Disclaimer

This site contains content of an adult nature, both in written and graphical versions. If you are under the age of consent in your city, state, country, or province, please click here and exit the site.

Site Map

home lotr fanfiction elvish rants inspiration artwork links

Section Links

Canon vs AU/Non-Canon Children and Music The Civil War Debunking Evil!Thranduil Elven Haircolor 101 Elvish Names 101 Elvish Names Continued Elven Population Elven Rebirth Fanon, Part One Free Speech Independence Day Bullshit Musings On The Movie "Supersize Me" The Mysterious Glorfindel Nazi Germany Symbols and Words Voting Rights Act Who Is Gildor Inglorion? Why Gay Christian Is Not An Oxymoron

Essays

why gay christian is not an oxymoron

Let me state up front that I am not Christian. I have not been Christian for almost 20 years. :)

Having said that, I have done my homework. I have had this debate again and again for a long time and have amassed a lot of posts on this topic from other discussion boards and such. The central issue seems to return to one question -- Can a Christian support homosexuality -- or even be gay?

http://www.christiangays.com/
http://www.christianlesbians.com/
http://www.teach-ministries.org/index.html
http://www.gaychristians.org/

There are a lot of people who think that they can.

However, many fundamentalist Christians like to shout that the Bible speaks out against it, so it must be a sin and therefore not to be tolerated. In general, they like to refer to Leviticus 18:22, which says, in various translations:

ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."
KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination."
LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin."
NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin."
RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

A few problems here:

1. The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late 19th century. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in any translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text.

2. The literal translation of the text from the original Hebrew is actually: "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination."

In modern day English this could be translated as: "Men may not engage in homosexual sex while on a woman's bed; it is an abomination." That is, rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply restricts where it may occur. This may seem a strange prohibition to us today, but was quite consistent with other laws in Leviticus which involve improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. For example, ancient Hebrews were not allowed to mix two crops in the same field, or make cloth out of two different raw materials, or plow a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together. A woman's bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement.

And if it's not Leviticus they quote, it's usually this gem from Romans 1:27-32, which says:

And 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. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full to envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacble, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

The problem is that Romans, like so much of the New Testament, was written in its entirity by the apostle Paul from his prison cell. Keep in mind that Paul was born Saul and gained notoriety as a rapist and murderer. It was not until God -- in His so-called "infinite love" -- blinded him that Saul repented and was reborn as Paul. Now, if Charles Manson -- who did not perpetrate nearly as many horrific acts as Saul -- stepped out and claimed to be a new man and started writing letters to churches telling them how to behave, how many church leaders do you think would pay attention? Probably not many.

Paul was a bigot. Pure and simple. He hated the Jews. He hated women. He hated homosexuals. He hated everyone who did not fall into his misguided view of what the "perfect" Christian was, even though by speaking out against them and claiming they were "worthy of death", he was guilty of breaking the admonishment to "judge not lest ye be judged." So, he was not only a bigot, but a hypocritical one at that.

In these verses, Paul is saying that the "natural use of the woman" is to be nothing more than a sex object at the disposal of the man. He is also saying that homosexuality is just as bad as being jealous, sharing a secret, disobeying parents, or breaking a promise. They are just as "worthy of death" according to Paul. So let's line up every teenager and politician on one big spit along with the gays like human shish kebab.

"For the wages of sin is death," the Bible says. According to Christianity, sin is sin is sin. Condemning one group of people because of their perceived sins while patting oneself on the back for one's own moral vicissitude is just sad.

Now, my other favorite objection is that homosexuality is "against God's will". This is expressed in a number of claims, including that homosexuality is "unnatural" or "a sin against nature", or more simply that "God hates gays". Let's examine that statement....

1. It is impossible to definitively say what is "God's will," since the only record we have was written by man, copied by man, translated by man, RE-translated by man, interpreted by man, preached by man, and taught by man, and so is fallible by a geometrically multipliable factor, just the same way that a copy of a copy will get progressively harder to read with each successive generation.

