Do you give this impassioned speech when you hear Christians use the book to justify their oppression of others? These days, particularly queer folk?
Absolutely I do! Letās grab that framework I described earlier, and apply it to LGBTQIA+. Iām gonna break this into two questions:
A) Is being gay a āsinā.
B) Is it right to protest/harass/whatever queer people.
To start with A, letās do a quick check of mentions of homosexuality in the Bible. There is shockingly little here. Virtually nothing. But letās look at possibly the most popular instance to cite, in Sodom. Sodom is a horrifying Old Testament story, where an Angel disguises himself as a traveller and visits a city, being invited into a home. All the town gathers and demands the traveller be released to them, so they can rape him. Instead, the host gives them his daughter, who they rape to death. The whole town is then destroyed for its sinfulness. So this isā¦ an unflattering association with homosexuality. But, thereās clearly a lot more going on here too. To blame this on just homosexuality is obviously a stretch.
So letās look for other examples. As a Christian and not a Jew, Jesus is considered the highest authority, so anything he says directly should be considered very important. So does he mention it? Not even once, as far as Iām aware. Perhaps heās just unaware? Well, looking at historical context, heās living in the Roman Empire, which is pretty famously gay, as tumblr delights to point out. So I find it highly unlikely that Jesus wouldnāt have had opportunity to comment, and yet he never bothers, or at least the apostles never bothered to record it.
So thereās shockingly little said on the topic, and nearly nothing direct. Some will point to verses about ānatureā and marriage, but that sounds to me like youāre bringing your own conclusions in first, and have already decided what those words mean, rather than looking to the text and ancient Jewish culture to define them. In cases where itās condemned, itās usually muddled with lots of other horrifying sins. As far as a modern gay marriage goes, with two people committed to one another in a loving relationship, I donāt see that described anywhere in the Bible, and personally donāt find much basis to take issue with it.
At the bare minimum, I think itās crystal clear this isnāt an important issue. This isnāt terribly scientific, but just opening Bible Gateway and searching the word āhomosexualā in the NIV, I get 1 result, from a letter written to Timothy where itās mentioned in a list of āthings contrary to sound doctrineā. Searching ādivorceā, I get 33. āAdulteryā? 45. So any church with a divorcee that canāt tolerate gays? Deeply hypocritical. Thereās also 49 results for ājudge notā while weāre at it.
ā
As for B, I donāt think itās unreasonable to look at what Iāve presented above and conclude that it itās not godly. There isnāt anything really pro-queer to be found either. And fair enough, I can understand if, say, a pastor isnāt comfortable performing a gay marriage in their church. (sidebar, itās ridiculous that legal marriage and āChristian marriageā somehow became the same thing. The church should have no opinions on who non-Christians live with and how theyāre taxed accordingly).
What I cannot understand is how you take the thin evidence presented above, and conclude itās enough to consider it acceptable to disregard the overwhelming themes of love and acceptance, of not judging, of having grace, and conclude that this issue merits such insane and unacceptable behaviour. To do so signals in bright crimson that youāve discarded any pretence of letting the Bible guide you, and are fully allowing your politics and feelings to drive your interpretation of the Bible. Jesus loved prostitutes and cheating tax collectors, but youāre telling me he wouldāve harassed any gay he found, when he doesnāt even bother to mention the topic?
It actually pisses me off to an incredible degree, that I even have to talk about this issue, that these people mar the church constantly with such evil behaviour, and that Christianity is so deeply associated with such vehement hate and psychotic anti-human politics. Iād far rather a world of more atheists and agnostics than this type of āChristianā. At least they own their ideas rather than pretending theyāre Biblical and handwaving any refutation. Itās indefensible.
ā
To be crystal clear, I wish the Bible gave me a clearer signal that gender is a construct, that love is love, and all of that. I have very close relationships with gay and bi people in my life. The topic is near and dear to my heart, so Iāve spent some time digging into it. I really donāt love how inconclusive and wishy washy part of this comment sounds. But I donāt want to hide that, which is why I tackled it first in this comment, before getting to the part people will like more. This is what I find studying the text, and I have to live with that to have any intellectual and spiritual honesty whatsoever.
I believe the Bible should make you uncomfortable sometimes, it should challenge you and force you to reconcile some things. If it doesnāt, youāre probably forcing your own conclusions into it rather than actually reading it. Read properly, it will ask you to be radically generous, and radically kind. It will tell you that hating someone is tantamount to murdering them, that your little āwhite lieā sins and habits, like gossiping, are just as serious as the sins of the people you hate most. It tells you that youāll suffer, but that you arenāt allowed to hate your enemies, and that bad things will happen that you canāt do anything about as well as good things. Itās not a fun mirror to look at, and it should challenge you and make you uncomfortable and force you to grow.
I agree itās not mentioned much, nevertheless itās a dogma thatās used to oppress people both within and without the religious group. IIRC most of it is either Old Testament law or Pauline letters. If itās important to you, I can try to find verses to back that up.
I find it odd that right after a comment talking about not shying away from contradictions in the bible, you deflect in this comment by focusing on what Jesus says and that an absence of mention in that is meaningful. Thatās a very narrow section of the bible. Itās not even the majority of the New Testament. Itās also the only one supporting this:
overwhelming themes of love and acceptance, of not judging, of having grace, and conclude that this issue merits such insane and unacceptable behaviour
I cannot disagree more. Those are relatively minor themes of the Christian Bible. Again, really only coming through in the gospels. The Old Testament is filled to the brim with violence, oppression, sexual assault, slavery, child murder (especially by Yahweh), and loads more unsavory content. Very little love and acceptance. The New Testament has those themes in the gospels, then a lot of judgment, oppression, and dogma in the Pauline letters that informs much of modern Christian doctrine, and then some fever dreams at the end when someone got a little too into Kabbalah.
