The Bible and Gay Marriage

[WindyCitySports 407]

Alright, so I am in a political discussion group, and recently a radical social conservative was added. Discussions had with him led me to really look into what the Bible says about gay marriage. There are some verses that condemn it, namely in Leviticus and Romans.

 

However, some further reading and searching led me to four verses that suggest that homosexuality MAY not be a sin, including one from Matthew, known as a book that is practically from Jesus himself. In addition, I have included three related verses.

 

The Story of Jonathan and David:

 

I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women. (2 Samuel 1:26)

 

As soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father's house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt. (1 Samuel 18:1-4)

 

And as soon as the boy had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and fell on his face to the ground and bowed three times. And they kissed one another and wept with one another, David weeping the most. (1 Samuel 20:41)

 

Other verses:

 

For there are eunuchs who are born thus from their mothers womb, and there are eunuchs who are made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who are eunuchs for the kingdom of heavens sake. Let those who can accept it, accept it. (Matthew 19:12)

 

Do not judge lest you be judged. For the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)

 

And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7)

 

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

 

I am interested in what you all thought of this. The common understanding is that Christians should stand firm against homosexuality, but could the way that the Bible has been interpreted thus far have biases and prejudices covering the real interpretation? Do you believe these verses actually sympathize with homosexuality or no? I am just hitting the surface of a new "progressive Christianity" journey I have been on, so I am new to all of this.

 

I am also especially intrigued to see what DMac will have to say.

Edited February 27, 2013 by WindyCitySports

[OSUViking 505]

From my own interpretation, the verses in Leviticus/Old Testament are saying don't treat a man like you would your lover. Women were treated horridly back then and if you were to treat a man like you would your lover (your spouse, a woman), it would be an insult to him. This is just my interpretation.

 

Then again, I haven't read the Bible in like four years so I'm not up-to-date on this.

[OSUViking 505]

ok that is practically from Jesus himself. In addition, I have included three related verses.

 

 

 

I am interested in what you all thought of this. The common understanding is that Christians should stand firm against homosexuality, but could the way that the Bible has been interpreted thus far have biases and prejudices covering the real interpretation? Do you believe these verses actually sympathize with homosexuality or no? I am just hitting the surface of a new "progressive Christianity" journey I have been on, so I am new to all of this.

 

I am also especially intrigued to see what DMac will have to say.

 

 

@bolded: This isn't a "could"; people have interpreted the Bible, picked the verses they wanted to agree with and ignored the ones they disagreed with, and completely (sometimes knowingly) fucked up the intentional message to spread their own beliefs. This is why I see the Bible as another form of propaganda. It's used to spread an ideology (a lot of times forcefully, historically at least), so I see it as a form of propaganda. One of the reasons I avoid it at all costs is because it's so dangerous; one person can read it and think he should go help starving children in the Third World, yet another person can interpret it as his calling to go overtly attack a group of people.

 

This is just my opinion (except for the first sentence... that's not even debatable), and I don't mean any offense to any Christians on the Palace.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Eh, to me the Bible is pretty clearly against homosexuality. All attempts to interpret it otherwise seem like grasping at straws.

 

Coincidentally, this is the same feeling I have about trying to interpret the constitution to be opposed to it.

Edited February 27, 2013 by blotsfan

[CARDINAL 205]

@bolded: This isn't a "could"; people have interpreted the Bible, picked the verses they wanted to agree with and ignored the ones they disagreed with, and completely (sometimes knowingly) fucked up the intentional message to spread their own beliefs. This is why I see the Bible as another form of propaganda. It's used to spread an ideology (a lot of times forcefully, historically at least), so I see it as a form of propaganda. One of the reasons I avoid it at all costs is because it's so dangerous; one person can read it and think he should go help starving children in the Third World, yet another person can interpret it as his calling to go overtly attack a group of people.

 

This is just my opinion (except for the first sentence... that's not even debatable), and I don't mean any offense to any Christians on the Palace.