2. To say that anything can be "against God's will" is to imply that man is capable of subverting the will of God, which contradicts Christian belief. If God created everything, he must have created homosexuality, which means that it is part of his will, so the first objection is moot.

3. There have been numerous species identified that engage in homosexual behavior. Since these creatures are "of nature," then the act is by definition "natural", and so the second objection is moot.

4. The question is not so much why does God hate homosexuality... but why does God hate at all? If the Christian God created everything as stated in Genesis, and pronounced it all to be "good," then how could he hate any of it? If he hated it so much, why did he create it? And if he didn't create it, then the Bible is wrong when it says that he created everything. If one can admit that the Bible can be wrong about something so significant as God's power, then one has to open themselves to the possibility -- nay, probability -- that there are other errors inherent in the scripture.

What these people seem to forget is this... that every so often the Church decides to change her mind over certain issues. The Catholic church at one time provided biblical credence to slavery, the Holocaust, and the oppression of women; all stances that it has since reneged on and admitted culpability for. The Episcopalian Church recently confirmed the first openly gay bishop, and, despite the shouts of protest from the anti-gay movement within the church, there was no schism or shift in the leadership. Those who left the church in disgust are not missed.

And on a slightly different topic, I do believe homosexual unions -- with all the federal and state perks -- will be legal... eventually.

Way back when, they told the blacks they would never vote, that they would never be equal, and to stop making so much noise. Way back when, they told women they would never vote, that they would never be equal and to stop making so much noise. Way back when, they told the disabled they would never be hired and work like normal people, that they would never be equal and to stop making so much noise. For the longest time, women wanted the right to choose what to do about their bodies and they were told to shut up and have children, that they didn't know any better. Those of differing religions were persecuted, alienated, and humiliated for the longest time, unable to find work or acceptance.

Yet all these people -- and more -- are now equal and protected equally by our goverment. Women can choose what to do with a pregnancy and they can vote and work, disabled people are hired and make livings now, blacks are no longer slaves and can vote and work freely, and those of differing religious beliefs no longer have to hide if they want to be a part of society.

Times change. Minorities demand protection and rights. It's a cycle, and it will continue whether people want it to or not.