I would argue the way modern Christians use the bible is much more in the spirit of the text as a whole than what you describe for yourself. Your version is infinitely better, and we wouldnāt need to be having this argument if more people thought like you, but I think itās just not true that the bible is a book of love and acceptance. By weight, it is much more a book of violence and hate. In line with the Canaanite war god that started the whole thing.
Uhhā¦ apparently my reply to this got so long that it canāt be submitted as a single comment, soā¦ reply chain incoming. Breaking it up where Iād originally placed āāā.
Ooh, yes, excellent, letās talk about Old Testament law, it was remiss of me to not find this for the initial conversation. Apologies in advance, this is going to feel like a lot of avoiding the implied question, but I feel like I have to give a bunch of context around OT law in general before I reply directly, which I promise I will at the end. This is also gonna be pretty disorganized, itās a big topic that Iām trying to summarize into a comment.
Ok, so letās start entirely within the Old Testament, with a bit of cultural context we import into our understanding of the Bible, and thatās the idea of āstatutory lawā. In the modern world, a ālawā is something written with extreme clarity, meant to be followed exactly. This is done so that the law can be 100% consistent across an entire massive society, even the globe.
But thatās actually a very modern concept, and isnāt how laws worked for most of human history. Instead of arguing this from OT law, letās look at a law from the same era, the Code of Hammurabi. This law was extremely common, and went āancient viralā in a way, according to Wikipedia, copies āwere found not only in Susa but also in Babylon,Ā Nineveh, Assur, Borsippa, Nippur, Sippar, Ur, Lars, and moreā. Feel free to read the āTheories of Purposeā for far more evidence on this.
But the way this kind of law worked is that it was more like a list of examples of judgements, rather than direct legal code in the modern sense. For example, in a law like this, you couldnāt have tax lawyers, who interpret and manipulate the exact phrasing cleverly to avoid paying anything. Rather, a judge would deem you in violation of the spirit of the law and tax you accordingly. This also works in reverse, where circumstances could lessen a sentence or even leave you as innocent. In many ways, itās an enviable system, although itād obviously be impractical and abused in a modern context.
Second random topic, the law in the Old Testament actually doesnāt function primarily as a law. Itās part here as law, part here as narrative. Much of the law is given right before weāre shown Israel breaking that law, for example. In addition, itās not nearly enough law for a society to function. The Old Testament only includes ~600 laws, and Jews would quickly have to infer more than 5000 laws based on the principles shown in the laws that were given.
The law was also not intended as a final state. I gave an example earlier of a law changing when it was first given before it was given again later. And Jews did debate the principles set forth in the law and push them further over time, taking concepts that were progressive in Biblical times, and making them more progressive later. Again, itās not statutory law, itās the principle behind it that matters more than the letter.
And the law was also intended for an ancient Jewish people, in that time. There are cases where the law doesnāt ārock the boatā, so to speak, but clearly points things in a more progressive direction than where it was, and whatās explicitly described in the law is never espoused going forward. Let me give an example, of a law that sounds horrifying. Thereās a biblical law that states, if a city is taken in war, and a soldier sees a pretty woman on the battlefield, they can take her as spoils of war and bring her home and marry her. I think we can all agree this isnāt a nice thing to do. But letās compare it to the standard of the time, where it was common to rape women in a city youāve captured. Compared to the standard, the law now states, ok, you can kind of do this. But you must take her with you, and not violently rape her then and there. Instead, she travels in your tent, and you must bring her home after the campaign, give her a month to mourn, and marry her, guaranteeing to take care of her as your own, making her your dependent. You are also forbidden from selling her as a slave in this situation, if you decide not to marry her.
So what I see here is not a standard which I want to live by in the current day, but I see a law meeting an accepted practice of the day and saying āthis has to change for the betterā. The principles I believe are being espoused here is that women are not objects, and rape is not an acceptable ācrime of passionā. I think a Jew studying this would infer such crazy things from this shifting of the rules as ārape is not okā and āwomen need to be treated with respectā.
Ok, final diatribe on Old Testament law. A lot of it is regarding āritual purityā. As a modern reader, familiar with germs and hygiene, I donāt think itās wild to ask if, given I believe an all-knowing God gave this law, if a lot of these arenāt intended to prevent the spread of diseases. Letās look at some of the things that make you ritually unclean, for which the cure for is, essentially, isolation from others, and a bath. Touching a dead human or animal, having a period, touching blood, touching someone unclean. Even the unclean animals are ones like cows and pigs, which weāve known to give us many deadly plagues and diseases through history. This is more a suspicion than anything Iām proposing as dead-serious religious study, but I find it remarkable how good a lot of these arbitrary-seeming ritual purity laws would be at preventing plagues in a society that doesnāt properly understand germs.
Alright, finally done with an Old Testament perspective on the law. I wanted to make a case separately from an NT perspective, because I know the obvious response to an NT-focused position here is āthatās the same God you worship now, you still believe in a God that set this law for thousands of yearsā.
In the New Testament, Jesus takes a really interesting stance on the law. First of all, he breaks it, as the Pharisees understand it, constantly. However, he always has a Biblical argument for doing so, and consistently leaves the Pharisees befuddled and frustrated when they accuse him of this.
Additionally, as a Gentile, the NT is clear that we are not beholden to the OT law. This is a surprisingly well-discussed issue, as it seems the early church was often followed by a group of Jewish Christians that would persuade new churches that they were beholden to the law, and had to be circumcised, etc. So Paulās letters frequently have to correct this stance, when he contacts the churches heās planted. Even for Jews, Paul himself has a vision where heās told to eat unclean animals, and soon after participates in a feast that sees more people brought into the church.
