News For Anti-Gay Christians.

The word "homosexual" was not added into any biblical text until the 1946 editions were printed. It did not make the New International Version until the 1970s. People need to know the historical as well as the socio-economic times in which a text is written, printed or translated from one language to another, especially as revisions occur.

In fact, many words in the English translations of the Bible are not in the original Hebrew and Greek texts as written by the original authors.

The supposed references to homosexuality were added by biblical translators as their "interpretation" of what was written some 1,946 years after Jesus died.

In other words, for at least 98 percent of our history after Jesus' death, the word "homosexual" was not in any biblical text at all.

For centuries, the Bible was only written, translated and interpreted by men, for men, and about men, who were all believed to be heterosexual. Do you think that maybe the interpretations were slanted to reflect the translator's own personal prejudices on this subject? One can only speculate . . .

Source: www.clarionledger.com...

I recently found this online and found it interesting. So, what do christians have to say now?
Is condemming homosexuality REALLY the will of god? Should they change because some guy in the 40s decided to make it a sin when for thousands of years it hasnt been?

Discuss and please be CIVIL.

Disclaimer: I'm an atheist .. and I support gay and lesbian rights, my best friends are fellow lesbian musicians I work with ..

In biblical terms however, the word may not have existed but the bible's sentiments towards the topic of gay relationships is still pretty evident .. unfortunately, it's still not something that is supportive of those kinds of relationships.

This really just points out that the word was added to the texts at that time when it wasn't there prior

i would be curious to know what was the original word/concept that was 'mistranslated' into homosexual.

it was interesting to find out that adam's "rib" was a probable mistranslation of ''side".


either way, the fact that folks work themselves up into a venomous lather over what a single book says is what i find most peculiar.

reply to post by mythos


Nobody would be fighting if the people would stop shoving the book in our face and saying "OBEY."
I see it as self defence, legal in most states.

I believe the only christians that Hate gays are the ones that take the entire bible as "Gods word"...

These are the same people that condem wicca, and other sects of their own belief as well...

And considering theres very few references within the bible that relate to homosexuality... I believe its quite the misguided view... especially considering their "savior" did not condem gays

Oh the hypocrisy!!

I am sorry OP but are you actually asking religious Anti-Gay Christians to think logically?

Good luck with that one. If they had any penchant for logical thinking this argument would not exist in the world.

If you would like to reach an Anti-Gay Christian try saying god spoke to you and commanded you to spread the word that he/she/it was misquoted and to hate gays is to spend an eternity in burning hell-fire.

Reason and logic will get you nowhere with that crowd.

reply to post by sageofmonticello


I think this might touch some of them, knowing that their bible has been tainted by human hands.

The Religious Tolerance website has a lot of interesting things to say about misinterpretations while translating the bible through the years.

Because such a large percentage of North Americans are English speaking and identify themselves as Jews, Christians and Muslims, it is important to understand what the Bible says about this topic: both in its original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek language, and after its translation into English by religious translators.

I think the bible has been messed with far too many times for it to be taken seriously. People with agendas have corrupted it for their own purposes. People should look in their hearts and ask themselves if it's right or wrong that all people are treated equally. It's really as simple as that.

As far as I'm concerned, what people do in the privacy of their own homes, as long as they aren't hurting anybody, is their own business.

I can't believe how many people get their panties in a bunch over things like this. It is none of anybody's business.

As far as the bible goes, I believe it was misinterpreted, and too many things were omitted. There is some good stuff in that book, to be sure, but if you take all of it absolutely literally, it'll drive you crazy, because there is way too many contradictions in it.

God is Love. Jesus said, "Turn the other cheek". Then God smites and punishes those who anger him, and he plays favorites. It's completely schizoid.

I follow the 10 commandments. I like the admonitions, "Love thy neighbor as thyself", and "Treat others as you would have them treat you." I guess that means that, if your neighbors are gay, you are to love them, and treat them respectfully.

'Nuff said.

reply to post by darkredfish


I do not think that the word "homosexual" appears in any of my own texts-- and I have several translations.

However, that homosexual behavior is not the model of sexuality upheld by the Law is clear (regarding between men) in the Hebrew scriptures; and homosexual relations are not the ideal of sexual behavior whether between men or between women is clearly stated in the Christian scripture.

The argument is as weak and false as "Jesus never said anything against homosexuality" which is true, but misleading when stated without qualification since The Law is not silent on the practice and neither is the New Testament.

The real theological work is in Why?

Since in Hebrew and Christian scripture, marriage is specifically to be between a man and a woman ("male and female He created them... and for this reason a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife") but what of the needs and human rights of all others? That homosexuality is not the model of sexual relation, and is even severely condemned, what is the work of the Church (from my perspective, being a Christian) to those who do not consider themselves heterosexual by nature?

I would suggest that it is to uphold the model while allowing for humanity-- such as reserving sacramental marriage for the model, but demanding civil and economic equality and toleration for all.

But when a social agenda begins to tell the Church what it believes, and what it is allowed to believe and practice-- I, for one, get my dander up.

I prefer chocolate and beer to bread and wine, but when someone discussing the sacrament of the Altar (i.e., "The Mass") starts saying chocolate is the same as bread, and beer is the same as wine, I'll disagree-- and refuse to accept chocolate as the "Body of Christ" and beer as "the Blood of Christ."

That is theology. And claiming the word "homosexual" is not in the Bible is a red herring. See the difference?

Romans 1:24-27

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

This is what they will tell you, plain and simple.

ETA: Disclaimer: I have no problem with gays. That is their business. Not mine.

reply to post by darkredfish


If its not natural , its probably a sin.

A pole in another pole's hole. Is not natural my friend.

People CHOOSE what they believe.

They could CHOOSE to believe what this United Methodist minister has to say. (PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE).

Homosexuality and the Bible
by The Rev. Dr. Walter Wink

Sexual issues are tearing our churches apart today as never before. The issue of homosexuality threatens to fracture whole denominations, as the issue of slavery did a hundred and fifty years ago. We naturally turn to the Bible for guidance, and find ourselves mired in interpretative quicksand. Is the Bible able to speak to our confusion on this issue?

The debate over homosexuality is a remarkable opportunity, because it raises in an especially acute way how we interpret the Bible, not in this case only, but in numerous others as well. The real issue here, then, is not simply homosexuality, but how Scripture informs our lives today.

www.soulforce.org...

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by darkredfish

 

If its not natural , its probably a sin.

A pole in another pole's hole. Is not natural my friend.

Not every gay man has anal sex. A lot of heteros do have anal sex.

I guess its also unnatural for heteros to experiences various types of sexual acts.

Are heteros judged only by their sex acts - - - or by their careers - their family - what church they go to - their contributions to society - etc.

reply to post by milkyway12


Do I really need to list the 3,000 animals that participate in it?
Or why don't we just call me asexual, but I have a really good guyfriend that likes to touch me, not much diffrent from wrestling is it?

Does that fit your narrow mind?

Edit: also, does this mean comPuters, artificial clothing, most food, and soda is all a sin?
Those are just a couple unnatural things. I could list things for HOURS.


Oniphone

reply to post by Frira


Feeble attempt is feeble.
I find it funny how when I point something out the automatic Christian response is " I'm right your wrong! llalalalalalalalalqlallalalalLalala I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

On myiphone so spelling will suck

Originally posted by darkredfish
reply to post by Frira

 

Feeble attempt is feeble.
I find it funny how when I point something out the automatic Christian response is " I'm right your wrong! llalalalalalalalalqlallalalalLalala I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

On myiphone so spelling will suck

Feeble? I slammed you to the mat, and heard you let out a great "Ooof."

In other words, that you did not engage what I wrote, but resorted to "feeble" and stereotyping because you suddenly knew you were way in over your head. I now know I could take you down any time, any place-- simply because you are unwilling to learn-- and it doesn't hurt that I actually know what I am writing about.

You want to start a topic? You should have been prepared to hear from people far more educated than you are-- or likely ever will be. Your mistake.

Originally posted by Frira
But when a social agenda begins to tell the Church what it believes, and what it is allowed to believe and practice-- I, for one, get my dander up.

A social agenda? I love when people refer to Equal Human Rights as a Social Agenda. There is no agenda - - its deserved rights for all humans.

Ignorance in ancient times is not a good enough excuse to remain in the dark ages - - - no matter who's alleged "word" it refers to.

As God made man - - - is more in reality today then it ever was.The reality is - - it is not black and white - - male/female - - but many shades of gray.

The Sanctity/Sacrament of Marriage is a joke - - considering at the time women were property and had no rights. They were bought - sold - bartered - and used to strengthen political alliances.

So yes - absolutely I can criticize pick-and-choose from the bible believers.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Frira
But when a social agenda begins to tell the Church what it believes, and what it is allowed to believe and practice-- I, for one, get my dander up.

A social agenda? I love when people refer to Equal Human Rights as a Social Agenda. There is no agenda - - its deserved rights for all humans.

That statement of your makes it clear that you do not know who the players are in the Church taking up the fight for gay rights and against it. I am an insider. I know them, speak with them, read them, analyze what they write, discuss it and teach it.

Very few of those involved have theological backgrounds-- which makes me valuable to them (although I do not do it anymore-- I did for over decade whenever asked).

I mean, did you read what I wrote? Did you get that I'm an advocate for gay rights? The original OP didn't, but I wrote it, and meant it.

The original OP does not even know that the NIV is not a "translation" but a paraphrase-- something any Bible scholar knows. The NIV is also a product of strict and legalistic ideology-- written to put forth certain views. The NRSV, while a "translation" was notorious for doing the same thing from the opposite perspective-- in that instance, intentionally mistranslating words for $ales-- not denominational agenda.

Those in the Church against gay rights (which I will never understand, and devoid of theology, but instead entirely legalistic) and those in the Church wanting to use the Church for their social agenda -- with never a thought to the Church's theological position (not even knowing what that is, nor caring) each drive the sexuality movements taking place inside the Church.

The vast majority of theologians are very aware that neither extreme has a leg to stand on, and wish both extremes would simply stop. But we do not have a mechanism in the modern church for silencing the presumptuous-- those who falsely believe they have a say in theological matters without having any theological skill, training, or interest. There are a few exceptions-- some real scholars taking one extreme position or the other-- but most theologians dismiss them.

I mean, off the top of my head because it is a good example I have used before: Raise your hand if you have read O'Donovan... or even know who he is? More can raise their hand if I asked about Spong, but not many. If I taught a graduate level class on marriage and human sexuality, O'Donovan and Spong would be required reading. The "popular" or blog-based writings are not for scholars nor of scholars-- no matter which side of the issue they are on. The scholars are hard at work between the two-- attempting to provide answers-- not take sides (okay, Spong took sides). You find the real "meat" in theological textbooks and Journals-- not on the Internet and not on Amazon.

A lot of my work has been to read and digest the theological scholars and apply it for use to non-scholars. But I have my limits as to how far I can condescend.

When I hear either of the two common extremes which I can characterize as:
* Pat says, "My Uncle Freddy/Aunt Becky used to come into my room and fiddle about-- and I will always hate any homosexual", or
* Francis says, "I'm gay, and demand the Church cease its claim that the Sacramental aspect of a union between two persons is only extended to when the two person are of the opposite sex."

Both are wearisome, because neither is initially open to taking a greater and broader view. My job is to take that greater and broader view; and to work with others who can do likewise-- and not just on these issues.

Ignorance in ancient times is not a good enough excuse to remain in the dark ages - - - no matter who's alleged "word" it refers to.

Agreed. And it is the theologians who listen to the culture and society-- both inside and outside of the Church who make the extremes fade away-- not those taking extremes. You are welcome.

The Sanctity/Sacrament of Marriage is a joke - - considering at the time women were property and had no rights. They were bought - sold - bartered - and used to strengthen political alliances.

The Sanctity of Marriage is diminished by those who abuse (period). That the abusers, male or female, abuse their victims corrupts the sanctity of any relation and is of great concern-- not a "joke."

Sacrament is something else entirely. Sacrament is a holy mystery characterized by an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. The outward and visible sign of a Sacramental Marriage is the physical potency of a man merged with the physical fertility of a woman as the outward and visible (albeit, private!) sign of the Union of God and man, foreshadowed for all of humankind in the Incarnation, but pointing to the teleological end intended for humankind by God from the beginning (e.g., Christ is groom, Church is Bride).

Originally posted by Annee
People CHOOSE what they believe.

They could CHOOSE to believe what this United Methodist minister has to say. (PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE).

Homosexuality and the Bible
by The Rev. Dr. Walter Wink

Sexual issues are tearing our churches apart today as never before. The issue of homosexuality threatens to fracture whole denominations, as the issue of slavery did a hundred and fifty years ago. We naturally turn to the Bible for guidance, and find ourselves mired in interpretative quicksand. Is the Bible able to speak to our confusion on this issue?

The debate over homosexuality is a remarkable opportunity, because it raises in an especially acute way how we interpret the Bible, not in this case only, but in numerous others as well. The real issue here, then, is not simply homosexuality, but how Scripture informs our lives today.

www.soulforce.org...

And another thing-- the Wink article was very good (take THAT!).

He avoids a few matters that are central, but mostly makes up for his omissions because his clear sense is a call for toleration.

There is also a need for stating that faith of the Church in the positive-- what it is, what it means; rather than what it is not and what it does not mean. While the Nicene Creed, for example, actually was concluded with anathemas (setting apart those who disagreed or taught otherwise), the central work-- and the work known to most-- is all stated in what IS believed.