Is Being Gay A Sin? Part Two - Romans Road to Salvation

Is Being Gay A Sin?

We are still in Part Two of my blog series, "Is Being Gay A Sin?" Along with many misinterpretations of the Old Testament, we have to review and consider what the Apostle Paul had to say on the matter. There are so many controversies surrounding his writings that we do have to consider the pseudepigriphal issues and the fact that many of his writings are attributed to a "ghost writer". As a Christian, it is our duty to prayerfully study and understand what God was trying to communicate to His people, not only in ancient Hebrew times, the more recent Greek and Roman times, but througout ALL time.

Please read:

Part One - Why and Introduction

Part Two - Sodom and Gomorrah

Part Two - Levitical Law

They will help you in reading this work in context and in the flow it was intended.

Part Two - Romans "Road To Salvation"

Romans 1:18-22. 
According to this passage, hardened idolaters are given up to lust and impurity. Heterosexual women commit “unnatural” acts, as do heterosexual men. Moreover, these idolaters are filled with every kind of wickedness and evil, from murder to gossip. The crime is idolatry, not [homo]sexuality. 

Romans 1:26-27: "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature.  And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error." 

The high level is that you would want to understand that Paul IS talking about two men having sex, but he is also talking about heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts which are against their essential nature, essentially for pagan ritual of some sort. (Romans 1:26-27).  All of this refers to idolatrous religious practices that were common in the time of Paul. And to be quite forward, to take anything that Paul said out its context is like trying to drive a car blindfolded.  You don't know where you are, where you have been, where you are going, or who you just ran over and killed! Paul said a lot of crazy and “off” stuff, including his own personal viewpoints on women.

Paul's writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on.  Paul is often difficult and confusing to understand.  A lot of Paul's writing is very difficult to translate.  Since most of his letters were written in response to news from other people, reading Paul can be like listening to one side of a telephone conversation.  We know, or think we know, what Paul is saying, but we have to guess what the other side has said.  As 2 Peter 3:16-18 pointed out, we have to be on guard against using Paul's writings in unhealthy and destructive ways. My sister Dawne is brilliant. That’s just a fact, and she doesn’t always take the spiritual road when studying the Bible. She is much more likely to accept and believe the secular scholarly road, and, as such, she stated to me in discussing this:

“Please don’t get me started on pseudepigraphy.  Paul is credited with 1^st & 2^nd Corinthians, 1^st Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon, and Romans.  He did NOT write 2^nd Thessalonians, 1^st or 2^nd Timothy, Colossians, Ephesians, Titus, or Hebrews.  Most of the anti-woman stuff came from “pseudo-Paul” (IMO the real Paul wasn’t much better)… but carry on [using Paul’s writings].”

Once, when I was trying to really do well in my own personal theological studies, I decided to memorize Romans. Well, that’s not entirely true, I tried to memorize as much as possible and think of the book as a WHOLE vs. a Chapter by chapter, Scripture by scripture type of thing. This has actually paid off and helped me in my studies of the Bible as a whole. Anyway, being able to see the message of Romans cleared up a lot of Paul's thought that I had not been able to understand and really untangle previously.

The theme of the first 3 chapters of Romans is expressed in 1:16: "The gospel is the power of God for spiritual freedom (salvation) for all who believe." Paul expressed quite beautifully that all people equally need and can have Jesus in their lives.  Paul's gospel is inclusive, as he well put in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Romans 1:26-27 is part of Paul's vigorous denunciation of idolatrous religious worship and rituals.  Read all of Romans 1:18 to 2:4 for the context of the verses.  Romans 1:26-27 contains some words used only here by Paul.  Familiar words are used here in unusual ways.  The passage is very difficult to translate.  The argument is directed against some form of idolatry that would have been known to Paul's readers.  To us, 2,000 years later and in a totally different culture, the argument is vague and indirect. Verse 25 is clearly a denunciation of idol worship, "For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature and not the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”  Paul at no point in his writing dealt with same-sex orientation or the expression of love and affection between two people of the same sex who love each other.  And you, Reader, really need to understand that Paul wrote the book of Romans from Corinth, the second largest city in the empire and the crossroads of world trade and culture.  Pausanias observed at about the same time as Paul that there were over 1,000 religions in Corinth.  The most prominent were the fertility cult of Aphrodite, worship of Apollo, and the Delphi Oracle, which was across the bay from Corinth.  Paul's readers would have been aware of the religious climate from which he wrote Romans and would have understood Paul a lot better than we do.

The word "passions" in 1:26 is the same word used to speak of the suffering and death of Jesus in Acts 1:3 and does not mean what we mean by "passion" today.  Eros is the Greek word for romantic love, but eros is never used even once in the New Testament.  "Passions" in 1:26 probably refers to the frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music. We do not know the meaning of "burn" in 1:27, because Paul never used this particular word anywhere else, and it's origin is uncertain.  The term "against nature" is also strange here, since exactly the same term is used by Paul in Romans 11:21-24 to speak of God acting "against nature" by including the Gentiles with the Jews in the family of God.  "Against nature" was used to speak of something that was not done in the usual way, but did not necessarily mean that something "against nature" was evil, since God also "acted against nature." 

