Christians, why do you hate Gays?

[somethingNiftyhere]

I wasn't referring to only one passage. There are some in the Gospels that say, effectively, "don't judge or you'll be judged" and "don't judge someone when you're guilty yourself", but there are also verses in the Epistles that effectively say "don't judge other people - that's reserved for God."

"Probably "born eunuchs" in the ancient world did include people homosexually inclined" -heterosexual Christian scholar Dr. Robert Gagnon.

Good points.
Another way of looking at the old testament Leviticus laws as relate to the abomination afforded when a man lays with another man as he would a woman is to recall how Jewish men saw women in that time.
Orthodoxy believed women were unclean once a month. The sheets upon which they slept during their bleeding time were to be burned. All sorts of restrictions with regard to sex with a woman should be considered when reviewing the Leviticus prohibitions regarding sex.
And then perhaps what can be inferred is that contrary to modern Christian interpretation of them what they could have actually been saying was, when men had sex with one another if they did commit to that as they did with women, it was that which was an abomination.
Not that sex with men is an abomination. But men having sex with one another as they would having sex with a lowly female is the abominable act that was prohibited and thus subject to both being put to death.

Another way of looking at it is that in the OT the anti-gay or "Clobber" passages in Leviticus that seemingly prohibit Gay relations and call for the death of Gays, are part of God's law. In God's law there are over 600 sins described. (Sin List)

The Leviticus passages are part of God's law in the Old Testament.
But if one believes the teachings of the Apostle Paul and per the new testament those no longer apply because believers are no longer under the law.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. (Galatians 3:13)

 

[somethingNiftyhere]

I don´t understand why you are saying this. I say I don´t understand because I already said this too in my post. We are not debating whether or not he used parables, we are debating whether or not it is certain that that parable meant what you are saying it meant when it can mean other things.

As I already explained you, there was no word for "asexual" either and it would be far more fitting that that quote was referring to asexuals, not gays or homosexuals.

Notice that you say IF he was talking allegorically so as to communicate a message about homosexuals. That is one big IF. We don´t know if he was. How do you know he was not talking allegorically to convey a message about asexuals?

I don't understand how you missed all of what I said.

We're pursuing a discussion about what Jesus said, when there is no proof what is written in the new testament is what Jesus said.
So, if it's a matter of claiming we don't know if Jesus was saying this...

When the truth of the matter is, we can't genuinely claim someone making an observation about what Jesus did or did not say, did or did not mean in scripture in the new testament, is right, wrong, etc...when we first are in deficit of knowing if any of what is ascribed to Jesus was actually said by Jesus.

It's all hearsay.

 

[Onkara]

It isn't. It's "God-inspired," but that's not the same thing. At all.

I see, so it depends on the version/translation of the bible the Christian chooses.

2 Timothy 3.16

CEV
16 Everything in the Scriptures is God’s Word. All of it is useful for teaching and helping people and for correcting them and showing them how to live.

KJV
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Worldwide English
16 All that is written in the holy writings comes from the Spirit of God. The holy writings are good for these things: to teach people, to show them when they are wrong, to make them see what is right, to teach them to do what is right.

 

[Me Myself]

I don't understand how you missed all of what I said.

We're pursuing a discussion about what Jesus said, when there is no proof what is written in the new testament is what Jesus said.
So, if it's a matter of claiming we don't know if Jesus was saying this...

When the truth of the matter is, we can't genuinely claim someone making an observation about what Jesus did or did not say, did or did not mean in scripture in the new testament, is right, wrong, etc...when we first are in deficit of knowing if any of what is ascribed to Jesus was actually said by Jesus.

It's all hearsay.

I ignored it because it is a completely different discussion altogether. Now you are avoiding my latest point that was actually relevant to the main discussion.

If yo don´t want to put any credibility on it, don´t and let´s stop talking about it. If we are putting any credibility on it, then let´s at least try to reach to the best of our efforts the intended measning, or admit that we cannot when we cannot.

If you want to say we cannot have any idea of what Jesus said, okay, that´s at least objective. If you want to pretend it is certain he spoke about gays in the eunuch verse, we have problems.

 

[sojourner]

"Gay" wasn't a term that was known in Jesus time. So if he was to speak in allegory or symbolically so as to communicate a message about homosexuals, he'd use terms that would be known or easily inferred by those hearing his message at the time.

If it's a matter of intellectual honesty with regard to Jesus teachings, we'd be at a loss to discuss it at all. There were no scribes in the company of Jesus. No one wrote down what he said or did while he was preaching and working miracles.

