Celibate gay author says you 'can't get around' Bible's condemnation of homosexuality

It was as if Christopher Yuan was introducing himself at an addiction recovery meeting: "I am a Christian and I have homosexual feelings." Only Yuan's compass of faith points out no need to change his sexual orientation.

[AquariusNSF]

There is no need to get around anything. The Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality as we know and understand it today.

His comments reflect a lack of understanding of the ancient languages that the Bible was written in as well as the historical context in which these ancient texts were written.

[whitefalcon1678]

If we can get around the magical tree in a magical garden with magical people, then we can get around six obscure verses written by men who wanted their culture to procreate as much as possible so it wouldn't die.

[Rob]

AquariusNSF,

Care to expound on that interesting comment?
I agree with some of the conceptual differences that I've heard of before, but it would be nice to hear your opinions too.

Thanks!

[WeTheSheeple]

Who cares? If he wants to live his life that way, fine by me. Just don't think for even a second that his interpretation is any more relavent than the millions of other interpretations of the bible over the centuries.

[AquariusNSF]

Rob wrote:

AquariusNSF,
Care to expound on that interesting comment?
I agree with some of the conceptual differences that I've heard of before, but it would be nice to hear your opinions too.
Thanks!

What would you like me to expound on specifically??? Are you looking for my interpretation of the so-called clobber passages?

[Dubya]

As long as he stones his adulterous neighbors, eats Kosher food only, and follows all the other silly OT rules he's fine to expound on this ONE issue. If not, then he should shut the f*k up.

[scambuster]

The bible is full of warnings about homosexuality. The teachings of Jesus say NOTHING about being gay, however. Every condemnation in the new testament comes from gay hating, woman hating Paul.

Good thing that more and more people are turning away from that myth.

[AquariusNSF]

scambuster wrote:

The bible is full of warnings about homosexuality. The teachings of Jesus say NOTHING about being gay, however. Every condemnation in the new testament comes from gay hating, woman hating Paul.
Good thing that more and more people are turning away from that myth.

Actually Saul of Tarsus did not condemn homosexuality either. He did condemn temple prostitution (in Romans) and possibly rape (in I Corinthians).

[Mona Lott]

The Buybull? Ok..........

Like everybody follows all the rules in the Buybull.....sure they do.....

[John E]

Ya don't love God by hating yourself or others.

[Frank Stanton]

AquariusNSF wrote:

There is no need to get around anything. The Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality as we know and understand it today.
His comments reflect a lack of understanding of the ancient languages that the Bible was written in as well as the historical context in which these ancient texts were written.

I agree. I was having this type of discussion with my pastor last week, although we were not discussing homosexuality. I was telling him that I am having less and less faith in the accuracy of biblical translations and I pointed out a number of things and I'll mention only 2 of them here.(I mentioned more than 2 to my pastor).

One of the things I pointed out is the use of the term "strong drink" in the bible. Many people today I think would naturally assume that it meant hard liquor such as Whisky or vodka or some other such liquor. But liquor as we know it today, i.e. an alcoholic beverage with an alcoholic content of more than 15% did not exist in biblical times. Alcoholic beverages with an alcoholic content of more than 15% can only be produced by distillation. Distillation of alcohol was not invented until about the 11th century or 12th century.

So what does the English term "strong drink" mean as used in the bible ? It means "BEER" ! And beer is CERTAINLY NOT what people nowadays think of has "strong drink" ! The translators should use the word "beer" to make the meaning clear.

Another English word used fairly often in the bible is "leprosy". what we recognized as leprosy today is called Hansen's disease, and it is caused by the bacteria Mycobacterium leprae and Mycobacterium lepromatosis.

But the Hebrew word used is transliterated into English as "Tzaraath". But this Hebrew word, in addition to being applicable to humans is used in the Torah to apply to both animate as well as inanimate objects. The Torah discusses tzaraath that afflicts humans, clothing and houses.

So CLEARLY the disease leprosy, i.e. Hansen's Disease, CANNOT be an accurate translation. The word "Tzaraath" means "broken down", "disrepair", etc.

These two well-known examples show WHY modern translations of the bible are not accurate.

I do NOT believe that homosexuality, as an innate characteristic of a person, is mentioned anywhere in the bible. I have discussed this matter with MANY pastors of different religious denominations, and they agree. I have actually NOT met many pastors who condemn homosexuality in general, and gay people in particular. On the contrary, nearly 99% of all the the pastors I have met over the years (I have gone "church shopping a couple of times over the years, and have been to many churches of several denominations in my college years) welcome gay and lesbian people.

[McMike]

Can we just cut to the chase and state the facts on what the original text of the Bible states in these six clobber passages?