Thereās also a really interesting moment with Jesus, when a woman is set to be stoned because she was found cheating on her husband, and is brought to Jesus. And Jesus tells the crowd gathered to stone her, ālet he who is without sin, throw the first stoneā. Slowly, the whole crowd leaves, and he tells the woman āIf no one will condemn you, then I wonāt either. Go, and sin no more.ā So thereās this forgiveness and grace brought into the equation, that seems contrary to the harsh punishments described in the original Law, and made more important than that.
So so far this suggests that, hey, as Christians today we can basically ignore the Law. But Jesus actually tells us something more interesting, that heās not here to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. In other words, Jesus believes his radical, loving philosophy is what the Law was meant to lead us to all along.
So basically, as a modern Christian, I donāt at all have to obey the Law. I can get tattoos, wear mixed fabrics, and work on Sundays all I like. But the Law is relevant. I try to study it as Jesus did, and understand it as he did, with his radically loving and gracious and kind philosophy. And I donāt always succeed, Iām not going to tell you I have a perfect understanding of every Law and its purpose, but I understand enough that I have faith that there is good explanation for the things I havenāt understood yet, and try to put the work in to understand the things in the OT that do bother me.
Also, I feel like I should add, as a modern Christian with the whole Bible before me, the Law is almost likeā¦ a failed experiment. Not that God isnāt omniscient and would be āexperimentingā, but the Law clearly doesnāt work. Israel fails to follow it constantly, until the kingdom is split and both halves continue to fail until their exiles. In fact, there are some practices laid out in the laws, such as the Year of Jubilee, that we apparently donāt have historical evidence of ever having happened. The Law needed fulfilling through Christ, because we couldnāt possibly make it work, and that was always the plan for it. So no, I donāt look at modern Israel and see some platonic ideal society because they still try to follow the Law, or anything like that.
So, finally, the verse in question. First thing, Iām looking at the word āabominationā and Iām curious what that is in the original Hebrew, as thatās a loaded word. Hereās the list of everywhere that word appears in the Hebrew. The word is used here, but also in contexts such as āit would be an abomination to an Egyptian to eat with a Hebrewā, unclean animals are described as āabominationsā, a sacrifice or prayer offered by a wicked person is an abomination to God, etc. There are some stronger uses of the word, such as using it for adultery or idol worship, but Iām seeing this word originates with the KJV, and I suspect its definition has drifted over time. Other translations, like the NIV choose words like ādetestableā or āloathsomeā for this. So definitely still not positive words, but that doesnāt read to me in the ultra-harsh way āabominationā does, and itās also notable that unclean animals, something Paul is later encouraged to eat, is described with the same word.
Looking at this verse, I basically see 3 possible explanations for its inclusion in the Law. Iāll list them:
A) The obvious one, that homosexuality is just plainly frowned upon, and was always meant to be interpreted as wrong. Not an unreasonable reading, although point B from my previous comment still applies, protests and harassment are unjustifiable.
B) That this may be a health thing, similar to unclean animals. After all, we saw with the AIDS epidemic a health issue that swept through gay men most of all, largely because of a lack of healthcare resources that certainly wouldnāt have been around in B.C.
C) The one I personally find most likely, is that this had to do with Godās desire to see Israel and humanity grow in population. Abraham was promised descendants āas numerous in the stars in the skyā, and this is fairly close to the Genesis commission to ābe fruitful and multiplyā and to āfill the whole earth and subdue itā.
These days, I consider the earth to be pretty well filled, so I donāt believe those commands apply too much to us now. The Christian sects that always try to have 10+ kids strike me as weird too, I donāt feel any obligation to procreate like that.
Alright, let me wrap up here. My feelings on Biblical law are clearly complex, but to be clear, this is a good part of the case to be made that homosexuality isnāt godly, and youāre right to point it out, but still doesnāt sway me, for all the reasons I explained in my first comment on it. This is still part of what Iād described as the Bibleās āremarkable silenceā on the topic of homosexuality.
A law in Leviticus is not nearly as persuasive as it would be if Jesus had spoken on the topic, for example. Or simply, more instances of the topic being directly addressed in scripture. This also still doesnāt bring much clarity about modern homosexuals in marriage, etc. Thereās a lot of clear biblical disdain for casual sex, so a lot of gay culture like Grindr isnāt ever going to get a Biblical thumbs up, just like Tinder hookups donāt. So forbidding that kind of sexual activity is expected, but there are explicit examples of forbidden marriages in this list of laws about sex, such as marrying your sister, but a man marrying a man or woman marrying a woman isnāt mentioned.
But ultimately, my entire rant from the previous comment still stands. Even if Jesus had outright and directly said āany form of homosexuality, no matter how monogamous and loving, is tantamount to murderā 20+ times, the way much of the church has behaved would still be biblically unacceptable. In the sermon on the mount, the most detailed example of Jesusās direct teaching we have, he tells us that all sins are equal. That to even look at a woman with lust, to think an angry thought about someone, is a crime worthy of death. And so weāre all equal. Iām just as sinful and ābadā as you, as any murderer, as anyone whoās done any sin you can name. So any church that picks a āpet sinā to focus on like this, whether it be sex and drugs, dungeons and dragons, rock music, or homosexuality and gender diversity, itās done in direct contradiction to Jesusās direct and plain teaching, in his most important and repeated message. It can be correct to call out sin in love, but this isnāt what that looks like.
Human writers are capable of writing things far more logical and consistent than what the Bible is.
If you need this many comments just to make your kinder interpretation make sense, then itās a terribly written document. Could God not have inspired it a litttttle bit more? In reality, itās just a product of its time, a human written document. This is why it condones slavery, and sexism.
