So, I’ve been reading the bible for about a year now, (NIV, not KJV, since I’ve found it seems to be most accurate), to try to better understand the beliefs of Christians. One common belief that most Christians seem to follow, (At least in America), is that Homosexuality is wrong. So far, I have seen little scriptural evidence to prove this.
Oh, and warning. I may use some words that may make certain people uncomfortable. But it all has to do with the topic.
Topic 1, Adam and Eve: The Only Humans?
One thing that bothers me in arguments against Homosexuality is saying “It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” But, well, were they really the only ones on Earth in the beginning?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genesis 2:4-6, NIV
As Adam was made before vegetation was on the Earth, he was made during the third day: After the water, but before the veggies. However:Quote:
Originally Posted by Genesis 1:9-13, NIV
It sounds like more humans were created on the sixth day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Genesis 1:26-30, NIV
But some people don’t believe that Adam as created before the plants; that Adam was created after the plants. Let's say that you really really can't follow the way this was set up, and need a tad more proof.
Animals. Animals were created prior to man on the sixth day. Well, if we visit chapter 2...Quote:
Originally Posted by Genesis 1:21-26, 31, NIV
Adam was around prior to the animals. And yet, the Chapter 1 account says animals were created prior to man. This shows, yet again, that Adam was created prior to the "man" of the Day Six account. Oh, and also…Quote:
Originally Posted by Genesis 2:18-19, NIV
Cain was worried that others may find and kill him. If his parents were the only others on the earth, who would he have had to worry about? Also, the land of Nod was known as the land of wanderers. Who was wandering for it to be named so? Cain, of course, is one... But note the plural. These verses only strengthen the suggestion that Adam, Eve, and their family were not alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Genesis 4:13-16, NIV
For those that are still unconvinced... That believe Adam was created after the plants and animals, that believe Cain feared the rest of his family, that believe Cain slept with his sister, that believe there were at least 5 accounts of incest to create the human race... I ask you this:
Why on earth was Cain building a city? And how was he doing it by himself?Quote:
Originally Posted by Genesis 4:17, NIV
I direct everyone to Genesis 6:1-2.
Where did the daughters of men come from? It is simple to assume that sons of God were those of God's chosen race of peoples, those from the lineage of Adam and Eve. However, it makes a distinction between these and the daughters of men. If there were those that God had chosen special and those that God hadn't... Who were the ones God hadn't chosen special?Quote:
Originally Posted by Genesis 6:1-2, NIV
Basically,
Topic 2, Leviticus: Christian Law?
Many Christians direct me towards Leviticus to prove Homosexuality is indeed a sin. But… what of this?
So. Those that shave are sinning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviticus 19:27, NIV
So. Those that crop in cycles, wear polyester cotton mixes, or breed mules are sinning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviticus 19:19, NIV
So. Semen is "unclean". Women on periods must be cast out due to their uncleanliness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviticus 15, NIV
So. You can't eat lobster or crawfish. Or pork.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviticus 11, NIV
So why just pick at the verses against homosexuals?
Suddenly the animals aren't unclean. Oh, and here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Acts 10:10-16, NIV
It seems that if you are Christian, you are not to follow the Levitical laws, as mentioned in Acts 15.Quote:
Originally Posted by Acts 15:24-29, NIV
Topic 3, Sodom: Burned For Homosexual Sex?
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is as such: Lot, the nephew of Abraham, was living in the city of Sodom. Abraham had pleaded to God to spare the city under the condition that 10 righteous men were found there.
Unfortunately, that condition was failed to be met. However, God felt compassion towards Lot, and sent two angels to warn him of the impending doom of the city before its destruction. When they arrived, however, they were accosted by citizens of Sodom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Genesis 18:32-33, NIV
With these verses, a couple of key things are to be noted. First, note that Lot mentioned the men were protected. Second, note that he offered his daughters. The protection is to be noted because inhospitality was a grievous offense. Just as in the Roman myth of Jupiter and Mercury visiting Baucis and Philemon, hospitality was rewarded as you never knew who would be in your house. Lot offering his daughters shows that, as he was their father and thus their consent, that he was offering them consenting sex as opposed to rape. Also:Quote:
Originally Posted by Genesis 19:4-30, NIV
God mentions an outcry that reached him. Would men consenting to homosexual sex cry out to God? No. Would people being raped repeatedly cry out to God? The answer is yes. Also, why would the sin of homosexuality be so grievous back then that it was worthy of razing an entire city, but is today not worthy enough for anything? The reason is that homosexuality was not the sin mentioned. It seems the REAL sin is rape and, slightly lesser, inhospitality. Note:Quote:
Originally Posted by Genesis 18:20-21, NIV
Arrogance, gluttony, and apathy. Not helping the poor and needy, or being inhospitable. Haughty: Above the law. And detestable things? Rape. Case 2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezekiel 16:48-50, NIV
If you are not welcomed into a town, it says... If they are not hospitable to you, then they will suffer pains worse than that of Sodom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke 10:10-12, NIV
I'd say that about clinches the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, wouldn't you? I wouldn’t assume that since we have this word sodomy to refer to homosexual sex that Sodom’s sin was sodomy; nothing seems to point to that.
