An essay donated by Anthony Ashford
Part 1: Six biblical reasons why Christians should
embrace same-sex Relationships.
Better Believe It...
The Bible Shows Us SIX Reasons!
Sponsored link
Summary:
While so many Christians in the world believe that gays and lesbians CANNOT go to Heaven, simply because of the interpretations of about 20 verses out of the nearly 31,000 verses in the Christian Bible, I’d like to argue that this anti-gay perception actually goes AGAINST what the Bible and what Christ really say about people who love people of the opposite sex.
I will present six compelling Biblical arguments, using theology, socio-cultural understandings of specific Biblical settings, and good old common sense & logic to prove that the Bible should be used as an ally for same gender-loving relationships.
Reason six: The biblical passages typically used to "condemn" LGB relationships are NOT talking about LGB relationships:
While I'm not trying to sound like a Biblical scholar or know-it-all, it irks me how blind so many Christians are to the historical context of the stories, which are typically used to condemn gay people and the fact of being gay.
Below are the some facts about the Biblical time periods, in which the "Clobber Passages," the texts typically used to say "The Bible clearly states that being gay is a sin," take place. Take note, as you might learn something new about Biblical ambiguities in the Scripture.
Why do I call these passages “ridiculously-used”? Check out these passages from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and Christian Scriptures (New Testament):
Genesis 2: 19-25 “Adam and Eve:”
“In the beginning, God made Adam and EVE, not Adam and Steve, nor Eve and Jane.” Anti-gay Christian ministers have used this as a crux to propagate the myth that homosexuality is "unnatural."
While the Bible in Genesis tells us that God made “male and female,” does this really mean that all males and all females need to end up with opposite sex partners?
When talking about "what's natural," in the beginning, the first humans did not wear prescription glasses to see, use wheelchairs to get around, or attach prosthetic limbs to enhance mobility. Are all of those aspects of humanity "unnatural"?
Many translations say that God makes Adam a “suitable helper/companion.” While Adam already had all the animals of the world under his dominion, God saw that Adam was alone and he needed a “suitable” helper, who just so happened to be first lady Eve.
Relating this to our own lives, so many of us are surrounded by many “helpers” and “companions,” but, only a few, maybe one, are truly suitable to aid and comfort a person throughout his or her life. People who are gay or lesbian maybe surrounded by heterosexual mates who are perfectly “adequate” helpers, but the “suitable helper and companion” that God has made for them is not a person of the opposite sex. Plus, if gay people are not meant to be with their “suitable helper/companions,” are they meant to be alone, without a helper? I believe God would say “no,” according to Genesis 2: 18.
Genesis 19: 1-13 “Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction:”
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Basically, God says that He's going to destroy cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, if two angels cannot find any good people within the towns. Once the angels arrive, a kind man named Lot invites these angels into his home and entertains them. This angers the cities' men, and the men rallied outside of Lot's home, wishing to do "perverse actions" to these male angels. Moments later, the two cities are destroyed by fiery rain.
Many anti-gay Christian ministers use this passage to say that this is an example of God’s wrath against homosexuality...as if the men of Sodom were all gay, and all trying to "be gay with" these male angels.
Historians and sociologists tell us that gang rape was a very common form of brutal humiliation of the subjects, in the ancient Western world. The Sodomite men did not come to Lot’s house to have monogamous, committed, loving relationships with the male angels residing there. They came to rape these angels.
Also, MULTIPLE parts of the Bible (Luke 10: 10-13; Isaiah 19: 13-14; Jeremiah 23: 14; Ezekiel 16: 49; Zephaniah 2: 8-11) tell us that God despised the greed and their wickedness toward outsiders as their sin, not that fact that men wanted to “have sex” with men.
THEN…there’s Leviticus 18:22 “Mosaic Law Prohibitions” and
Leviticus 20:13 “Mosaic Punishments for Violating Mosaic Law:”
The ridiculousness of using Leviticus to condemn ANYTHING is simply in looking at what in the world the Book of Leviticus condemns.
Rules in the Bible were always tied to some sort of reasoning. In the case of this gay sex prohibition, a consistent thread in early Judeo-Christian understanding was that semen alone was considered unclean, because sex was ONLY meant to be procreative.
Check out what God does to Onan when he ejacuates outside of a woman in Genesis 38.
In the same passages where gay sex is condemned and punished, so is eating shrimp, crop co-mingling, eating rabbit, wearing linen and wool at the same time, and eating raw meat. So if you’re gonna be a Biblical literalist, you might as well start sewing your own clothes and becoming a vegetarian.
Three passages from the Christian Scriptures (New Testament):
-
Romans 1: 26-27 “Paul speaks of God's disdain”
-
1 Corinthians 6: 9 “People who will not Inherit the Kingdom of Heaven”
-
1 Timothy 1: 9-10 “Paul speaks of Unrighteous People”
Taking a look at the first passage, the most oft quoted one from anti-gay Christian ministers, many people forget that the word “natural” has two definitions:
- “Scientifically meant to happen, or following nature’s course,” and
- “Normal, expected, or common.”
How do we know which definition Paul is using here? Later on in the Book of Romans, Paul writes that God acted “contrary to nature,” and what he means isn’t that God acted “immorally or against nature’s course,” but rather that God acted “unexpectedly.”