 

I mostly agree with your objective analysis!

The thing that bothers me the most is that people seem to harshly critize Christians and Christianity, but rarely and mildly when they do critize Islam. Islam has a way more violent history, but I think people are generally afraid (in some cases justifiably so) to be critical of Islam because they are scared that some Muslim will come to kill them. This happened and continues to happen to a Danish cartoonist who simply did a cartoon about the Prophet Muhammad. A Somali man tried to kill him with a fuckin axe. This never happens when someone is critical of Judaism, Christianity or any other religion because members of those religions know that people who make comments or do cartoons or other forms of expression being critical of their particular religion are usually ignorant to the true meaning and practices of their faith!

 

This double standard is quite sad because it gives a moral victory to radical Muslims who want to impose their world view and particular interpretation on the world and other sects of Islam. Very disturbing fact indeed!

[BwareDWare94 723]

I mostly agree with your objective analysis!

The thing that bothers me the most is that people seem to harshly critize Christians and Christianity, but rarely and mildly when they do critize Islam. Islam has a way more violent history, but I think people are generally afraid (in some cases justifiably so) to be critical of Islam because they are scared that some Muslim will come to kill them. This happened and continues to happen to a Danish cartoonist who simply did a cartoon about the Prophet Muhammad. A Somali man tried to kill him with a fuckin axe. This never happens when someone is critical of Judaism, Christianity or any other religion because members of those religions know that people who make comments or do cartoons or other forms of expression being critical of their particular religion are usually ignorant to the true meaning and practices of their faith!

 

This double standard is quite sad because it gives a moral victory to radical Muslims who want to impose their world view and particular interpretation on the world and other sects of Islam. Very disturbing fact indeed!

 

Did you just say that Christianity is more harshly criticized than Islam?

 

I am baffled.

[OSUViking 505]

I'm more baffled by the ignorance of Christianity's rather violent and oppressive history.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

I mostly agree with your objective analysis!

The thing that bothers me the most is that people seem to harshly critize Christians and Christianity, but rarely and mildly when they do critize Islam. Islam has a way more violent history, but I think people are generally afraid (in some cases justifiably so) to be critical of Islam because they are scared that some Muslim will come to kill them. This happened and continues to happen to a Danish cartoonist who simply did a cartoon about the Prophet Muhammad. A Somali man tried to kill him with a fuckin axe. This never happens when someone is critical of Judaism, Christianity or any other religion because members of those religions know that people who make comments or do cartoons or other forms of expression being critical of their particular religion are usually ignorant to the true meaning and practices of their faith!

 

This double standard is quite sad because it gives a moral victory to radical Muslims who want to impose their world view and particular interpretation on the world and other sects of Islam. Very disturbing fact indeed!

 

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Windy you're killing me!! >_> I was hoping to stay outa this one. haha. But nooooo... You had to call me out yo.

 

Anyway I was pretty much gonna say what blotsfan said.

 

With the whole story of 2nd Samuel, they were just really close. At least that's how I see it.

[OSUViking 505]

Enough talk about the Bible's view on gay people... we have an ignorant post we must ridicule until we are all bored.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Windy you're killing me!! >_> I was hoping to stay outa this one. haha. But nooooo... You had to call me out yo.

 

Anyway I was pretty much gonna say what blotsfan said.

 

With the whole story of 2nd Samuel, they were just really close. At least that's how I see it.

 

Thank you for stating that, because there really is legitimate reason for the way Windy is interpreting it. I understand there's a language/transitional barrier, but it says what it says. I tend to side with you, but I think we should definitely acknowledge that it could be otherwise.

[ATL_Predator+ 1,196]

It's pretty clear the Bible is against homosexuality, and that God hates the sin that is committed, but not the individual. Old Testament is full of principles and many practices that do not exist anymore (generally) in modern society. The words and commands of Jesus are generally followed, but He never states out front that it is a sin. However, the words of His Father discuss that it is clearly a sin.