	Disclaimer This site contains content of an adult nature, both in written and graphical versions. If you are under the age of consent in your city, state, country, or province, please click here and exit the site. Site Map home lotr fanfiction elvish rants inspiration artwork links Section Links Canon vs AU/Non-Canon Children and Music The Civil War Debunking Evil!Thranduil Elven Haircolor 101 Elvish Names 101 Elvish Names Continued Elven Population Elven Rebirth Fanon, Part One Free Speech Independence Day Bullshit Musings On The Movie "Supersize Me" The Mysterious Glorfindel Nazi Germany Symbols and Words Voting Rights Act Who Is Gildor Inglorion? Why Gay Christian Is Not An Oxymoron		Essays why gay christian is not an oxymoron Let me state up front that I am not Christian. I have not been Christian for almost 20 years. :) Having said that, I have done my homework. I have had this debate again and again for a long time and have amassed a lot of posts on this topic from other discussion boards and such. The central issue seems to return to one question -- Can a Christian support homosexuality -- or even be gay? http://www.christiangays.com/ http://www.christianlesbians.com/ http://www.teach-ministries.org/index.html http://www.gaychristians.org/ There are a lot of people who think that they can. However, many fundamentalist Christians like to shout that the Bible speaks out against it, so it must be a sin and therefore not to be tolerated. In general, they like to refer to Leviticus 18:22, which says, in various translations: ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination." KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin." NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." A few problems here: 1. The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late 19th century. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in any translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text. 2. The literal translation of the text from the original Hebrew is actually: "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination." In modern day English this could be translated as: "Men may not engage in homosexual sex while on a woman's bed; it is an abomination." That is, rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply restricts where it may occur. This may seem a strange prohibition to us today, but was quite consistent with other laws in Leviticus which involve improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. For example, ancient Hebrews were not allowed to mix two crops in the same field, or make cloth out of two different raw materials, or plow a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together. A woman's bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement. And if it's not Leviticus they quote, it's usually this gem from Romans 1:27-32, which says: And 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. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full to envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacble, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. The problem is that Romans, like so much of the New Testament, was written in its entirity by the apostle Paul from his prison cell. Keep in mind that Paul was born Saul and gained notoriety as a rapist and murderer. It was not until God -- in His so-called "infinite love" -- blinded him that Saul repented and was reborn as Paul. Now, if Charles Manson -- who did not perpetrate nearly as many horrific acts as Saul -- stepped out and claimed to be a new man and started writing letters to churches telling them how to behave, how many church leaders do you think would pay attention? Probably not many. Paul was a bigot. Pure and simple. He hated the Jews. He hated women. He hated homosexuals. He hated everyone who did not fall into his misguided view of what the "perfect" Christian was, even though by speaking out against them and claiming they were "worthy of death", he was guilty of breaking the admonishment to "judge not lest ye be judged." So, he was not only a bigot, but a hypocritical one at that. In these verses, Paul is saying that the "natural use of the woman" is to be nothing more than a sex object at the disposal of the man. He is also saying that homosexuality is just as bad as being jealous, sharing a secret, disobeying parents, or breaking a promise. They are just as "worthy of death" according to Paul. So let's line up every teenager and politician on one big spit along with the gays like human shish kebab. "For the wages of sin is death," the Bible says. According to Christianity, sin is sin is sin. Condemning one group of people because of their perceived sins while patting oneself on the back for one's own moral vicissitude is just sad. Now, my other favorite objection is that homosexuality is "against God's will". This is expressed in a number of claims, including that homosexuality is "unnatural" or "a sin against nature", or more simply that "God hates gays". Let's examine that statement.... 1. It is impossible to definitively say what is "God's will," since the only record we have was written by man, copied by man, translated by man, RE-translated by man, interpreted by man, preached by man, and taught by man, and so is fallible by a geometrically multipliable factor, just the same way that a copy of a copy will get progressively harder to read with each successive generation. 2. To say that anything can be "against God's will" is to imply that man is capable of subverting the will of God, which contradicts Christian belief. If God created everything, he must have created homosexuality, which means that it is part of his will, so the first objection is moot. 3. There have been numerous species identified that engage in homosexual behavior. Since these creatures are "of nature," then the act is by definition "natural", and so the second objection is moot. 4. The question is not so much why does God hate homosexuality... but why does God hate at all? If the Christian God created everything as stated in Genesis, and pronounced it all to be "good," then how could he hate any of it? If he hated it so much, why did he create it? And if he didn't create it, then the Bible is wrong when it says that he created everything. If one can admit that the Bible can be wrong about something so significant as God's power, then one has to open themselves to the possibility -- nay, probability -- that there are other errors inherent in the scripture. What these people seem to forget is this... that every so often the Church decides to change her mind over certain issues. The Catholic church at one time provided biblical credence to slavery, the Holocaust, and the oppression of women; all stances that it has since reneged on and admitted culpability for. The Episcopalian Church recently confirmed the first openly gay bishop, and, despite the shouts of protest from the anti-gay movement within the church, there was no schism or shift in the leadership. Those who left the church in disgust are not missed. And on a slightly different topic, I do believe homosexual unions -- with all the federal and state perks -- will be legal... eventually. Way back when, they told the blacks they would never vote, that they would never be equal, and to stop making so much noise. Way back when, they told women they would never vote, that they would never be equal and to stop making so much noise. Way back when, they told the disabled they would never be hired and work like normal people, that they would never be equal and to stop making so much noise. For the longest time, women wanted the right to choose what to do about their bodies and they were told to shut up and have children, that they didn't know any better. Those of differing religions were persecuted, alienated, and humiliated for the longest time, unable to find work or acceptance. Yet all these people -- and more -- are now equal and protected equally by our goverment. Women can choose what to do with a pregnancy and they can vote and work, disabled people are hired and make livings now, blacks are no longer slaves and can vote and work freely, and those of differing religious beliefs no longer have to hide if they want to be a part of society. Times change. Minorities demand protection and rights. It's a cycle, and it will continue whether people want it to or not.