NOTE: "Committing indecent acts" in 1:27 is translated by King James Version as "working that which is unseemly."  Phillips goes far beyond the evidence and renders it as "Shameful horrors!"  The Greek word is askemosunen and is formed of the word for "outer appearance" plus the negative particle.  It speaks of the inner or hidden part or parts of the individual that are not ordinarily seen or known in public.  "Indecent" in 1 Corinthians 12:23 referred to the parts of the body that remain hidden but are necessary and receive honor. 1 Corinthians 13:5 used the word to say that love does not behave "indecently." This word for "indecency" was used to translate Deuteronomy 24:1 into Greek to say that a man could divorce his wife if he "found some indecency in her."  The religious teachers argued endlessly about what "some indecency" meant.  Some said it was anything that displeased the husband.  Others were more strict and said it could only refer to adultery. In Matthew 19:1-12, Jesus commented on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but he did not define the term.  

Paul was certainly aware of the variety of ways that the teachers interpreted the word "indecency," and he used it in a variety of ways himself.  To read into "indecent acts" a whole world of homosexual ideas is to abandon the realities of objective academic study and to embark on useless and damaging speculation that cannot be supported by the meaning of the word or by Paul's use of it elsewhere.

If Paul had intended to condemn homosexuals as the worst of all sinners, he certainly had the language skills to do a clearer job of it than emerges from Romans 1:26-27.  The fact is that Paul nowhere condemned or mentioned romantic love and sexual relations between people of the same sex who love each other.  Paul never commented on sexual orientation.  As in the rest of the Bible, Paul nowhere even hinted that Lesbians and Gay men can or should change their sexual orientation.

NOTE on Romans 1:31, where the King James Version translated the Greek word astorgous as "without natural affection."  This is one of the characteristics of people "with a reprobate mind" (KJV of 1:28).  The word for "reprobate" is more recently translated as "depraved" or "perverted" in order more neatly to fit the sexualizing of everything possible in the list.  The literal meaning of "reprobate" (Greek dokimon) is "to fail to measure up" or "to fail to meet the test" and simply means that the list of things that follows is the result of a mind that has abandoned God.  The word astorgous, "without natural affection," is used only here and in 2 Timothy 3:3.  It has nothing at all to do with homosexuality or with sex.  It is the Greek word for "family love" or "family ties" with the negative prefix.  It refers to people who despise and reject their family members.  Rather than being directed at homosexuals, it is a term that is directed at people who despise and reject their own homosexual children and brothers and sisters! Modern translators, knowing this, usually render the word as "unloving," and the implication of some sort of "unnatural" or "perverted" affection is removed.  Many more translation corrections are needed elsewhere! 

The use of Romans 1:26-27 against homosexuals turns out to be a blunt instrument to batter and wound people who were not intended in the original text.  Paul clearly taught throughout Romans, Galatians and his other letters that God's freely given love is for every single person on earth.  Notice what Paul said about judging others in Romans 2:1: "Therefore you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."

Here are additional blogs in the series:
Part One - Why and Introduction
Part Two - Sodom and Gomorrah
Part Two - Levitical Law
Part Two - Romans Road To Salvation
Part Two - Oh, Paul... Nobody Likes Prison Rape
Part Two - Wrapping Up the "Big Six" Scriptures
Part Three - WWJD, Y'all? What Would Jesus Do?
Part Three - Better Run Tell Somebody!
Part Four - Same Sex Activity In The Bible
Part Five - Common Christian Beliefs
Part Five - One Anglican View Against Being Gay
Part Six - Examples of Gay Couples in The Bible
Part Six - David and Jonathan - A Love Story
Part Seven - Conclusions, Recaps, and References

Cheers,
#JustBeingMichael

Is Being Gay A Sin? Part Two - Levitical Law

Is Being Gay A Sin?

We are still in Part Two of my blog series, "Is Being Gay A Sin?" There are so many controversies surrounding so many of the issues in Leviticus and other scriptures in the Bible. As a Christian, it is our duty to prayerfully study and understand what God was trying to communicate to His people, not only in ancient times, but througout ALL time.

Please read:

Part One - Why and Introduction

Part Two - Sodom and Gomorrah

They will help you in reading this work in context and in the flow it was intended.

Part Two - Levitical Laws

Because these two verses in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) have been used more than any other Bible texts to condemn and reject gay people, the following material is given to help you think objectively about traditional abusive use of the Bible regarding gay folks.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Both of these verses prohibit a physical impossibility, a man lying with a male as if with a woman. The priestly writers, writing down in about 530 BCE oral tradition dating from perhaps a thousand years earlier, make no mention of love between men or women of the same gender, much less fellatio, cunnilingus, or other ways of exchanging pleasure.