 

We are all of fallen nature, and we all do stupid sinful things, but that does not mean God hates us in any way.

[seanbrock 1,684]

It's pretty clear the Bible is against homosexuality, and that God hates the sin that is committed, but not the individual. Old Testament is full of principles and many practices that do not exist anymore (generally) in modern society. The words and commands of Jesus are generally followed, but He never states out front that it is a sin. However, the words of His Father discuss that it is clearly a sin.

 

We are all of fallen nature, and we all do stupid sinful things, but that does not mean God hates us in any way.

I guess God just creates people with flaws so he can condemn them to eternal damnation. God must have a really fucking dark sense of humor.

[oochymp 2,393]

From my own interpretation, the verses in Leviticus/Old Testament are saying don't treat a man like you would your lover. Women were treated horridly back then and if you were to treat a man like you would your lover (your spouse, a woman), it would be an insult to him. This is just my interpretation.

 

Then again, I haven't read the Bible in like four years so I'm not up-to-date on this.

I hate it when people cite to Leviticus in political arguments because nobody seems to understand what Leviticus is, it's the code of law for the ancient Hebrews, its useful in reading the Old Testament because it provides a great context for those parts of scriptures, but if you're using it as the base of your argument for how our laws should be structured you might as well cite Hammurabi's Code

[OSUViking 505]

I hate it when people cite to Leviticus in political arguments because nobody seems to understand what Leviticus is, it's the code of law for the ancient Hebrews, its useful in reading the Old Testament because it provides a great context for those parts of scriptures, but if you're using it as the base of your argument for how our laws should be structured you might as well cite Hammurabi's Code

 

That was kind of my point, lol. Leviticus mostly focuses on dictating the laws of the ancient Hebrews and shouldn't apply much to our society.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Vikingfan465

[Thanatos 2,847]

I guess God just creates people with flaws so he can condemn them to eternal damnation. God must have a really fucking dark sense of humor.

 

No Christian that I've met who believes that homosexuality is wrong also believes that they don't have a choice in the matter. Take that for what its worth. It would be pretty twisted if they didn't have a choice in the matter.

 

OT: Again, this is a language/culture barrier. For centuries, the Jews written history of David and Jonathan did not contain one word about their relationship extending beyond brotherly love. I understand that to an English reader, weeping with another guy and kissing him on the cheeks, as is/was custom in the Middle East, is very very weird to do with just a good friend, but that simply wasn't the case. David and Jonathan were simply best friends.

 

Given the dialogue in Romans chapter 1, it seems pretty obvious that the Bible is against homosexuality, even throwing out anything from the Old Testament. I've never heard of any interpretation that states otherwise that doesn't seem to egregiously twist the text.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Thanatos19

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I posted this in the other thread we had on the massive topic, but I am far too lazy and tired right now to look for it...

 

But basically, I am not sure if God likes sex at all -- not just gay sex. It seems to be more so viewed as a necessary evil for reproduction purposes. I also came to the conclusion that it was the sex that was condemned, and not the actual feelings towards someone of the same gender.

 

EDIT: Oh, and I am not saying that is the "right" way to go about the subject. Or even what I believe. Just some critical thinking and evaluation after some research.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Favre4Ever

[ATL_Predator+ 1,196]

The only sex God approves of is sex within marriage. Only honourable way it's to be done according to the Bible.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I wonder what everyone's views on pre-marital sex and casual sex are. That'd be an interesting topic.

[ATL_Predator+ 1,196]

I wonder what everyone's views on pre-marital sex and casual sex are. That'd be an interesting topic.

I'd say an overwhelming majority of this board doesn't have a problem with either.

[Phins4life 271]

The thing that bothers me the most is that people seem to harshly critize Christians and Christianity, but rarely and mildly when they do critize Islam.

 

Something tells me you haven't spent much time in the South. I grew up around "red-blooded" Americans who had no problem calling every Muslim a haji or sand n*****. It wouldn't surprise me if a number of those same people actually believe Jesus was white.

 

Islam has a way more violent history

 

Not sure about that one, but I certainly don't have the credentials to flat out say it's wrong. Just keep in mind such things as witch hunts (Salem, etc.), the Inquisition, and the Crusades can all be attributed to Christians and the Church's assertion of power on (usually) powerless people or groups. Hitler blended his own interpretations of religion and eugenics to became one of the single greatest mass murderers in history. The KKK and Neo-Nazis (just to name a couple) tend to have twisted Christian undertones in their ideologies, and they are also responsible for their own fair share of violence.

 

My point here is that while the Abrahamic faiths all advocate peace, they each have their fair share of gratuitous spilling of blood, thanks to the idiots who twist the text to meet their needs.

 

"As long as there has been one true God there has been killing in his name."

[Thanatos 2,847]

Hitler was strongly affected by evolution, eugenics, and the idea of Friedrich Nietzche's "master race." He was most certainly not a Christian. I've seen several professors try to blame Christianity for Hitler's ideals, but that is completely false. He was obsessed with making the Aryans fill the role of Nietzche's "Ubermensch" (Overman).

 

The ideals of social darwinism can be just as dangerous as some religious nutcase, if it is used by a deranged maniac. Humans can take whatever they want and twist it.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Thanatos19

[WindyCitySports 407]

Windy you're killing me!! >_> I was hoping to stay outa this one. haha. But nooooo... You had to call me out yo.

 

Anyway I was pretty much gonna say what blotsfan said.

 

With the whole story of 2nd Samuel, they were just really close. At least that's how I see it.

I understand that the story of Jonathan and David can be interpreted many different ways, but let's just say I think there is STRONG evidence to show that they had an intimate relationship. First of all, it says that their love "surpassed the love of women." This quote suggests that they may have had stronger feelings toward each other than women.

 

Next, it says that their souls were "knitted together" and they made a "covenant." The first phrase there suggests that they were bound together. The word "covenant" is used frequently in the Bible to describe marriage.

 

Obviously it is a controversial story and I am unsure of whether or not I am convinced that they were lovers, but there is a lot of room for interpretation there and the fact that the story was NEVER mentioned in my years of attending religious services nearly every week frustrates me and has motivated me to do a complete read-through of the Bible this summer.

 

Also, let me point out that the examples that I gave in the OP were quite notable. The story of Jonathan and David took up a good portion of Samuel, and the fourth quote was from Matthew, a book well-known as the words of Jesus himself. The verses used to condemn homosexuality are largely from the Old Testament, most notable Leviticus. In those books, an extreme caution must be taken with historical context, as they also condemn women and condone slavery.

 

In summary, I will not say that the Bible is fully on board with homosexuality, but I think there is a lot of interpreting to do and there have been a lot of passages that have been intentionally hidden over the years to cover up any question to Priest/Pastor's condemnation of homosexuality.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Your definition of "strong" is very different than most people's. You need more than "it may be interpreted to mean something different" to challenge where it explicitly says homosexuality is wrong. Also, the Book of Samuel so you can't count the David and Jonathan thing without counting the homosexuality is evil thing.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Hitler was strongly affected by evolution, eugenics, and the idea of Friedrich Nietzche's "master race." He was most certainly not a Christian. I've seen several professors try to blame Christianity for Hitler's ideals, but that is completely false. He was obsessed with making the Aryans fill the role of Nietzche's "Ubermensch" (Overman).

 

The ideals of social darwinism can be just as dangerous as some religious nutcase, if it is used by a deranged maniac. Humans can take whatever they want and twist it.

 

That's a pretty far-fetched analogy you've concocted there. People don't fight for and die for social darwinism, at least not at the state level.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Phailadelphia