is not exclusive to homosexuals though - that applied for all relationships.

Yes. But changing the definition of what marriage has always meant biblically, can't biblically justify committed same sex, sexual relationships.

[RickD]

Silvertusk wrote:
That is what I am trying to figure out - the true context of it. Was in reaction to the promiscious going on in neighbouring cultures especially with sodomy and male prostitution or was it just an outright ban on being gay. I will check out that link - thank you.

Scripture only condemns homosexual actions. If a heterosexual man has sexual relations with another man, it's still wrong, because the act is sinful. So in other words, it doesn't matter if a sexual act with someone of the same sex is committed by a heterosexual person, or a homosexual person. It's the act that's a sin.

Or, "being gay" is not a sin. It's the sexual act with someone of the same sex, that's the sin.

I like what WLC says on the subject:http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-christ ... osexuality