Remember, now, these verses date from at least 2,500 years ago, and the original oral tradition may be up to a thousand years older. There were only a few million human beings on the face of the planet; life was “nasty, brutish, and short.” People took seriously God's command to be fruitful and multiply. Indeed, if Jesus had been a bachelor, no one would have listened to a word he had to say, commandment-breaker that he would have been seen as.

• Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."
• Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death." 

Some historical, cultural, and language context: 

Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the Baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied.  The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idolatry and idol worship. Go translate the Hebrew. Go read some political and historical contextual books. Sadly, so many people will NOT do that. Even when it’s pointed out here. The Jewish temple was close to the Temple of Diana, which did have an altar for Baal. Male prostitutes would have sex with men (straight men) on the altar so that Baal would bless their crops. God was basically saying that you shouldn’t buy whores in church so that your crops would grow - and I fully support that.

There are two Hebrew words which are often associated with homosexual passages and which are often mistranslated in English versions of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament):

• "qadesh" means a male prostitute who engaged in ritual sex in a Pagan temple. This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the surrounding countries. The word is often mistranslated simply as "sodomite" or "homosexual." (e.g. the King James Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 23:17). The companion word quedeshaw means female temple prostitute. It is frequently mistranslated simply as "whore" or "prostitute." A qadesh and quedeshaw were not simply prostitutes. They had a specific role to play in the temple. They represented a God and Goddess, and engaged in sexual intercourse in that capacity with members of the temple.
• "to'ebah" means a condemned, foreign, Pagan, religious, cult practice, but often simply translated as "abomination." Eating food which contains both meat and dairy products is "to'ebah" A Jew having a meal with an Egyptian was "to'ebah." A Jew wearing a polyester-cotton garment, or having a tattoo is "to'ebah" today.

Are Bible translators truly free of bias?

The ultimate answer is no. Translators and those working under duress for Kings and Queens have never been free to translate the Bible as their understanding of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek dictated. One famous example was the translation of the King James Version of the Bible. The translators were pressured into attacking "witches" where:

• The original Hebrew text in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) discussed women who used spoken curses to hurt or kill others.
• The original Greek text in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) discussed people who murdered others through the use of poison.

In modern times, the pressures are from economic considerations, not by royal commands. Take Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, for example. A word-by-word analysis of these two verses showed that the passages do not prohibit all same-sex behavior; they do not even prohibit all male same-sex activities. They merely control where male-male intercourse is allowed. It cannot be performed in a woman's bed, because that location is sacrosanct. Only the woman, and under certain circumstances a man, may occupy it. Otherwise, a serious defilement would result.

The New International Version (NIV) currently translates Leviticus 18:22 as: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." The New Living Translation (NLT) widens the translation to also include lesbians: "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Imagine what would happen to Bible sales if the actual interpretation was used. Translators might render this verse as: "Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman's bed; it is ritually unclean."

By reading various translations of the Bible, generations of Christians have been conditioned to expect this verse to condemn all homosexual behavior -- or at least all male same-sex activity. They expect that it will be morally condemned as "an abomination" or at least as a "detestable" act. But this new translation does not prohibit male to male sexual behavior; it only limits where the act can be performed. And it does not say that this conduct, if done on a woman's bed, is to be morally condemned. It only says that it is ritually unclean, like coming too close to a dead body, or eating shellfish, or getting a tattoo. The readers would assume that the translation is defective and that the translators were distorting the original meaning of the passage in order to be politically correct and not offend gays and lesbians.

Levitical Laws that have fallen by the wayside

Remember also that these are not the only two verses in Leviticus. If you're going to claim that homosexuals are sinners based on these two verses, you must also:

• keep kosher (ch. 11) — as part of keeping kosher, you may eat no fat and no blood (3:16-17, 7:22, 17:10-16), meaning no potato chips, no French fries, no rare steak, etc.; you may not eat lobsters, clams, oysters, octopus, shrimp, or crawfish (11:12), no tuna casserole (mixes “meat” and milk), and no ostrich (11:16) or crocodile meat (11:30).
• You may not wear cotton-polyester blends or any other kind of blend of fabrics (19:19).
• You shall not “defer to the great,” making any National Leader’s pandering to the wealthy explicitly sinful (19:15).
• You must observe Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and the festival of Booths (23:23-43).
• If an insect or lizard crawls across your cook pot, you must break your cook pot into pieces and throw it away. (11:30) When this rule was written, cook pots were molded out of clay by the lady of the house. Today most cook pots are stainless steel or aluminum — but if you're going to insist on 18:22 and 20:13, you must also insist on 11:30.
• You may not cross-breed animals (19:19). There's nothing in the Bible against cloning, however.
• You must stone all “wizards” to death; ditto for all astrologers and all mediums (19:26-27, 19:31, 20:6, and 20:27).
• You may not have a tattoo (19:28).
• You must put all persons that have pre-marital sex to death for the sin of sex outside of wedlock (20:10-16). Also most other citizens of the U.S. over the age of about 16 — there's no statute of limitations in the Bible.
• A God-fearing man may not marry a divorcée or a rape victim (21:7). (Most of the rules in Leviticus pertain only to men, since women are considered subhuman by many of the authors the Bible.)
• If the daughter of a priest becomes a prostitute, she must be burned to death (21:9). How compassionate the priestly authors of Leviticus were!
• You will be exiled if you see a close relative naked, even accidentally (20:17-22).
• No priest may have acne or any other kind of blemish or physical imperfection (including poor eyesight – how many preachers today wear glasses?)(21:16-23).
• Anyone who blasphemes — Marilyn Manson for example — must be stoned to death (24:13-23).
• When a prisoner is executed in a capital punishment case, the executioner must also be put to death. Ditto for whoever puts the executioner to death. And so on, ad infinitum. (24:17, 21)
• It's perfectly all right with “the gods” (elohim) if you want to own slaves, but they may not be of the same nationality as yourself. Leviticus recommends that the U.S. obtain its slaves from Mexico, Russia, Cuba, and Greenland. (25:44-46; not Canada, because Canada is a dominion rather than a nation.)

If you do not follow these rules, and many others, as scrupulously as you insist on applying these two verses of Leviticus, you are a hypocrite, and may safely be ignored.

Bible verses that even fundamentalists don't take literally...

Here are some verses which come directly from the Bible that even fundamentalists do not take literally for today, proving that they selectively pick and choose verses out of context which justify their pre-existing prejudice against gay and lesbian people. Take a look for yourself.

• "Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." (1 Corinthians 14:34) This verse says that women can't speak in church. Period. It is completely ignored today. Applying this verse to the modern day church would be ancient, absurd and nonsensical. When it comes to the verses about homosexuality, however, fundamentalists suddenly insist that they must be interpreted literally, word for word! When it comes to this verse, however, they admit the facts. They acknowledge that it was only meant for that day. The truth is that the Apostle Paul wrote this verse because, during his time, women and men sat on opposite sides of the church aisle. Women would yell questions across the aisle to their husbands, causing a disruption of the service. It would be all too easy for a fundamentalist who disliked women to use this verse to exclude women from participating in the service, just as fundamentalists who dislike gay people currently misuse those seemingly anti-gay scriptures to exclude people who are gay. Realizing that a particular scripture was only relevant for its time (and should not be applied literally to our modern day) is an interpretational option that is conveniently ignored when it comes to the verses which discuss homosexuality.
• "Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering." (1 Corinthians 11:13-15) Upon visiting any fundamentalist church, you will discover that more than a few women have short haircuts. This verse, however, indicates that women should have long hair, as their "head must be covered." It has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it? Arab fundamentalists require women to put a veil over their heads and punish them if they do not. The fact of the matter is that the length of your hair has nothing to do with your spiritual condition.
• "If any man takes a wife, and goes in on her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, 'I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin..." (Deuteronomy 22:13,14) "But if ... evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..."(Deuteronomy 22:20, 21) If a man discovers that a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, all the men in town can murder her by flinging stones at her young female body as she screams in pain. Is this the word of God? Hardly. The command to stone to death a young girl who is not proven to be a virgin on her wedding night is simply an ugly man-made rule of murder that found its way into the Biblical text. WHY are fundamentalists so afraid to admit the obvious, that such verses like the one listed above are simply not the Word of God? How mature is one's faith if one cannot even admit that a verse which commands that young girls be stoned to death isn't the Word of God? Here are the facts . . . The belief in Biblical times was that if a woman was indeed a virgin; she would bleed on her wedding night because her first sexual intercourse would result in the breaking of the hymen, the thin tissue that covers the vagina. This blood was considered the "evidence" of her virginity that the scripture speaks of. Medical science has since discovered that the hymen is often already broken in many young girls because of their participation in athletic sports and things like horseback riding. Quite tragically, this indicates that many girls who actually were virgins on their wedding night were nonetheless stoned to death because they were ignorant of this scientific fact. Little did many young girls in Biblical times know that their wedding nights would end in their own murder.
• "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched." (Mark 9:43) While fundamentalists insist (due to their pre-existing bigotry) that all seemingly anti-gay scriptures be taken literally, without exception, they admit that the above verse was not meant to be taken literally even though the words above were spoken by Jesus Himself. This proves that fundamentalists are willing to say that certain scriptures weren't meant to be believed literally, even those which contain the allegedly actual words of Jesus Christ! NOTE: The reason I write and italicize “allegedly” is because the Mark is not considered to be an actual eye-witness by secular theology scholars. The Book of Mark is widely believed by scholars to have been written 65-70 CE.
• "One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the congregation of the Lord." (Deuteronomy 23:2) If you were born to an unwed mother, the Bible says that you shouldn't be allowed in church. Do "Bible-believing" fundamentalists follow this rule? Nope. They acknowledge that this verse was meant for a different time. Yes, even fundamentalists acknowledge that certain scriptures were only meant to be applied to the particular time and place in which they were written. When it comes to those scripture verses which seem to speak against homosexuality, however, they suddenly and indignantly demand that every word be followed to the letter and applied to our modern day! The idea of refusing membership in the church to a child born to an unwed mother is seen as being unreasonable today, even though the scripture instructs it. The idea of quoting scripture to abuse people who are gay and lesbian is just as unreasonable and antiquated.
• "Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ."(Ephesians 6:5) "Slaves, obey your human masters in everything; don't work only while being watched, in order to please men, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord." (Colossians 3:22) "Slaves are to be submissive to their masters in everything, and to be well-pleasing, not talking back.”(Titus 2:9) "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18) Slaves should obey their masters? Hardly. Slavery was one of the most offensive institutions to ever befall humanity. Sadly, the scriptures condoned it, and, as you can see from the above verses, demanded that slaves obey their masters...even cruel ones. Are those verses the "Word of God?" Of course not. They are merely reflective of cultural biases which found their way into the Biblical text.
• "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down for about a full day." (Joshua 10:13 NIV) The great astronomer Galileo was jailed by religious authorities when he asserted that the Earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around, as the above verse suggests. If the Bible were the "inerrant, literal Word of God," as people like Jerry Falwell claim, surely God would have known that it was the Earth, and not the sun which had stopped. In February of 1616, religious authorities asked a commission of theologians, known as the Qualifiers, about Galileo's claim that the Sun is at the center of the planets' motions and does not move, and that the Earth is not at the center and does move. On February 24, 1616, the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."
  

Conclusion

When it comes to the scriptural verses which seem to be against homosexuality, fundamentalists boldly declare their belief in the "infallible, inerrant Word of God", demanding that every single word be taken literally, without exception. But when it comes to the awkward verses listed above, they become much less sure of themselves. So much less sure, in fact, that they don't follow what their own Bible says.

"Jesus said to him, you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40)

The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is obviously a hypocritical selective use of the Bible against the gays.  Nobody today tries to keep the laws in Leviticus. Look at Leviticus 11:1-12, where all unclean animals are forbidden as food, including rabbits, pigs, and shellfish, such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, clams, and others that are called an "abomination."  Leviticus 20:25 demands that "you are to make a distinction between the clean and unclean animal and between the unclean and clean bird; and you shall not make yourself an abomination by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean."  You can eat some insects like locusts (grasshoppers), but not others.

Leviticus 12:1-8 declares that a woman is unclean for 33 days after giving birth to a boy and for 66 days after giving birth to a girl and goes on to demand that certain animals must be offered as a burnt offering and a sin offering for cleansing. (Why is it that the girl child causes a longer ritual unclean time – do even the Jews today go into seclusion and burn offerings anymore? It was originally their law…) Nobody today who claims to be a Christian tries to keep these laws, and few people even know about them! Why do you think that most people don't know about them?

Read Leviticus 23 to see the detailed regulations concerning "complete rest" on the Sabbath day and demands of animal sacrifices to be carried out according to exact instructions.  Leviticus 18:19 forbids a husband from having sex with his wife during her menstrual period.  Leviticus 19:19 forbids mixed breeding of various kinds of cattle, sowing various kinds of seeds in your field or wearing "a garment made from two kinds of material mixed together."  Leviticus 19:27 demands that "you shall not round off the side-growth of your heads, nor harm the edges of your beard." The next verse forbids "tattoo marks on yourself."  Most people do not even know that these laws are in the Bible and are demanded equally with all the others.

Why don't fundamentalists organize protests and picket seafood restaurants, oyster bars, church barbecue suppers, all grocery stores, barber shops, tattoo parlors, and stores that sell suits and dresses made of mixed wool, cotton, polyester, and other materials?  All of these products and services are "abominations" in Leviticus.  When have you heard a preacher condemn the demonic abomination of garments that are made of mixed fabrics? 

The warning is given in Leviticus 26:14-16 that "If you do not obey me and do not carry out all of these commandments, if instead, you reject my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances so as not to carry out all my commandments ...I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that shall waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you shall sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies shall eat it up."  The list of punishments and terrors that will come from not keeping all of the commandments continues through many verses.

Read what Jesus said in Matthew 7:1-5 about hypocrites who judge others. "Do not judge lest you be judged yourselves... Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ...You hypocrite!"

If you have been led to misuse Leviticus and other parts of the Bible in order to condemn and hate and reject people, you are on the wrong path.  Jesus quoted only one passage from Leviticus: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (19:18). Jesus used Leviticus to teach love. Many false teachers use Leviticus and other writings to condemn, humiliate and destroy.  I know which approach seems truly Christian to me.  Jesus never condemned homosexuals or even mentioned anything in the negative that could be taken as a reference to sexual orientation. Jesus took up for gays, according to some beliefs.

Any charge against Gays and Lesbians based on the life and teachings of Jesus has to be dismissed for a lack of evidence!

The use of Leviticus to judge and condemn anyone today is ludicrous and absurd in the light of the total content of the book.  To call the content of the Book of Leviticus the "word of God" and try to enforce any part of it today is without support in the teachings of Jesus and in the letters of Paul.

Jesus in Mark 7:18-23 chided his disciples for their lack of spiritual understanding.  Jesus and his disciples had been condemned by the religious leaders because they did not wash and eat according to the Law.  Jesus said, "Are you too so uncomprehending?  Don't you see that whatever goes into your mouth from the outside cannot defile you; because it does not go into your heart, but into your stomach, and is eliminated? (Thus Jesus declared all foods clean.").  And Jesus added, "That which proceeds from within you, out of your heart, defiles you.  Evil thoughts, abusive sex acts, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting, wickedness, deceit, not  caring, envy, slander, arrogance and foolishness: all of these evil things proceed from within and defile you."

Paul also rejected the absolute commands of Leviticus in Colossians 2:8-23, where he said, "If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 'Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!' (Which all refer to things destined to perish with the using) in accordance with human commandments and teachings? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against human indulgence." (2:20-23).  Paul declared in 2:14 that Jesus has "canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us which was hostile to us; and Jesus has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."

Many people have answered the argument that most of the "abominations" in Leviticus referred to food by saying that the people back then knew that pork was unhealthy, and that is why pigs were declared to be unclean.  If you follow that logic, you would declare anything that is unhealthy to be an "abomination."  We know that cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, fatty food and many other things are unhealthy; so why are they not also called "abominations" and condemned by the rabid Bible literalists with protests and pickets against cigarette companies, all liquor stores and bars, all fast food outlets, and any store that sells anything that is unhealthy?  The reason is simple - the use of Leviticus to condemn and reject anyone is impossible to justify in the light of the facts. In fact, let me take it just one step further for you - the use of Leviticus to ostracize, condemn and ultimately attempt to reject homosexuals is a SIN. It’s not Biblical. It’s not part of what God actually says and it makes literal legalistic bible based religion look ridiculous.

To me personally, the gospel of Jesus Christ always has been good news for everyone.  Personal evangelism has been my basic emphasis in the ministry since I was a child. My momma raised me to walk the walk and talk the talk. It was something that became basic second nature. It was my impetus for attending seminary and playing in Christian music groups. In the times I chose to speak for churches like my parents’ church or when I would travel and sing in churches, it was to spread the love and message of Jesus. Just for the purpose of being very, VERY clear: during all of this time - I have been gay. I have realized that I was gay since I was about 8 years old. And for those that think this is the point that you will put this down and go read something else, let me just close it out with this:

God loves me just as I am and uses me in ministry that fits me and my life as an individual.  I hope and I pray that you find the same thing for yourself.

Here are additional blogs in the series:
Part One - Why and Introduction
Part Two - Sodom and Gomorrah
Part Two - Levitical Law
Part Two - Romans Road To Salvation
Part Two - Oh, Paul... Nobody Likes Prison Rape
Part Two - Wrapping Up the "Big Six" Scriptures
Part Three - WWJD, Y'all? What Would Jesus Do?
Part Three - Better Run Tell Somebody!
Part Four - Same Sex Activity In The Bible
Part Five - Common Christian Beliefs
Part Five - One Anglican View Against Being Gay
Part Six - Examples of Gay Couples in The Bible
Part Six - David and Jonathan - A Love Story
Part Seven - Conclusions, Recaps, and References

Cheers,
#JustBeingMichael

Is Being Gay A Sin? Part Two - Sodom And Gomorrah

Is Being Gay A Sin?

Part Two - The Story of Sodom And Gomorrah

Welcome to the second installment of my blog series on "Is Being Gay A Sin?"

If you've not read Part One - Why and Introduction, please do so. It'll make the reading more clear and provide a foundation for review of scriptures, translations, and context.

Genesis 19:5: "Bring them out to us that we may know them."
Now, according to my research and anything I have read, this is the very first scripture that points toward homosexuality. No, seriously. And then, of course, the rest of the story shows that fire comes down, destroys a city, and turns one woman to salt because she dared to even look back. That’s the fairy tale Sunday school version, anyway. In reality, it’s kind of gruesome, no matter what side of the fence you are on. On the flip side of that coin, we need to take a closer look at some of the real issues presented in the very first book of the Bible. Seriously??? Fire from heaven? God chose to kill an entire little city? Entire cities destroyed? Even the women and children and animals? Cute little dogs and cats? Ladies turned to salt? Just for looking? That sounds like a bunch of foolishness and mayhem. And it was. But WHY did it happen, Reader? There had to be more than just a mob mentality of hurting angels and God's displeasure, right?

There are liberals that debate that the word “know” is simply “to know”; that no hint at homosexuality exists in the original Hebrew.  And technically, literally, they would be correct. It is true that the original language in later Bible references to Sodom never mention homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. Actually, many modern translations add words to the text to create the lie that the people of Sodom were homosexual.

So, what’s the big deal with this word, “know”? Adam apparently “knew” Eve, and ever since the Bible was translated into the Kings English, we have been using some form of this work to describe sex. Right? Well, yeah… I mean, we have. I can see why the conservative right would think that if it says it in early Genesis, then why not the same thing 19 chapters later?   Well, Hebrew is funny. And like any translation (try conjugating Spanish and French for a few semesters), you have to know the context, the word used, and how it was translated into something you read, believe, and then take to heart. Especially if you are going to base your belief systems off of it. And please keep in mind also that the Hebrew alphabet is composed of 22 consonants. Each consonant has 2 meanings: one that is verbal, and one from the gematria (numerical) system akin to numerology that has specific meanings as well. If a Hebrew word has 3 consonants, there are 6 possible meanings (depending on the context), and most times the meanings marry together fairly well. There is also the conjugation that  can open up any number of interpretations.The word "know" in Genesis 19:5 is YADA in Hebrew. It is used 943 times in the Old Testament to "know" God, good and evil, the truth, the law, people, places, things, etc.

It is a very flexible word, as are SO many Hebrew words. As are many words in many languages (refer back to that Hebrew, Spanish and French conjugation and translation). The word YADA "to know" is never used in the Old Testament to mean "to have sex with".  People have been conditioned to think that "to know someone biblically" means to have sex.  And, truthfully, if that’s all you’ve ever been taught, why wouldn’t you think that? I don’t blame anyone for thinking that. I have used the term myself. But, the use of YADA in Genesis 4:1-2 to say that Adam knew Eve and she conceived and gave birth to Cain is followed by saying that later she gave birth to his brother Abel without any reference to YADA. Why? Simply because YADA does not mean to have sex.  It is a general term that describes many kinds of intimate relationships.  In studying the different uses of YADA in the Old Testament, my conclusion is that it never means what we mean by sexual intercourse. I can just hear both liberals and conservatives now! Gasping for air! It. Doesn’t. Mean. That. Y’all will just have to get over it.

Try this: Close your eyes. Breathe. Now, just substitute some slang expression for sex instead of the word "know" in Genesis 4:1 and you will see how silly the idea is. Old Testament writers never thought or wrote in those terms.  The Bible never gives any details about sexual acts (minus the Song of Solomon…holla!). The only clear Hebrew term for sexual acts is "to lie with," which is left without any further explanation. I know when I have sex, I don’t “lie” there. So that’s weird, too. Scripture can be confusing. I’ll try to help make it clearer.

Let’s examine the actual story. In Genesis 19:5, the word YADA was used to express the request of the people of Sodom that Lot should bring out the strangers in his house so that they could know who they were.  But there is more to it than that. There were real cultural and political issues at the time that caused this reaction. You need to first understand that Sodom was a tiny, little bitty fortress in the barren wasteland south of the Dead Sea. If you weren’t from there, you generally weren’t there. You weren’t welcome there. Think of it in current terms of Israel and Palestine, or maybe in terms of rival gangs in big cities. The only strangers that the people of Sodom ever saw were enemy tribes who wanted to destroy and take over their valuable fortress and the trade routes that it protected.  Even Lot himself was an alien in their midst. He was Jewish, and well off, and a great man and trader. He was a successful business man there, but he was an outsider.

Do you, Reader, begin to understand some of the climate? Also, what does “know” mean there? So, was it to understand who these strangers were and possibly hurt them? Probably, it was to ask why there were strangers welcomed on their “turf” and to possibly hurt them. Even less likely, but still a valid question due to wording and translation issues is: Was it to “get off” because they were gay and wanted to just have sex with them or rape them? If that was part of the torture, yes. It is more doubtful this was the only intent, but the next passage certainly makes it seem so.

Personally, I don’t like the next part. From the conservative standpoint, it partly undermines my point, unless you read it, process it, and understand the way that people punished and humiliated strangers and men in those times. Granted, the mob assembled was clearly upset about something. And they did ask for the strangers (angels). And in those days, hurting and humiliating different tribes, cultures, and men on those days was rough. Cutting to the chase, it was through anal rape. Through stripping and beating and raping. So, then… it is not entirely implausible that this is a part of their request to Lot. But not just through the word “know”. You have to know some history, and the context. This wasn’t just in Sodom. This was common in the era. Spartans, Romans, Greeks, and Jews alike used anal rape as punishment. Again, I understand the culture of the time, but what I hate is the next part:

I don’t really “get” the answer Lot gave. Lot's astounding and inexplicable (to me) response to the request was to offer his young daughters to the men. That’s why I hate this story, I hate Lot’s response, and I hate the entire cultural situation this story has caused - It was the whole daughter thing. The town got riled up, created a mob, and wanted to punish the strangers, and Lot offers them his kids. So, if it was a gay thing, and Sodom men just have sex with men, why would a daughter suffice for punishment of a foreigner in their midst entertaining other foreigners? Honestly, this is where I began understanding the “inhospitality” defense. And to be honest, Lot’s answer was an offer that seems to me to be far more reprehensible than any problem of sexual orientation. Again, I ask the question, if those men were homosexual, why did Lot offer to give them his daughters?  These hostile and violent people were heterosexual, and homosexual orientation had nothing to do with the incident. I still think Lot should have been struck dead for giving that crowd his children. Sorry, God, but that was just crossing the line to me.

Hmmm… Are you still with me, Reader? Yeah, you are. Well, then, Michael… If this isn’t the case, then why is anal intercourse now termed as sodomy? Partially because people just ended up attributing it incorrectly. People make stupid choices and there are many things that end up in the vernacular that never should have…

"SODOMY" is not a biblical word. Laws against sodomy not only violate the Constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state; they also use an incorrect and wrongly translated term for the laws.  A "Sodomite" in the Bible is simply a person who lives in Sodom, which included Lot and his family.  The term "sodomite" in the King James Version of Deuteronomy 23:17 and I Kings 14:24 is an incorrect translation of the Hebrew word for "temple prostitute."  (See the book by Mark D. Jordan: The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology. University of Chicago Press, 1997.) – Rembert Truluck

And, as I have stated previously, most people don’t study for themselves. They just don’t. Most of the “Average Joes” that go to church on Sunday never research the language, the history, or the meanings for themselves. Actually, in my opinion, the average person assumes that the Bible clearly condemns male to male sexual intercourse as "sodomy" and that the city of Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality, which is seen as the worst of all sins in the Bible.  These assumptions are based on no evidence at all in the Bible. For instance, did you personally know that NO Jewish scholars before the first Christian century taught that the sin of Sodom was of a sexual nature? None of the biblical references to Sodom mention sexual sins but view Sodom as an example of injustice, lack of hospitality to strangers, idolatry and as a symbol for desolation and destruction.  Don’t believe me? Check out Deuteronomy 29:22-28; 32:32; Ezekiel 16:49-50; Jeremiah 49:18; 50:41; Isaiah 13:19-22 and Matthew 10:14-15. Read the strange story in Judges 19:1-30 of the Levite in Gibeah, which was patterned after the story of Lot and the angels in Genesis 19.  Jewish teachers before the time of Christ never saw either of these stories as having any connection with homosexuality or sexual orientation. And, also, in Jude 7, the term "strange flesh" is Greek heterosarkos ("different flesh" and from which the word "heterosexual" comes) and refers to foreign idols or people. There will be more on this later. But it isn’t translated from homo ("the same") flesh or people. Another interesting point of note for this is that sarkos is never used in the New Testament as a word for "sex."

I know: This is a heavy subject. And it can really be difficult to translate and comprehend based on lifelong teachings versus actually reading words from Hebrew and translating them to context. And, honestly, it can be kind of a yawn to read. So, then…what really happened in Sodom? Besides the basic story that everyone seems to know, if you twist the story, and you only want it to say it was a gay thing…you will get that out of it. But if you do that, you will miss what it actually does try to tell you and the message that the story is trying to impart.

The bottom line is that the story does not deal with being gay. It doesn’t deal with how a person identifies themselves or their sexual orientation. At the end of the day, it has no bearing at all on the issue of the God of the Old Testament and his acceptance or rejection of what would be considered “LGBT” in today’s standards.  The story of Sodom clearly teaches that evil and violent people who attack aliens and strangers whom they do not know or understand receive God's quick and terrible punishment. I mean, please read Leviticus. I am begging all of you readers out there, both of you. Please read and study for yourselves. Conservative Jewish people had very strict hospitality rules - even to the Gentiles and heathens. Read about it, folks. Hospitality and codes of conduct are all up in Leviticus.

Here are additional blogs in the series:
Part One - Why and Introduction
Part Two - Sodom and Gomorrah
Part Two - Levitical Law
Part Two - Romans Road To Salvation
Part Two - Oh, Paul... Nobody Likes Prison Rape
Part Two - Wrapping Up the "Big Six" Scriptures
Part Three - WWJD, Y'all? What Would Jesus Do?
Part Three - Better Run Tell Somebody!
Part Four - Same Sex Activity In The Bible
Part Five - Common Christian Beliefs
Part Five - One Anglican View Against Being Gay
Part Six - Examples of Gay Couples in The Bible
Part Six - David and Jonathan - A Love Story
Part Seven - Conclusions, Recaps, and References

Cheers,
#JustBeingMichael