God sent down 10 commandments, and did all sorts of real, physical things in the bible, surely he could have come to some of the authors in a dream to not fucking write it. God certainly has intervened a number of other times in the bible, but apparently not to stop the bible from condoning things that are evil. (And if God is changing his idea of the law based on what year it is, then heās not terribly all knowing.)
I donāt mean to say your not entitled to your own opinion, but if youāre gonna try and claim that the bible has value, and can be taken as inspired by God, then God really has to work on his advertising.
The contradictions are a problem for those of us who find ourselves in a wide and wondrous universe, which appears to follow laws of physics (which we are still discovering the intricacies of), and who require evidence to believe claims. We look at these inconsistencies and think that there probably is no God, and if there is, they donāt care enough about our salvation to actually inspire a coherent story of the religionās most sacred text, so that we may be convinced.
Itās actually bullshit if there is a god, and theyāve put me in this world, surrounded by atheists and agnostics, into an age where we use science to further our understanding of the universe, and condemn me to eternal damnation because they havenāt bothered to make their existence convincing.
Thatās not a loving God, thatās a jealous, abusive god: love me, believe in me, or else. Does not vibe with morality in the modern age.
(Sending yourself/not yourself in the form of Jesus 2000 years ago is not terribly convincing when you live now, and thereās no surviving evidence of his divinity)
Christians, (including kind respectful ones such as yourself), canāt tell us with a straight face: yeah, none of it really lines up they way youād expect something inspired by the divine to line up, and thereās been exactly zero times weāve been able to prove anything to the same vigour weād expect of scientific research - but just trust me bro. Iāve felt it.
If it makes you personally happy, then power to ya, but itās thoroughly unconvincing to many, and more and more people are realising that (in my country of Australia anyway).
The bible will continue to be interpreted in awful ways, whether you like it or not because itās so terribly written, and objectively has sections condoning acts or beliefs we abhor in the modern day. Including in the new testament.
Alright, first let me get the fluff out of the way, I think you and I both know I could write similar lengthy comments about the Bible on slavery and sexism. Iām strongly anti-both, and Iāve read the whole Bible, Iām not unaware of anything in there, nor would I try to pretend a verse doesnāt exist.
But I think youāre hitting on a really interesting question, that Iād summarize as āIf God is real, then why make himself so scarce? Why not reveal himself clearly, clarify his intentions, and prove himself real to avoid all this suffering?ā.
Iāll pose an alternate, rhetorical question thatāll tie in later. Why even create humans at all? God couldāve simply created more angels to worship him, or lived in solitude, or heck, in Genesis terms, he couldāve just not put that apple in the garden for Eve to eat so we couldāve all lived in paradise forever.
The answer I see in the Bible, and my own experience, is that God really wants relationship. He actually wants a relationship based on faith, where you choose to have a relationship with him, not because you have to, but because you want to. Weāre supposed to be made in Godās image, and weāve written tons of fiction about the emptiness and purposelessness of happiness without free will, or the sadness of relationships involving a love potion, or more recently AI, and I kinda think thatās what itās like.
For God, if he made himself undeniable, he couldnāt have a real relationship with us. Weād have to believe in him and have a relationship, itād just be stupid not to. So I think thatās why God would make a world with physics and chemistry that donāt need him to function. And thatās why he doesnāt descend in a cloud of lightning and thunder and tell us off for all the dumb stuff we do in his name.
That said, I think itās really fair to take issue with God from that answer. A lot of people will continue to do terrible things based on snippets of the Bible, and it is unfair how cruel a lot of the world is, and how many people suffer in it that wouldnāt have to with a little more divine intervention. I canāt answer that one for ya, itās an extremely reasonable reaction, and one I wonder about myself sometimes. Make of it what you will.
Iām not really trying to convince you or anyone else here of anything, except maybe that Iām not an asshole despite believing in the Bible. I certainly donāt have any illusions of persuading someone about something as major as their religion in a comment thread online. Itās been an enjoyable discussion though, and generally respectful, so Iām quite pleased with how itās gone.
Well I must tip my hat to you, despite disagreeing with you. Thanks for your candor.
I suppose I wouldnāt take as much issue with it all if it werenāt for the fact that my inability to believe in something without evidence is cause for my eternal damnation.
I think a belief in a disinterested god (or rather, one who doesnāt intervene) can make a lot more sense given what we observe about our universe.
But since Iām being judged (from what Iāve understood) based on whether or not I accept Jesus as my lord and saviour, Iām just never going to be able see things the Christian way.
Very fair, I can easily understand being uncomfortable with the whole concept of hell. A lot of Christians try to erase it as well, I recall quite the kerfluffle several years back about a book by Rob Bell (Love Wins, IIRC) arguing that God would actually save everyone in Revelations, and Hell wouldnāt actually exist.
Unfortunately, I find itā¦ unconvincing from a Biblical study standpoint. Iād certainly prefer if Rob Bell was right though. Theologian Francis Chan wrote a book in response to that one, disproving it thoroughly but also elaborating a lot on hell (Erasing Hell, IIRC), and I found it really moving, and quite helpful, at the time. Sadly that was too many years ago for me to remember the details. I need to re-read that sometime, and generally do some more study on hell, as I wish I could give a better response on the topic, and also for myself.
For me nowā¦ I try to live almost as if it doesnāt exist though. Itās not helpful or kind to bash people over the head with the whole āfire and brimstoneā thing, the church proved pretty well that it burns more bridges than it builds anyway, and I donāt need eternal damnation as a motivator to live decently. Iād rather embrace God for the relationship now than out of fear for after I die. I simply donāt give it much thought, which is probably why Iāve forgotten almost all of the theology I knew about the topic.