Understanding this, and the fact that no one could truly know whether Paul really knows what is scientifically innate and what is not, Paul calls these relationships “uncustomary” and “uncommon.”
Jesus did many “uncommon” things in his time. One of which was initiating a conversation with a Samaritan woman, which was “uncommon,” because Jews never spoke to Samaritans, and Jews never spoke to other people’s women. Surely, we cannot think that just because something is “uncommon” that it is “evil.”
Next, the words that Paul uses in almost all translations in the place of “relations” and “lusts” (“passions,” “affections,” “desires,” “sex”) really denote that what’s really talking about are not loving, committed relationships between members of the same-sex, but just selfish sexually-gratifying lusts. Any man of God wouldn’t stand for God’s people “rocking out with their cocks out” just for the hell of it, and that’s who the subjects of God’s disdain were, not people seeking love in same-sex relationships.
While newer translations used the word “homosexual,” what it comes down to is a tragic loss of translation of two key Greek words, “arsenokoitai” and “malakoi.” If most Biblical interpreters weren’t
pacifists, there’d be all-out war between them on the meanings of these words. The explanation that I prefer comes from Biblical scholar D. B. Martin, that “arsenokoitai,” due to its context clues, has something to do with sexual exploitation, like prostitution, not sexual orientation, like homosexuality.
Reason five: At Least One Lesbian Couple and One Gay Couple's Story is Told in the Bible:
In case you didn’t know, the gays have been around for … ever. We just never really got a chance to be recognized by mainstream society or in history for who we were or who we are today. The Bible itself is proof of forms of same-sex love.
- Ruth and Naomi's Relationship:
On the Surface:
This looks like a friendship of mutual convenience: two widowed gal pals move in together to share resources in a cold, hard world, until one of them gets married and has a bunch of kids.
The Whole Story:
Ruth and Naomi were once a part of a big happy family (in fact, Ruth marries Naomi's son), but disaster strikes and all the men of their family die. Ruth is a widow. Naomi and Ruth's other daughter-in-law, Orpah, are now widows, and the only logical thing for a woman (especially who did not have the societal benefits of being married and cared for by a man, in that time) to do would be to return to her own family. Naomi tells Orpah to return home, and she leaves her with tears in her eyes, but when she commands her widowed daughter-in-law Ruth to return home, Ruth makes a very special promise to Naomi, in Ruth 1: 16-17.
(A heartfelt plea and pledge of love and devotion, which is so lovely that it is repeated in many Christian heterosexual marriage ceremonies)
Soon after Ruth and Naomi work, live, and support each other as gleaners, Ruth meets Boaz, a 80-year-old distant relative of Naomi's dead husband, who sees the kindness and love between Ruth and Naomi, and marries Ruth (for the most part) to continue her family's legacy (an important tradition of that time).
Even after their marriage and blessing of children, her community celebrated that Naomi “has a child,” as seen in Ruth 4: 17, and they reminded Ruth that Naomi loves her very much, Ruth 4: 15.
So...how's that gay?
It does not do much justice to the lovers of this story to say that this promise, which is so powerful that it's used in marriage ceremonies, is not spoken by a person who was not truly in love with who she originally spoke it to.
In Ruth 1: 14, the King James Version of this verse says "Ruth clave onto her," at a moment when she should have return to her own family. In Genesis, marriage is portrayed as "a man leaving his father and mother, and CLEAVING to his wife." Ruth and Naomi have become "one flesh."
Not to mention, the Bible pays very little attention to the Boaz and Ruth's relationship, and so much more to Ruth and Naomi's relationship, even after her marriage.
- David and Jonathan's Relationship:
On the Surface:
Our second pair of gay lovebirds, who most Study Bibles call “besties” instead, is King David and Jonathan.
The Whole Story (with some insight sprinkled in):
First, Jonathan got googly-eyed over David and instantly became “one spirit with David” when they first met. Then, Jonathan gives this man from a different royal family his most important possessions: his sword, his bow, and even the clothes on his back. (1 Samuel 18: 1-4)
Next, David left his own family to stay with Jonathan and his father King Saul. What was that about "man leaving his father and mother to cleave to his wife?"
Then, between chapter 19 and 20 of 1 Samuel, Saul attempts to kill David numerous times (while vicious, King Saul knew that David and his family might usurp his authority and one day reign his family's kingdom), but Jonathan instead protects his love, even though killing David would ensure Jonathan’s family’s reign would last.
Jonathan and David meet up after a terrible tragedy, and Jonathan makes a “covenant” before the Lord, that they will be together as (Bible’s interpretation) “sworn friends” and our families will be one together for forever. (1 Samuel 20: 40-41) (I don’t know about you, but, to me, that sounds like a wedding vow.)
Finally, long after Saul and Jonathan’s deaths, King David laments his love in the beginning of 2 Samuel, saying that “Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.” (Verse 26) King David even keeps his promise and does the unthinkable for a king, by raising Jonathan's child as his own.
I don’t know ANYONE can spin that verse right there into saying that “David and Jonathan had the coolest platonic bromance in the Bible.”
There’s one more gay relationship in the Bible, but we’re gonna postpone that one 'til the end of the essay for a reason.
Page Translator: