Please Stop Claiming Jesus Accepts LGBT People

[doggie]

At first I was like what? but really does it matter that the bible condemns gays?

it condemns many things and justifies rape and pillage and ripping babies and of bellies. So all christians ignore some of the bible why should this be any different?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-sos ... 51550.html

I'm going to keep this brief.

There's a troubling trend in liberal America: the desire to marginalize right-wing Christians by claiming they don't understand their own religion. While this is true in a number of respects, it doesn't change the fact that they're right about something: Paul condemns queer folks. And there isn't a shred of evidence that Jesus was a fan either, assuming he existed.

I'm all for dismissing opinions that are damaging and harmful. But we can't do so by being openly insincere and insecure in the process. Queer identity, as it's commonly understood (if it even is commonly understood today), wasn't a concept until very recent history. The entire Bible had been finished for over a millennium by the time the word "gay" came to exist.

What the Bible does do is prescribe behavior. Gay sex is not once directly described in a positive manner, and it's explicitly condemned in the Hebrew texts. When Christians tell you that their book calls you an "abomination," they're more right than wrong. Despite how infrequently it occurs, clobber passages are there.

Sure, David and Jonathan seemed to have had a little thing going on up in that field. And it's certainly true that writers of the Bible had varying positions on sexual norms. We can see that from the evolution between the way the earliest texts describe women to the way Jesus describes women.

But there's an incredibly good reason LGBT folks and their allies should agree with anti-gay Christians that the Bible condemns them: if we bother arguing that the Bible supports us, we're conceding its validity as a moral text. And once we free ourselves from its shackles, fundamentalists can just use it to abuse the next minority group unfortunate enough to stumble across their path.

The key point is that it absolutely does not matter what the Bible says about LGBTs or any other grouping of people. We don't even need to spend time denouncing the Bible's abhorrent stances on everything from slavery to rape, because it just isn't important. The Bible is an epic historical text that traces the way a large group of religious people understand their general genealogy and evolution of identity.

Taking a single ancient anthology as an evergreen moral blueprint is a problem that cannot be understated. Whether or not the source is good or evil isn't the issue. Ethical perspectives evolve over time and shouldn't be bound by the musings of ancient writers who had absolutely no imagining of our contemporary world.

This is a concept millions of moderate religious people completely understand and embrace. Unfortunately, there's still a large contingent of conservative Christians in the U.S. that are hanging on to a strictly prescriptive style of religion.

[Mama Mia]

Well this site ( and Google says many others) completely disagrees and throws out bible verses as well. So there's that.

Jesus, in my opinion, can be shown as likely accepting pretty much any individual whose behavior didn't harm others. Some of it has to be taken in cultural context, of course, but " be nice" seemed to be his thing.

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/index.html

[polecat]

It would be clearer (and probably more appreciated by the author) if you used quotes or block quote or something.

Regardless. *shrug* He makes good points. But even were I to believe that the very being of a gay person was sinful (which is stupid since a person isn't a sin -- an action is a sin), I would still struggle to buy that Jesus would hate gay people the way conservative Christians hate gay people. Jesus spent a lot of time with some pretty sinful people. Iirc, he preferred the company of sinners to the company of holier-than-thou whited sepulchres (heck, don't we all?) So even if Jesus thought that men loving men was sinful, I think he'd still choose to hang with Matt Bomer and Ellen Degeneres over hanging with Ken Alexander or Cabinet Crumbface.

Anyone can make the Bible back up any kind of heinous belief. I can point out verses where God commanded abortions. A pro-lifer can point out verses where God seems to be saying that we're all divinely human before our parents even had that twinkle in their eyes. I can find verses to back up my belief that all people are worthy of dignity and kindness. Fundies can pick out verses that they believe imply that the "children of Ham," or Black people, are cursed simply for being. At the end of the day, we have to choose where we stand on every topic. As the author says, using the Bible as a moral authority by cherry-picking verses just doesn't work. You can use the Bible as an excuse to hate or you can use it as a reason to love. I choose the latter.

[doggie]

exactly. that is a much better argument then saying the bible says being gay is ok.

[Georgiana]

Jesus made a pretty clear point of accepting, honoring, and loving sinners.

He defended a woman from stoning.

He dined at the home of a tax collector who was abusing his power to make a profit.

He was kind to prostitutes and adulterers.

You know who He DIDN'T like? The Pharisees. The people who were making a profit off of religion. The people who were holding themselves up as being "better" at their religion than others. The people who were judging others and putting them down as not "holy" enough. The people who were selling things in the temple when God's love is freely given.

Honestly, I've read the Bible. We're all sinners, but luckily for us, Jesus loves sinners. I'm not worried about one particular "type" of sin more than another because the Bible and Jesus make no such distinction. Worry for the people who remind you of the Pharisees. Worry about the people who use religion for profit and personal gain. Jesus wasn't so loving to them.

[VelociRapture]

The simple fact is this: Paul hated Homosexuality because it was common and accepted in Pagan cultures. He believed that Polytheism was wrong and sinful, therefore some things that they did in their culture (like acceptance of Homosexuality) were also wrong and sinful.

Also, Paul was an asshole. :pull-hair:

Jesus made a pretty clear point of accepting, honoring, and loving sinners.

He defended a woman from stoning.

He dined at the home of a tax collector who was abusing his power to make a profit.

He was kind to prostitutes and adulterers.

You know who He DIDN'T like? The Pharisees. The people who were making a profit off of religion. The people who were holding themselves up as being "better" at their religion than others. The people who were judging others and putting them down as not "holy" enough. The people who were selling things in the temple when God's love is freely given.

Honestly, I've read the Bible. We're all sinners, but luckily for us, Jesus loves sinners. I'm not worried about one particular "type" of sin more than another because the Bible and Jesus make no such distinction. Worry for the people who remind you of the Pharisees. Worry about the people who use religion for profit and personal gain. Jesus wasn't so loving to them.

I agree, but the problem is this: Jesus may have loved the person, but that doesn't mean he didn't attempt to stop them from "sinning" again. Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but didn't Jesus attempt to kind of cure the people that were sinning? Or convince them that they were living wrong and should change? And, if so, how does that make him all that different than modern day Conservatives? He may have used nicer language, but it would still have been the same message - we love you, but different is bad and you should change.

(Please note, I am curious to know whether I'm remembering correctly or not. Feel free to point out any errors in my post.)

[HereticHick]

I'm a bit troubled by an author who writes ". And there isn't a shred of evidence that Jesus was a fan either, assuming he existed."

We have good historical evidence that Jesus was a real person. This has nothing to do with his divinity or lack thereof.

Anyone who says otherwise is intellectually lazy.

[Delilah]

Here is a good site that talks about the clobber passages in the Bible. It's what I refer to when I encounter Bible thumpers who wasnt to discriminate against the LGBT community. The essay says there really is no slam dunk passage in the Bible. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hombiblnt.htm

[Delilah]

The simple fact is this: Paul hated Homosexuality because it was common and accepted in Pagan cultures. He believed that Polytheism was wrong and sinful, therefore some things that they did in their culture (like acceptance of Homosexuality) were also wrong and sinful.

Also, Paul was an asshole. :pull-hair: (end quote - see edit note)

Yeah, I have a problem with Paul too. I want to like the guy who wrote 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 because those words are so beautiful, but I can't get past the fact that Paul was kind of an asshole. I think he was a misogynist, and his words in 1 Timothy have been used as justification to abuse women.

edit - I messed up on doing the quote. I now banish myself to the practice page. :embarrassed:

[BrownieMomma]

Color me impressed with the article. I agree that if you try to use the Bible to show that homosexuality isn't wrong, that means you are accepting the validity of it.

So he's basically saying to not accept it as a valid moral text but as a book intended for a certain group, Christians. That man is pretty darn genius.

[doggie]

The thing I think he is saving is yes the Bible dies not accept homosexuality but so what? No one follows every accepted thing in the Bible so why use it against something that can't be changed

[2xx1xy1JD]

Interesting point, and I sort of agree. Then again, I also argue that the Bible puts gay male sex on the same level as eating bacon-wrapped shrimp. The fact that something is Biblically condemned doesn't mean that a conversation is over, and it's not a valid reason on its own to treat other people like shit or deprive them of legal rights.I did like the fact that he referred to the Bible as an anthology, not a book.

So says a proud descendent of Pharisees. [i could make an argument here that we know a lot about the Pharisees from historical sources other than the New Testament. I could argue that the negative treatment in the New Testament had much more to do with personal hurt feelings than actual doctrinal differences, and that folks usually use terms like "hypocrite" when they feel hurt and betrayed by those closest to them, and that Jesus felt particularly hurt precisely because he had considered the Pharisees (which were one of several Jewish groups at the time) closest to his beliefs. I could also argue that over time, it made far more political sense to demonize the Pharisees than it did to demonize the Romans. In the end, though, who cares? It's not my text. If someone is going to use that text to persecute me, fuck them.]

[latraviata]

I'm a bit troubled by an author who writes ". And there isn't a shred of evidence that Jesus was a fan either, assuming he existed."

We have good historical evidence that Jesus was a real person. This has nothing to do with his divinity or lack thereof.

Anyone who says otherwise is intellectually lazy.

No, we don't.

[Delilah]

No, we don't.

Now my curiosity has been piqued. I believe in Him, but I've never researched what proof there is. I will now try to remedy my intellectual laziness.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Now my curiosity has been piqued. I believe in Him, but I've never researched what proof there is. I will now try to remedy my intellectual laziness.

Here's one scholarly overview: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail ... sus-exist/

It's a good starting point, keeping in mind that almost anything to do with Biblical archaeology and scholarship will be up for debate.

The article mentions the Jesus bone box in passing. This was the subject of a documentary called The Lost Tomb of Jesus. In short, there was a bone box found in a Jerusalem suburb inscribed with the name "Yeshua bar Yoseph" (Jesus son of Joseph). The question was whether this was a reference to the same Jesus son of Joseph that is better known as Jesus Christ. One thing the argument shows is that Jesus was a pretty common name at the time. So, one answer to the question "did Jesus exist" can be "MANY Jesus' existed, at a period in time when the Jews were actively hoping for the arrival of a messiah".

[OkToBeTakei]

I'm a bit troubled by an author who writes ". And there isn't a shred of evidence that Jesus was a fan either, assuming he existed."

We have good historical evidence that Jesus was a real person. This has nothing to do with his divinity or lack thereof.

Anyone who says otherwise is intellectually lazy.

I must be extremely intellectually lazy.

[Et Moi]

Bullshit. Just because the author of the piece is too ignorant to know that Paul is talking about pederasty and temple prostitution and that the translators of the KJV deliberately translated it badly because they wanted to stick it to King James, who they hated, doesn't mean that Paul was homophobic.

People need to stop letting the fundamentalists control the narrative for how the Bible is supposed to be interpreted.

[HereticHick]

No, we don't.

I have to disagree with you. I have mad respect for Dr. Bart Ehrman on this topic:

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376 ... s-his-case

[Firiel]

The simple fact is this: Paul hated Homosexuality because it was common and accepted in Pagan cultures. He believed that Polytheism was wrong and sinful, therefore some things that they did in their culture (like acceptance of Homosexuality) were also wrong and sinful.

Also, Paul was an asshole. :pull-hair:

Don't kill me, but... I'm a liberal Christian who loves Paul.

He was a product of his time, that's for sure, as are many thinkers that we read and respect today.

Homosexuality as an orientation didn't exist back then in the same culturally-recognized way that it does now. (See: Foucault [adding the reference so I don't look like a bigot-- instead I look like an academic which may be worse!]). Paul didn't understand or know what "homosexuality" was because that kind of understanding was not a part of their cultural zeitgeist. Because of that, I don't think that anything he wrote about it can be understood in direct correlation with our understanding of homosexuality. He was absolutely not saying the orientation as understood today was wrong. He was saying that pagan idol worship was wrong. I would say that he wasn't saying homosexuality was wrong because pagans did it and they are bad. Rather, he was saying that Christians should not worship other gods like pagans and homosexual relations (I hate using that term, but I feel I should to set it apart from the orientation) was an act of worshiping other gods so they shouldn't do that. I think Paul would have a very different understanding of this issue if he were writing today.

And it's interesting that, despite being used to oppress women, his original take on the household codes (which are used to oppress women and justify slaves) were actually subversive and empowering within the time that they were written. The structures already existed-- Paul added the responsibility of decency to the party in power (father, husband, slave owner) instead of placing the onus on the weaker party. This post does a good job describing is, though I can't stand Rachel Held Evans for unrelated reasons: rachelheldevans.com/blog/four-interpretive-pitfalls-around-the-new-testament-household-codes That's not to say that the codes as Paul writes them are not sexist. They are. But compared to the common understanding at the time, they humanize women and slaves far more than they typically would have been in that cultural context.

As I said above, I think if Paul were writing today, he would be pushing the boundaries of social justice and acceptance, just like he was bad in the day.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Question: Does the Bible say that certain sexual practices are bad because they are associated with idolatry, or does it say that idolatry is bad because it is associated with certain sexual practices?

We know that the Bible compares worshipping other gods to whoring after other men, and we know that forms of sacred prostitution involving both male and female cult prostitutes existed in the surrounding pagan religions. There are a ton of references in the Bible linking idolatry and certain sexual practices.

I'm not always sure which came first, though - seeing idolatry as bad, or seeing the sexual practices as bad.

Either way, some of the points in the original article would still stand. If we simply say, "Ah, it's all about disgust over idolatry!", does that make everything ok? Does it make it legitimate to hate polytheism? Would hating on pagans and Hindus be any better than hating on gays?

[Firiel]

Question: Does the Bible say that certain sexual practices are bad because they are associated with idolatry, or does it say that idolatry is bad because it is associated with certain sexual practices?

We know that the Bible compares worshipping other gods to whoring after other men, and we know that forms of sacred prostitution involving both male and female cult prostitutes existed in the surrounding pagan religions. There are a ton of references in the Bible linking idolatry and certain sexual practices.

I'm not always sure which came first, though - seeing idolatry as bad, or seeing the sexual practices as bad.

Either way, some of the points in the original article would still stand. If we simply say, "Ah, it's all about disgust over idolatry!", does that make everything ok? Does it make it legitimate to hate polytheism? Would hating on pagans and Hindus be any better than hating on gays?

I do think that many of the points of the original article still stand as you said, despite my love of Paul. The Bible is also a product of its time(s) and needs to be taken as such. To pretend it is not problematic or to try to "explain away" all inconsistencies and issues leads to a level of black-and-white thinking that I'm uncomfortable with. I would say that the Bible leans more towards saying sexual practices are bad because they are associated with idolatry and not vice versa, though in some ways they are linked inextricably in the minds of Biblical authors (IMO). I kind of think of it like eating food sacrificed to idols. Eventually, Paul ends up on the side of "If it doesn't mean idolatry to you and it doesn't mean idolatry to your buddies (causing your brother to stumble, and all that), go for it." Personally, I think a Paul of today would see gay relationships in way similar to how he saw sacrificing food to idols, i.e. that it's not a problem unless it's being done in such a way that doesn't glorify God (cheating, abusing, etc.). Of course, that's all just my personal opinion, and I don't want it to come off as anything but that. This is an area that I am somewhat familiar with but haven't studied at an academic level.

[Terrie]

The real question is does Jesus accept American Express.

[latraviata]

I have to disagree with you. I have mad respect for Dr. Bart Ehrman on this topic:

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376 ... s-his-case

Well, if he writes what you want to believe, more power to you.

[FoxyMoxie]

We have more historical evidence that Jesus existed as a human than we do about Alexander the Great, but somehow nobody doubts that the latter existed. If you'd prefer that Jesus didn't exist in some kind of form, fine, but be honest about it. That's not saying Jesus existed in the way the Church presented Him necessarily - I believe He did but I'm talking about Jesus existing as a historical person in any way.

I think the issue with the article and many like it is that it reads the Bible like a fundamentalist would. I find that baffling. The majority of Christians in the world are either Catholic or Orthodox, neither denomination taking the Bible literally or as their sole authority. Evangelical Protestants are definitely a minority. They may be loud, but they are not representative of worldwide Christianity.

I am a queer woman who is a member of an LGBT Christian group. Do some of us wrestle and struggle with Scripture? Absolutely. But how we use Scripture really varies. Most members of the group are from non-inclusive churches (mostly charismatic) as it's a support/pastoral group and was set up to support LGBT evangelicals (I'm not evangelical but first became a Christian in evangelical churches) and how people use Scripture still varies a lot. Just like how churches' pictures of Jesus are often nebulous, so is our idea of Paul - we don't know what books he did write and which he didn't for a start, let alone his views on homosexuality. But certainly homosexuality as we know it didn't exist, it was pretty much just older men having young men (often under the modern age of consent) as sexual playthings. Romantic, egalitarian relationships between the same gender (esp women) were condemned in Greco-Roman culture, it certainly wasn't the gay utopia some gay writers imagine.

For me personally, I don't see Scripture as inerrant. Paul explicitly says in some places that what he says is just his own opinion, and given that most of his letters were to individual churches, I don't think he intended his letters to be seen as Scripture. Even the NT writers disagreed amongst themselves. I think wrestling with Scripture and finding it difficult is a sign of a mature faith. All Christians 'pick and choose', it's just that some admit it. I have zero problem admitting that I do, my church tradition does not use Scripture as its sole authority anyway.

[RosyDaisy]

Jesus made a pretty clear point of accepting, honoring, and loving sinners.

He defended a woman from stoning.

He dined at the home of a tax collector who was abusing his power to make a profit.

He was kind to prostitutes and adulterers.

You know who He DIDN'T like? The Pharisees. The people who were making a profit off of religion. The people who were holding themselves up as being "better" at their religion than others. The people who were judging others and putting them down as not "holy" enough. The people who were selling things in the temple when God's love is freely given.

Honestly, I've read the Bible. We're all sinners, but luckily for us, Jesus loves sinners. I'm not worried about one particular "type" of sin more than another because the Bible and Jesus make no such distinction. Worry for the people who remind you of the Pharisees. Worry about the people who use religion for profit and personal gain. Jesus wasn't so loving to them.

THIS! Preach it sister!