Absolutely I do! Letās grab that framework I described earlier, and apply it to LGBTQIA+. Iām gonna break this into two questions:
A) Is being gay a āsinā. B) Is it right to protest/harass/whatever queer people.
To start with A, letās do a quick check of mentions of homosexuality in the Bible. There is shockingly little here. Virtually nothing. But letās look at possibly the most popular instance to cite, in Sodom. Sodom is a horrifying Old Testament story, where an Angel disguises himself as a traveller and visits a city, being invited into a home. All the town gathers and demands the traveller be released to them, so they can rape him. Instead, the host gives them his daughter, who they rape to death. The whole town is then destroyed for its sinfulness. So this isā¦ an unflattering association with homosexuality. But, thereās clearly a lot more going on here too. To blame this on just homosexuality is obviously a stretch.
So letās look for other examples. As a Christian and not a Jew, Jesus is considered the highest authority, so anything he says directly should be considered very important. So does he mention it? Not even once, as far as Iām aware. Perhaps heās just unaware? Well, looking at historical context, heās living in the Roman Empire, which is pretty famously gay, as tumblr delights to point out. So I find it highly unlikely that Jesus wouldnāt have had opportunity to comment, and yet he never bothers, or at least the apostles never bothered to record it.
So thereās shockingly little said on the topic, and nearly nothing direct. Some will point to verses about ānatureā and marriage, but that sounds to me like youāre bringing your own conclusions in first, and have already decided what those words mean, rather than looking to the text and ancient Jewish culture to define them. In cases where itās condemned, itās usually muddled with lots of other horrifying sins. As far as a modern gay marriage goes, with two people committed to one another in a loving relationship, I donāt see that described anywhere in the Bible, and personally donāt find much basis to take issue with it.
At the bare minimum, I think itās crystal clear this isnāt an important issue. This isnāt terribly scientific, but just opening Bible Gateway and searching the word āhomosexualā in the NIV, I get 1 result, from a letter written to Timothy where itās mentioned in a list of āthings contrary to sound doctrineā. Searching ādivorceā, I get 33. āAdulteryā? 45. So any church with a divorcee that canāt tolerate gays? Deeply hypocritical. Thereās also 49 results for ājudge notā while weāre at it.
ā
As for B, I donāt think itās unreasonable to look at what Iāve presented above and conclude that it itās not godly. There isnāt anything really pro-queer to be found either. And fair enough, I can understand if, say, a pastor isnāt comfortable performing a gay marriage in their church. (sidebar, itās ridiculous that legal marriage and āChristian marriageā somehow became the same thing. The church should have no opinions on who non-Christians live with and how theyāre taxed accordingly).
What I cannot understand is how you take the thin evidence presented above, and conclude itās enough to consider it acceptable to disregard the overwhelming themes of love and acceptance, of not judging, of having grace, and conclude that this issue merits such insane and unacceptable behaviour. To do so signals in bright crimson that youāve discarded any pretence of letting the Bible guide you, and are fully allowing your politics and feelings to drive your interpretation of the Bible. Jesus loved prostitutes and cheating tax collectors, but youāre telling me he wouldāve harassed any gay he found, when he doesnāt even bother to mention the topic?
It actually pisses me off to an incredible degree, that I even have to talk about this issue, that these people mar the church constantly with such evil behaviour, and that Christianity is so deeply associated with such vehement hate and psychotic anti-human politics. Iād far rather a world of more atheists and agnostics than this type of āChristianā. At least they own their ideas rather than pretending theyāre Biblical and handwaving any refutation. Itās indefensible.
ā
To be crystal clear, I wish the Bible gave me a clearer signal that gender is a construct, that love is love, and all of that. I have very close relationships with gay and bi people in my life. The topic is near and dear to my heart, so Iāve spent some time digging into it. I really donāt love how inconclusive and wishy washy part of this comment sounds. But I donāt want to hide that, which is why I tackled it first in this comment, before getting to the part people will like more. This is what I find studying the text, and I have to live with that to have any intellectual and spiritual honesty whatsoever.
I believe the Bible should make you uncomfortable sometimes, it should challenge you and force you to reconcile some things. If it doesnāt, youāre probably forcing your own conclusions into it rather than actually reading it. Read properly, it will ask you to be radically generous, and radically kind. It will tell you that hating someone is tantamount to murdering them, that your little āwhite lieā sins and habits, like gossiping, are just as serious as the sins of the people you hate most. It tells you that youāll suffer, but that you arenāt allowed to hate your enemies, and that bad things will happen that you canāt do anything about as well as good things. Itās not a fun mirror to look at, and it should challenge you and make you uncomfortable and force you to grow.
I agree itās not mentioned much, nevertheless itās a dogma thatās used to oppress people both within and without the religious group. IIRC most of it is either Old Testament law or Pauline letters. If itās important to you, I can try to find verses to back that up.
I find it odd that right after a comment talking about not shying away from contradictions in the bible, you deflect in this comment by focusing on what Jesus says and that an absence of mention in that is meaningful. Thatās a very narrow section of the bible. Itās not even the majority of the New Testament. Itās also the only one supporting this:
I cannot disagree more. Those are relatively minor themes of the Christian Bible. Again, really only coming through in the gospels. The Old Testament is filled to the brim with violence, oppression, sexual assault, slavery, child murder (especially by Yahweh), and loads more unsavory content. Very little love and acceptance. The New Testament has those themes in the gospels, then a lot of judgment, oppression, and dogma in the Pauline letters that informs much of modern Christian doctrine, and then some fever dreams at the end when someone got a little too into Kabbalah.
I would argue the way modern Christians use the bible is much more in the spirit of the text as a whole than what you describe for yourself. Your version is infinitely better, and we wouldnāt need to be having this argument if more people thought like you, but I think itās just not true that the bible is a book of love and acceptance. By weight, it is much more a book of violence and hate. In line with the Canaanite war god that started the whole thing.
āYou shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination,ā and Leviticus 20:13
Uhhā¦ apparently my reply to this got so long that it canāt be submitted as a single comment, soā¦ reply chain incoming. Breaking it up where Iād originally placed āāā.
Ooh, yes, excellent, letās talk about Old Testament law, it was remiss of me to not find this for the initial conversation. Apologies in advance, this is going to feel like a lot of avoiding the implied question, but I feel like I have to give a bunch of context around OT law in general before I reply directly, which I promise I will at the end. This is also gonna be pretty disorganized, itās a big topic that Iām trying to summarize into a comment.
Ok, so letās start entirely within the Old Testament, with a bit of cultural context we import into our understanding of the Bible, and thatās the idea of āstatutory lawā. In the modern world, a ālawā is something written with extreme clarity, meant to be followed exactly. This is done so that the law can be 100% consistent across an entire massive society, even the globe.
But thatās actually a very modern concept, and isnāt how laws worked for most of human history. Instead of arguing this from OT law, letās look at a law from the same era, the Code of Hammurabi. This law was extremely common, and went āancient viralā in a way, according to Wikipedia, copies āwere found not only in Susa but also in Babylon,Ā Nineveh, Assur, Borsippa, Nippur, Sippar, Ur, Lars, and moreā. Feel free to read the āTheories of Purposeā for far more evidence on this.
But the way this kind of law worked is that it was more like a list of examples of judgements, rather than direct legal code in the modern sense. For example, in a law like this, you couldnāt have tax lawyers, who interpret and manipulate the exact phrasing cleverly to avoid paying anything. Rather, a judge would deem you in violation of the spirit of the law and tax you accordingly. This also works in reverse, where circumstances could lessen a sentence or even leave you as innocent. In many ways, itās an enviable system, although itād obviously be impractical and abused in a modern context.
Second random topic, the law in the Old Testament actually doesnāt function primarily as a law. Itās part here as law, part here as narrative. Much of the law is given right before weāre shown Israel breaking that law, for example. In addition, itās not nearly enough law for a society to function. The Old Testament only includes ~600 laws, and Jews would quickly have to infer more than 5000 laws based on the principles shown in the laws that were given.
The law was also not intended as a final state. I gave an example earlier of a law changing when it was first given before it was given again later. And Jews did debate the principles set forth in the law and push them further over time, taking concepts that were progressive in Biblical times, and making them more progressive later. Again, itās not statutory law, itās the principle behind it that matters more than the letter.
And the law was also intended for an ancient Jewish people, in that time. There are cases where the law doesnāt ārock the boatā, so to speak, but clearly points things in a more progressive direction than where it was, and whatās explicitly described in the law is never espoused going forward. Let me give an example, of a law that sounds horrifying. Thereās a biblical law that states, if a city is taken in war, and a soldier sees a pretty woman on the battlefield, they can take her as spoils of war and bring her home and marry her. I think we can all agree this isnāt a nice thing to do. But letās compare it to the standard of the time, where it was common to rape women in a city youāve captured. Compared to the standard, the law now states, ok, you can kind of do this. But you must take her with you, and not violently rape her then and there. Instead, she travels in your tent, and you must bring her home after the campaign, give her a month to mourn, and marry her, guaranteeing to take care of her as your own, making her your dependent. You are also forbidden from selling her as a slave in this situation, if you decide not to marry her.
So what I see here is not a standard which I want to live by in the current day, but I see a law meeting an accepted practice of the day and saying āthis has to change for the betterā. The principles I believe are being espoused here is that women are not objects, and rape is not an acceptable ācrime of passionā. I think a Jew studying this would infer such crazy things from this shifting of the rules as ārape is not okā and āwomen need to be treated with respectā.
Ok, final diatribe on Old Testament law. A lot of it is regarding āritual purityā. As a modern reader, familiar with germs and hygiene, I donāt think itās wild to ask if, given I believe an all-knowing God gave this law, if a lot of these arenāt intended to prevent the spread of diseases. Letās look at some of the things that make you ritually unclean, for which the cure for is, essentially, isolation from others, and a bath. Touching a dead human or animal, having a period, touching blood, touching someone unclean. Even the unclean animals are ones like cows and pigs, which weāve known to give us many deadly plagues and diseases through history. This is more a suspicion than anything Iām proposing as dead-serious religious study, but I find it remarkable how good a lot of these arbitrary-seeming ritual purity laws would be at preventing plagues in a society that doesnāt properly understand germs.
Alright, finally done with an Old Testament perspective on the law. I wanted to make a case separately from an NT perspective, because I know the obvious response to an NT-focused position here is āthatās the same God you worship now, you still believe in a God that set this law for thousands of yearsā.
In the New Testament, Jesus takes a really interesting stance on the law. First of all, he breaks it, as the Pharisees understand it, constantly. However, he always has a Biblical argument for doing so, and consistently leaves the Pharisees befuddled and frustrated when they accuse him of this.
Additionally, as a Gentile, the NT is clear that we are not beholden to the OT law. This is a surprisingly well-discussed issue, as it seems the early church was often followed by a group of Jewish Christians that would persuade new churches that they were beholden to the law, and had to be circumcised, etc. So Paulās letters frequently have to correct this stance, when he contacts the churches heās planted. Even for Jews, Paul himself has a vision where heās told to eat unclean animals, and soon after participates in a feast that sees more people brought into the church.
Thereās also a really interesting moment with Jesus, when a woman is set to be stoned because she was found cheating on her husband, and is brought to Jesus. And Jesus tells the crowd gathered to stone her, ālet he who is without sin, throw the first stoneā. Slowly, the whole crowd leaves, and he tells the woman āIf no one will condemn you, then I wonāt either. Go, and sin no more.ā So thereās this forgiveness and grace brought into the equation, that seems contrary to the harsh punishments described in the original Law, and made more important than that.
So so far this suggests that, hey, as Christians today we can basically ignore the Law. But Jesus actually tells us something more interesting, that heās not here to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. In other words, Jesus believes his radical, loving philosophy is what the Law was meant to lead us to all along.
So basically, as a modern Christian, I donāt at all have to obey the Law. I can get tattoos, wear mixed fabrics, and work on Sundays all I like. But the Law is relevant. I try to study it as Jesus did, and understand it as he did, with his radically loving and gracious and kind philosophy. And I donāt always succeed, Iām not going to tell you I have a perfect understanding of every Law and its purpose, but I understand enough that I have faith that there is good explanation for the things I havenāt understood yet, and try to put the work in to understand the things in the OT that do bother me.
Also, I feel like I should add, as a modern Christian with the whole Bible before me, the Law is almost likeā¦ a failed experiment. Not that God isnāt omniscient and would be āexperimentingā, but the Law clearly doesnāt work. Israel fails to follow it constantly, until the kingdom is split and both halves continue to fail until their exiles. In fact, there are some practices laid out in the laws, such as the Year of Jubilee, that we apparently donāt have historical evidence of ever having happened. The Law needed fulfilling through Christ, because we couldnāt possibly make it work, and that was always the plan for it. So no, I donāt look at modern Israel and see some platonic ideal society because they still try to follow the Law, or anything like that.
So, finally, the verse in question. First thing, Iām looking at the word āabominationā and Iām curious what that is in the original Hebrew, as thatās a loaded word. Hereās the list of everywhere that word appears in the Hebrew. The word is used here, but also in contexts such as āit would be an abomination to an Egyptian to eat with a Hebrewā, unclean animals are described as āabominationsā, a sacrifice or prayer offered by a wicked person is an abomination to God, etc. There are some stronger uses of the word, such as using it for adultery or idol worship, but Iām seeing this word originates with the KJV, and I suspect its definition has drifted over time. Other translations, like the NIV choose words like ādetestableā or āloathsomeā for this. So definitely still not positive words, but that doesnāt read to me in the ultra-harsh way āabominationā does, and itās also notable that unclean animals, something Paul is later encouraged to eat, is described with the same word.
Looking at this verse, I basically see 3 possible explanations for its inclusion in the Law. Iāll list them:
A) The obvious one, that homosexuality is just plainly frowned upon, and was always meant to be interpreted as wrong. Not an unreasonable reading, although point B from my previous comment still applies, protests and harassment are unjustifiable.
B) That this may be a health thing, similar to unclean animals. After all, we saw with the AIDS epidemic a health issue that swept through gay men most of all, largely because of a lack of healthcare resources that certainly wouldnāt have been around in B.C.
C) The one I personally find most likely, is that this had to do with Godās desire to see Israel and humanity grow in population. Abraham was promised descendants āas numerous in the stars in the skyā, and this is fairly close to the Genesis commission to ābe fruitful and multiplyā and to āfill the whole earth and subdue itā.
These days, I consider the earth to be pretty well filled, so I donāt believe those commands apply too much to us now. The Christian sects that always try to have 10+ kids strike me as weird too, I donāt feel any obligation to procreate like that.
Alright, let me wrap up here. My feelings on Biblical law are clearly complex, but to be clear, this is a good part of the case to be made that homosexuality isnāt godly, and youāre right to point it out, but still doesnāt sway me, for all the reasons I explained in my first comment on it. This is still part of what Iād described as the Bibleās āremarkable silenceā on the topic of homosexuality.
A law in Leviticus is not nearly as persuasive as it would be if Jesus had spoken on the topic, for example. Or simply, more instances of the topic being directly addressed in scripture. This also still doesnāt bring much clarity about modern homosexuals in marriage, etc. Thereās a lot of clear biblical disdain for casual sex, so a lot of gay culture like Grindr isnāt ever going to get a Biblical thumbs up, just like Tinder hookups donāt. So forbidding that kind of sexual activity is expected, but there are explicit examples of forbidden marriages in this list of laws about sex, such as marrying your sister, but a man marrying a man or woman marrying a woman isnāt mentioned.
But ultimately, my entire rant from the previous comment still stands. Even if Jesus had outright and directly said āany form of homosexuality, no matter how monogamous and loving, is tantamount to murderā 20+ times, the way much of the church has behaved would still be biblically unacceptable. In the sermon on the mount, the most detailed example of Jesusās direct teaching we have, he tells us that all sins are equal. That to even look at a woman with lust, to think an angry thought about someone, is a crime worthy of death. And so weāre all equal. Iām just as sinful and ābadā as you, as any murderer, as anyone whoās done any sin you can name. So any church that picks a āpet sinā to focus on like this, whether it be sex and drugs, dungeons and dragons, rock music, or homosexuality and gender diversity, itās done in direct contradiction to Jesusās direct and plain teaching, in his most important and repeated message. It can be correct to call out sin in love, but this isnāt what that looks like.
Human writers are capable of writing things far more logical and consistent than what the Bible is.
If you need this many comments just to make your kinder interpretation make sense, then itās a terribly written document. Could God not have inspired it a litttttle bit more? In reality, itās just a product of its time, a human written document. This is why it condones slavery, and sexism.
Inb4 no it doesnāt, yes it does: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+25%3A44-46&version=NIV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+timothy+2%3A11-15&version=NIV (And this is from the new testament if Iāve understood correctly)
God sent down 10 commandments, and did all sorts of real, physical things in the bible, surely he could have come to some of the authors in a dream to not fucking write it. God certainly has intervened a number of other times in the bible, but apparently not to stop the bible from condoning things that are evil. (And if God is changing his idea of the law based on what year it is, then heās not terribly all knowing.)
I donāt mean to say your not entitled to your own opinion, but if youāre gonna try and claim that the bible has value, and can be taken as inspired by God, then God really has to work on his advertising.
The contradictions are a problem for those of us who find ourselves in a wide and wondrous universe, which appears to follow laws of physics (which we are still discovering the intricacies of), and who require evidence to believe claims. We look at these inconsistencies and think that there probably is no God, and if there is, they donāt care enough about our salvation to actually inspire a coherent story of the religionās most sacred text, so that we may be convinced.
Itās actually bullshit if there is a god, and theyāve put me in this world, surrounded by atheists and agnostics, into an age where we use science to further our understanding of the universe, and condemn me to eternal damnation because they havenāt bothered to make their existence convincing.
Thatās not a loving God, thatās a jealous, abusive god: love me, believe in me, or else. Does not vibe with morality in the modern age.
(Sending yourself/not yourself in the form of Jesus 2000 years ago is not terribly convincing when you live now, and thereās no surviving evidence of his divinity)
Christians, (including kind respectful ones such as yourself), canāt tell us with a straight face: yeah, none of it really lines up they way youād expect something inspired by the divine to line up, and thereās been exactly zero times weāve been able to prove anything to the same vigour weād expect of scientific research - but just trust me bro. Iāve felt it.
If it makes you personally happy, then power to ya, but itās thoroughly unconvincing to many, and more and more people are realising that (in my country of Australia anyway).
The bible will continue to be interpreted in awful ways, whether you like it or not because itās so terribly written, and objectively has sections condoning acts or beliefs we abhor in the modern day. Including in the new testament.
Alright, first let me get the fluff out of the way, I think you and I both know I could write similar lengthy comments about the Bible on slavery and sexism. Iām strongly anti-both, and Iāve read the whole Bible, Iām not unaware of anything in there, nor would I try to pretend a verse doesnāt exist.
But I think youāre hitting on a really interesting question, that Iād summarize as āIf God is real, then why make himself so scarce? Why not reveal himself clearly, clarify his intentions, and prove himself real to avoid all this suffering?ā.
Iāll pose an alternate, rhetorical question thatāll tie in later. Why even create humans at all? God couldāve simply created more angels to worship him, or lived in solitude, or heck, in Genesis terms, he couldāve just not put that apple in the garden for Eve to eat so we couldāve all lived in paradise forever.
The answer I see in the Bible, and my own experience, is that God really wants relationship. He actually wants a relationship based on faith, where you choose to have a relationship with him, not because you have to, but because you want to. Weāre supposed to be made in Godās image, and weāve written tons of fiction about the emptiness and purposelessness of happiness without free will, or the sadness of relationships involving a love potion, or more recently AI, and I kinda think thatās what itās like.
For God, if he made himself undeniable, he couldnāt have a real relationship with us. Weād have to believe in him and have a relationship, itād just be stupid not to. So I think thatās why God would make a world with physics and chemistry that donāt need him to function. And thatās why he doesnāt descend in a cloud of lightning and thunder and tell us off for all the dumb stuff we do in his name.
That said, I think itās really fair to take issue with God from that answer. A lot of people will continue to do terrible things based on snippets of the Bible, and it is unfair how cruel a lot of the world is, and how many people suffer in it that wouldnāt have to with a little more divine intervention. I canāt answer that one for ya, itās an extremely reasonable reaction, and one I wonder about myself sometimes. Make of it what you will.
Iām not really trying to convince you or anyone else here of anything, except maybe that Iām not an asshole despite believing in the Bible. I certainly donāt have any illusions of persuading someone about something as major as their religion in a comment thread online. Itās been an enjoyable discussion though, and generally respectful, so Iām quite pleased with how itās gone.
Well I must tip my hat to you, despite disagreeing with you. Thanks for your candor.
I suppose I wouldnāt take as much issue with it all if it werenāt for the fact that my inability to believe in something without evidence is cause for my eternal damnation.
I think a belief in a disinterested god (or rather, one who doesnāt intervene) can make a lot more sense given what we observe about our universe.
But since Iām being judged (from what Iāve understood) based on whether or not I accept Jesus as my lord and saviour, Iām just never going to be able see things the Christian way.
Thanks for your thoughts
Very fair, I can easily understand being uncomfortable with the whole concept of hell. A lot of Christians try to erase it as well, I recall quite the kerfluffle several years back about a book by Rob Bell (Love Wins, IIRC) arguing that God would actually save everyone in Revelations, and Hell wouldnāt actually exist.
Unfortunately, I find itā¦ unconvincing from a Biblical study standpoint. Iād certainly prefer if Rob Bell was right though. Theologian Francis Chan wrote a book in response to that one, disproving it thoroughly but also elaborating a lot on hell (Erasing Hell, IIRC), and I found it really moving, and quite helpful, at the time. Sadly that was too many years ago for me to remember the details. I need to re-read that sometime, and generally do some more study on hell, as I wish I could give a better response on the topic, and also for myself.
For me nowā¦ I try to live almost as if it doesnāt exist though. Itās not helpful or kind to bash people over the head with the whole āfire and brimstoneā thing, the church proved pretty well that it burns more bridges than it builds anyway, and I donāt need eternal damnation as a motivator to live decently. Iād rather embrace God for the relationship now than out of fear for after I die. I simply donāt give it much thought, which is probably why Iāve forgotten almost all of the theology I knew about the topic.
Anyway, a pleasure to chat with you as well!