Christianity began as an oral tradition and was only written down decades after Jesus death. And in all the new testament, that was written in Greek, there isn't one "Book of Jesus". While 2/3rds of the NT is attributed to the writings of Paul, who never knew Jesus while he was alive.
The one book that was the closest to what Jesus had said is the Gospel of Thomas. However, that was relegated to the Apocrypha.
Which is interesting considering the new testament is suppose to be about Jesus ministry and his bringing the new covenant, the new testament of God's law and will for all people. But first the Jews. And only later the Gentiles.
So that The Gospel of Thomas was deemed unfit to be included in the Canon for whatever reason, while 2/3rds of the NT canon attributed to Paul was deemed worthy is curious.
While the rest of the scriptures are attributed to apostles that may or may not have had a hand in what is related in those books about Jesus ministry. As some of the books bear conflicting accounts one to the other.

Let's be real clear: The term "gay" wasn't used, because the ancients had no concept for sexual orientation -- gay or otherwise. Therefore, any same-sex act was considered "depraved." Most of the time, what these passages are dealing with is male rape.

Thomas is not an "apocryphal" book. At all. It wasn't included in the canon, because it was unknown when the books for the NT were considered.

 

[sojourner]

Good points.
Another way of looking at the old testament Leviticus laws as relate to the abomination afforded when a man lays with another man as he would a woman is to recall how Jewish men saw women in that time.
Orthodoxy believed women were unclean once a month. The sheets upon which they slept during their bleeding time were to be burned. All sorts of restrictions with regard to sex with a woman should be considered when reviewing the Leviticus prohibitions regarding sex.
And then perhaps what can be inferred is that contrary to modern Christian interpretation of them what they could have actually been saying was, when men had sex with one another if they did commit to that as they did with women, it was that which was an abomination.
Not that sex with men is an abomination. But men having sex with one another as they would having sex with a lowly female is the abominable act that was prohibited and thus subject to both being put to death.

Another way of looking at it is that in the OT the anti-gay or "Clobber" passages in Leviticus that seemingly prohibit Gay relations and call for the death of Gays, are part of God's law. In God's law there are over 600 sins described. (Sin List)

The Leviticus passages are part of God's law in the Old Testament.
But if one believes the teachings of the Apostle Paul and per the new testament those no longer apply because believers are no longer under the law.

It really has more to do with honor and shame being imbedded in sexual identity. Honor was imbedded in the male, shame in the female. Therefore, men had honor, women had shame. For a man to "take it like a woman" was to act shamefully (or "like a woman").

 

[somethingNiftyhere]

I ignored it because it is a completely different discussion altogether. Now you are avoiding my latest point that was actually relevant to the main discussion.

If yo don´t want to put any credibility on it, don´t and let´s stop talking about it. If we are putting any credibility on it, then let´s at least try to reach to the best of our efforts the intended measning, or admit that we cannot when we cannot.

If you want to say we cannot have any idea of what Jesus said, okay, that´s at least objective. If you want to pretend it is certain he spoke about gays in the eunuch verse, we have problems.

Wow.
Well, I'd say it's not a matter of "we" having the problem here.

So I'll leave you to your one side of the argument and permit you to believe what you need to about Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

I see, so it depends on the version/translation of the bible the Christian chooses.

2 Timothy 3.16

CEV
16 Everything in the Scriptures is God’s Word. All of it is useful for teaching and helping people and for correcting them and showing them how to live.

KJV
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Worldwide English
16 All that is written in the holy writings comes from the Spirit of God. The holy writings are good for these things: to teach people, to show them when they are wrong, to make them see what is right, to teach them to do what is right.

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,..." according to the NRSV, which is the most accurate translation to date. However, note that Timothy is talking about the Hebrew texts -- not the Greek texts.

 

[Onkara]

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,..." according to the NRSV, which is the most accurate translation to date. However, note that Timothy is talking about the Hebrew texts -- not the Greek texts.

I see! I have been reading CEV (and stopped). I will considering reading the NRSV if I start again (I am in favour of choosing what I believe from the bible or what I reject ). I am curious as to why it is the most accurate? I also would like to know how to discriminate which scripture Timothy is talking about?

 

[somethingNiftyhere]

Let's be real clear: The term "gay" wasn't used, because the ancients had no concept for sexual orientation -- gay or otherwise. Therefore, any same-sex act was considered "depraved." Most of the time, what these passages are dealing with is male rape.

Thomas is not an "apocryphal" book. At all. It wasn't included in the canon, because it was unknown when the books for the NT were considered.

The canonization of the Bible ranged from 363A.D. to 419A.D

The dating of the codex that contained the Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the Infancy Gospels of Thomas) range from the 50's to second century.

And the Gospel of Thomas was known prior to the Canonization councils convening.

("The Kernel Thomas originated from the mission of the Jerusalem Church between the years 30-50 CE.")

 

[sojourner]

I see! I have been reading CEV (and stopped). I will considering reading the NRSV if I start again (I am in favour of choosing what I believe from the bible or what I reject ). I am curious as to why it is the most accurate? I also would like to know how to discriminate which scripture Timothy is talking about?

The NRSV takes advantage of the best and latest scholarship, and the oldest known texts. It does so without a theological agenda.

Timothy is talking about the Hebrew texts, which were the only "scriptures" available when the letter was written.