Leviticus: The term "as with" is an incorrect translation since it means 'bed' every other time it's used in Leviticus. Leviticus 15 gives a long list of bed issues and the clobber passage from Corinthians, which is a direct reference to these two scriptures, specifically says "bed" in it. Also, the term 'towebah', translated to 'abomination', can only be found to convey ritually impure offenses. The correct term for a moral abomination,'zimah,' was not used.

S&G: Attempted rape. If this was actually a mob of homosexuals Lot was either too dumb to realize he should have been offering up the men in the house, and not the women, or Lot was placing limits on what he was going to do to protect God's angels. None the less, it's a gang of men trying to rape the angels.

Romans: It's a letter about Pagan idolatry. If you notice, homophobes always start off their scripture with "For this reason" because if they included the preceding verse it's obvious "for this reason" was due to the Pagans rejecting God. It's another condemnation of their rituals and both male and female temple prostitution is widely condemned through out the Bible.

Corinthians: Paul specifically said "male bed" and "soft" (as in morals). He did not use any common Greek term to describe sex between men. The terms as so vague it was condemning masturbation less than a hundred years ago.

What I find interesting is Jesus did come across a homosexual via the Roman Centurion (Spartacus anyone?) and the term "pais" describes the younger male lover in a homosexual relationship. Not only did Jesus not say "Go and sin no more" but said of him, "Never have I seen faith greater than this." Jesus also mentions homosexuals, without an ounce of condemnation, as "born eunuchs" in Matthew. There's also a theory that Jesus and John were in a homosexual relationship (ie, "The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved"). Seeing John was the only one at the cross and was the only one which Jesus saved from dying as a martyr (John was boiled in oil and survived w/out a scratch) lends credit, IMHO, to this theory.

[snyper]

Here's the fruit of "condemnation"

HORROR !!!

http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/article/pr...

[Gay And Proud]

All those who have a problem with dismissing the passages in the Bible that have been used to justify homophobia should be required to explain to everyone why they have no problem dismissing passages such as those that condone slavery.

It makes no sense to me why they feel they should be rather loose with the Biblical teachings about slavery, yet turn around and be strict with the anti-gay stuff.

[AquariusNSF]

I found this to be quite interesting:

Council of Churches Dialogue on Homosexuality and the Bible with UFMCC.

To discuss homosexuality, Robin Scroggs and Byron Schaffer were the only two scholars to present. When asked why a scholar was not brought in to present the other side, that the Bible does condemn homosexuality, "they said no scholar would argue that the Bible condemns homosexuality because it clearly does not; even if they personally feel homosexuality is wrong they would never argue that the Bible says so as a scholar".

When the National Council of Churches can't find a reputable scholar to say the Bible condemns homosexuals, it is such a travesty that most Churches continue to teach bigotry and want to sell it as Biblical scholarship.

http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section02...

[ronscape]

AquariusNSF wrote:

There is no need to get around anything. The Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality as we know and understand it today.
His comments reflect a lack of understanding of the ancient languages that the Bible was written in as well as the historical context in which these ancient texts were written.

Jesus never condemned homosexuality. The only two things he condemned were divorce and hypocrisy. And St. Paul said the laws of the Old Testament were void, so one does not need to be circumcised and one can eat pork.

[AquariusNSF]

ronscape wrote:

<quoted text>
Jesus never condemned homosexuality. The only two things he condemned were divorce and hypocrisy. And St. Paul said the laws of the Old Testament were void, so one does not need to be circumcised and one can eat pork.

Well, Jesus did condemned more than just two things. However, you are correct that He never condemned homosexuality. McMike's comments about Jesus are good ones.

I prefer to focus on what Jesus told us to do rather than what He told us not to. Jesus told us to love G-d and to love others.

[Frank Stanton]

Gay And Proud wrote:

All those who have a problem with dismissing the passages in the Bible that have been used to justify homophobia should be required to explain to everyone why they have no problem dismissing passages such as those that condone slavery.
It makes no sense to me why they feel they should be rather loose with the Biblical teachings about slavery, yet turn around and be strict with the anti-gay stuff.

I agree, and this is a very important point. IMHO I beleive that slavery, which STILL exists, as almost as bad as rape and murder. One CANNOT "own" another human being.

[Jack]

"Holy" books are rorscharch-esque. What a person "sees" in them tells me more about the person than the validity of the interpretation.
Such texts make convenient justification for ANY viewpoint.
Yuan's take on scriptural inkblots is perfectly fine. For him.
Where's the newsworthiness of this piece? The caption should have read: "Man has an opinion".

[Frank Stanton]

Jack wrote:

"Holy" books are rorscharch-esque. What a person "sees" in them tells me more about the person than the validity of the interpretation.
Such texts make convenient justification for ANY viewpoint.
Yuan's take on scriptural inkblots is perfectly fine. For him.
Where's the newsworthiness of this piece? The caption should have read: "Man has an opinion".

I agree. Hence the many different Christian denominations.