Topic 4, New Testament: Condemning Homosexuality?
Some will say that homosexuality falls under the category of sexual immorality, as mentioned in Acts 15:29. But commonly mistranslated for homosexuality is a section in Romans:
In these passages, it blatantly states that lust was the cause behind their sin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Romans 1:24-27, NIV
This verse says to "flee sexual immorality", but it only, basically, getting around. Further, to prove that God condones ALL forms of love, including homosexual love:Quote:
Originally Posted by 1 Corinthians 6:12-18, NIV
These verses, properly interpreted and read, not misquote or drug out of context, show that God is behind all forms of love, and that lust and prostitutional fornication are the sexual sins mentioned. The verses from 1 John specifically refer to unconditional love. It states that any love that is unconditional is from God. Homosexuals can love their partners unconditionally, therefore, can have unions blessed by God.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1 John 4:7-12, NIV
To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.[/quote]
He specifically states that his own opinion is being inserted. On to the second thing too many people forget about Paul and his Epistles: Many, if not most, of the things he wrote about were specific to the time, culture, and region he was writing to. To bring up the Romans quote again:
Take note of what I have bolded there. It is a key verse, a key note that must be remembered to understand what Paul is talking of in the next part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Romans 1:24-25, NIV
Now. We have some key words in this part. Shameful, lusts, natural relations, indecent acts, perversion. These key words, when added to the verses above as well as a knowledge of Roman society, tell us something. We know that homosexuality is natural as it occurs in nature, yes? But even if it wasn't, what could Paul be talking about? What could he have knowledge of just by walking through the streets of Rome?Quote:
Originally Posted by Romans 1:26-27, NIV
The Roman god Bacchus was a god of wine and pleasure. He, as well as other members of the pantheon, was celebrated with festivals that appropriately resembled or reenacted some aspect or story of the deity. When celebrating Minerva, goddess of crafts, they would weave a large blanket to drape over her statue. To celebrate Bacchus, god of wine and pleasure, they would get into a state of public drunkenness and have extremely large orgies that would last for days.
Such a public event is something Paul most likely had the "honor" of viewing when taking his trip through Rome. Remember that key verse that mentioned serving and worshiping things that weren't God? These festivals were definitely signs of worship to other gods. Still, people will say, "Well, Paul condemns homosexuals later in his Epistles, so it must've still been about gays."
Firstly, one must ask how Paul would've known about any homosexual acts the Romans did unless they were in public. Secondly, and most importantly, one must look to see if Paul actually condemns homosexuals. There are two verses that use the word homosexuals in the Modern English versions of the Bible, or at least many of the popular ones. Let's look at them in English, shall we?
The next verse isn't commonly translated as homosexual, so we will temporarily depart from our use of the NIV.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, NIV
Now. That's what they say in English. Homosexuals, homosexual offenders, effeminate, or sodomites. Let's look at them in Greek.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1 Timothy 1:10, NASB
Homosexual, in Greek, is now: ομοφυλοφιλικός, or omophulophilikos as best as my translating abilities carry me. Now, we'll play spot the word.
That section that I've bolded is where the words translated to homosexual and company are. Let's look at them closely.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Greek
μαλακοὶ, or malakoi, and ἀρσενοκοῖται, or arsenokoitai. Do those look like ομοφυλοφιλικός, or omophulophilikos? On to Timothy.
See ομοφυλοφιλικός? Doubtful. ἀρσενοκοίταις is what shows up. It says arsenokoitais, which I'm told is the same as arsenokoitai. Still isn't omophulophilikos.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1 Timothy 1:10, Greek
A big question to ask is this: "If Paul didn't condemn homosexuals before these two verses... And Christ didn't condemn them... and the Old Testament didn't condemn them... But everything else Paul condemned was condemned by the Old Testament or Christ... Where'd he get it from?"
So, Paul does not condemn homosexuals. Bad translators do.
What do you all think? :yawnb: Keep in mind I'm young and naive, I'm just trying to understand this, and see if there's anything I'm missing.