 

[sojourner]

The canonization of the Bible ranged from 363A.D. to 419A.D

The dating of the codex that contained the Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the Infancy Gospels of Thomas) range from the 50's to second century.

And the Gospel of Thomas was known prior to the Canonization councils convening.

("The Kernel Thomas originated from the mission of the Jerusalem Church between the years 30-50 CE.")

The codex dates from that time because that's when it was likely written. But the text likely made its way from Syria to Alexandria. It was lost when Alexandria was sacked and the library destroyed. It was literally found in a garbage heap by accident in the 20th century. The council was unaware of Thomas' existence while the canonization process commenced. It was not rediscovered until after the canon was closed.

 

[somethingNiftyhere]

The codex dates from that time because that's when it was likely written. But the text likely made its way from Syria to Alexandria. It was lost when Alexandria was sacked and the library destroyed. It was literally found in a garbage heap by accident in the 20th century. The council was unaware of Thomas' existence while the canonization process commenced. It was not rediscovered until after the canon was closed.

The misinformation you attempt to promote in this reply says a great deal about the direction you wish to lead the readership of this forum. And it may be judged to be pathetic.


And the Gospel was available during the Canonization process. It was not 'rediscoverd' after the Canon was closed. There were a number of councils that convened throughout the canonization process. As noted prior with the date range of those proceedings.

 

[sojourner]

The misinformation you attempt to promote in this reply says a great deal about the direction you wish to lead the readership of this forum. And it may be judged to be pathetic.


And the Gospel was available during the Canonization process. It was not 'rediscoverd' after the Canon was closed. There were a number of councils that convened throughout the canonization process. As noted prior with the date range of those proceedings.

The gospel was found in 1945 at Nag Hammadi. That certainly postdates the closure of the canon by about, oh, 1500 years. It was discovered later that fragments were found at Oxyrhynchus. They date to between 130 - 250. But that doesn't mean those fragments were recognizable or available to the church-at-large when the canonization process was underway.

Your judgment is pathetic.

 

[LuisDantas]

Let's be real clear: The term "gay" wasn't used, because the ancients had no concept for sexual orientation -- gay or otherwise. Therefore, any same-sex act was considered "depraved." Most of the time, what these passages are dealing with is male rape.

Interesting. Come to think of it, I don't really remember any biblical references to rape of females either, despite a number of places where the concept is at least strongly implied (e.g. Lot's offer of his daughters for his neighbors).

Can it be that biblical writers were so used to the idea of sexual relations as happening between a submissive woman and a dominating male that they lacked an adequate word for rape? It does make sense to me.

 

[somethingNiftyhere]

Interesting. Come to think of it, I don't really remember any biblical references to rape of females either, despite a number of places where the concept is at least strongly implied (e.g. Lot's offer of his daughters for his neighbors).

Can it be that biblical writers were so used to the idea of sexual relations as happening between a submissive woman and a dominating male that they lacked an adequate word for rape? It does make sense to me.

Exodus 21:7-11
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.


Deuteronomy 21:10-14
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Judges 5:30
They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil.

2 Samuel 12:11-14
Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."

Zechariah 14:1-2
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks. I honestly did not know there were rules for selling one's own daughter as a slave, as well as for marrying one's own daughter and sleeping with her, in Exodus.

To think that there are those who think such a book should be followed to the letter... boggles the mind.

 

[Ingledsva]

About the only place Jesus speaks to homosexuality is in Matthew.

Matthew 19:11-12

Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."


...
​

So his admonition that some were born that way and that those who can accept it should accept it, speaks to Jesus not levying judgment upon Eunuchs or those who were made that way or who were emasculated. As Eunuch could also just as easily refer to Gay men. Men who had no carnal desires to sex women....

I've always thought this referred to gay men.

The subject is "can "MARRIED" men put away their wives." He basically says no -BUT gives a clause = eunuchs!

WELL - we know that men with deformed penises, removed organs, and such problems, were NOT ALLOWED TO MARRY by LAW.

And Children were married off in arranged marriages very early.

SO - The only "MARRIED" men given the "right to divorce clause" - "as eunuchs" - would be gay men. Other "eunuchs" were not allowed to marry. The Boys who grow up and realise they are homosexual, are allowed to divorce their arranged wives.

In other words The only people whom are "eunuchs" from the "womb" when it comes to "their WIVES", are homosexuals!!

Also, most verses in the Bible taken as against homosexuality - when read in the original languages - are actually about Sacred Prostitutes, not gay people.

 

[Ingledsva]

I guess it is related to homosexuality being a sin in the NT?
I can't see how any Christian can get around what Paul teaches?

Actually read in their original languages the NT does not condemn homosexuality. Those verses are actually about Sacred Prostitutes.

 

[Onkara]

Actually read in their original languages the NT does not condemn homosexuality. Those verses are actually about Sacred Prostitutes.

Really! Thanks for the input, I don't know how I would be able to read the original to benefit from understanding the translations, unless someone has done a translation and commentary in English?