 |
|
|
|
 The author argues that the meaning of the Bible's passages on homosexuality have been lost in translation.
May 15th, 2012
05:39 PM ET
My Take: What the Bible really says about homosexuality
By Daniel A. Helminiak, Special to CNN President Barack Obama’s support of same-sex marriage, like blood in the water, has conservative sharks circling for a kill. In a nation that touts separation of religion and government, religious-based arguments command this battle. Lurking beneath anti-gay forays, you inevitably find religion and, above all, the Bible. We now face religious jingoism, the imposition of personal beliefs on the whole pluralistic society. Worse still, these beliefs are irrational, just a fiction of blind conviction. Nowhere does the Bible actually oppose homosexuality. In the past 60 years, we have learned more about sex, by far, than in preceding millennia. Is it likely that an ancient people, who thought the male was the basic biological model and the world flat, understood homosexuality as we do today? Could they have even addressed the questions about homosexuality that we grapple with today? Of course not. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories Hard evidence supports this commonsensical expectation. Taken on its own terms, read in the original languages, placed back into its historical context, the Bible is ho-hum on homosexuality, unless – as with heterosexuality – injustice and abuse are involved. That, in fact, was the case among the Sodomites (Genesis 19), whose experience is frequently cited by modern anti-gay critics. The Sodomites wanted to rape the visitors whom Lot, the one just man in the city, welcomed in hospitality for the night. The Bible itself is lucid on the sin of Sodom: pride, lack of concern for the poor and needy (Ezekiel 16:48-49); hatred of strangers and cruelty to guests (Wisdom 19:13); arrogance (Sirach/Ecclesiaticus 16:8); evildoing, injustice, oppression of the widow and orphan (Isaiah 1:17); adultery (in those days, the use of another man’s property), and lying (Jeremiah 23:12). But nowhere are same-sex acts named as the sin of Sodom. That intended gang rape only expressed the greater sin, condemned in the Bible from cover to cover: hatred, injustice, cruelty, lack of concern for others. Hence, Jesus says “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:19; Mark 12:31); and “By this will they know you are my disciples” (John 13:35). How inverted these values have become! In the name of Jesus, evangelicals and Catholic bishops make sex the Christian litmus test and are willing to sacrifice the social safety net in return. The longest biblical passage on male-male sex is Romans 1:26-27: "Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another." The Greek term para physin has been translated unnatural; it should read atypical or unusual. In the technical sense, yes, the Stoic philosophers did use para physin to mean unnatural, but this term also had a widespread popular meaning. It is this latter meaning that informs Paul's writing. It carries no ethical condemnation. Compare the passage on male-male sex to Romans 11:24. There, Paul applies the term para physin to God. God grafted the Gentiles into the Jewish people, a wild branch into a cultivated vine. Not your standard practice! An unusual thing to do — atypical, nothing more. The anti-gay "unnatural" hullabaloo rests on a mistranslation. Besides, Paul used two other words to describe male-male sex: dishonorable (1:24, 26) and unseemly (1:27). But for Paul, neither carried ethical weight. In 2 Corinthians 6:8 and 11:21, Paul says that even he was held in dishonor — for preaching Christ. Clearly, these words merely indicate social disrepute, not truly unethical behavior. In this passage Paul is referring to the ancient Jewish Law: Leviticus 18:22, the “abomination” of a man’s lying with another man. Paul sees male-male sex as an impurity, a taboo, uncleanness — in other words, “abomination.” Introducing this discussion in 1:24, he says so outright: "God gave them up … to impurity." But Jesus taught lucidly that Jewish requirements for purity — varied cultural traditions — do not matter before God. What matters is purity of heart. “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles,” reads Matthew 15. “What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.” Or again, Jesus taught, “Everyone who looks at a women with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Jesus rejected the purity requirements of the Jewish Law. In calling it unclean, Paul was not condemning male-male sex. He had terms to express condemnation. Before and after his section on sex, he used truly condemnatory terms: godless, evil, wicked or unjust, not to be done. But he never used ethical terms around that issue of sex. As for marriage, again, the Bible is more liberal than we hear today. The Jewish patriarchs had many wives and concubines. David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, and Daniel and the palace master were probably lovers. The Bible’s Song of Songs is a paean to romantic love with no mention of children or a married couple. Jesus never mentioned same-sex behaviors, although he did heal the “servant” — pais, a Greek term for male lover — of the Roman Centurion. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter Paul discouraged marriage because he believed the world would soon end. Still, he encouraged people with sexual needs to marry, and he never linked sex and procreation. Were God-given reason to prevail, rather than knee-jerk religion, we would not be having a heated debate over gay marriage. “Liberty and justice for all,” marvel at the diversity of creation, welcome for one another: these, alas, are true biblical values. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Daniel A. Helminiak. soundoff (8,832 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 Next » |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Editor's note:
2 Timothy 4:4 Amplified And will turn aside from hearing the truth and wander off into myths and man-made fictions
One thing is missing. Has the good Father been ex-communicated yet? If he hasn't, he should be. 'Nuff said.
No they don't mention that he's gay. His website says so.
If you did any research on the subject, you would realize that h0mos3xuality is a natural process. Just because we don't understand it's purpose or why certain people are born g@y doesn't mean it isn't natural.
This was supposed to be a reply to "Truth" who posted a while back.
Cannibalism is a fairly common "natural" occurance too. Heck, chimps LOVE that stuff. What's your point?
You're saying that "natural" equals "moral," or "good," right?
How about violence against women and/or children? That's a pretty "natural" thing. Where are you going with this line of "reasoning?"
People are indeed born that way. There has been at least one study that shows that the brains of gay men are wired more like female brains (there are several differences). I'm not saying that makes it a good thing, I'm just saying that it's not a "choice". Who in there right mind would make that choice? Most gay people will tell you they knew from a very early age that they were gay, it's something you're born with.
Techie, you're a mongrel idiot.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistfamiliesmarriage/a/AtheistsDivorce.htm
The highest divorce rates are in the Bible Belt: "Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce...the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average" of 4.2/1000 people. Nine states in the Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Maryland) have the lowest divorce rates, averaging just 3.5/1000 people.
Interesting article. The problem the author has is that people who have ideas that do not come from reason will not accept analysis that comes from reason. Believing the Bible literally is not reasonable.
That's why it's called "Faith".
Jude 1:7 Amplified [The wicked are sentenced to suffer] just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the adjacent towns–which likewise gave themselves over to impurity and indulged in unnatural vice and sensual perversity–are laid out [in plain sight] as an exhibit of perpetual punishment [to warn] of everlasting fire
Crazy how the Bible is contorted to a man's view. Read all of Romans chapter 1 and the context is extremely clear. The bible as a whole clearly indicates Gods intention and creation of man and woman for each other and due to the "fall" sin entered the world. According the bible, I think it is clear what God's stance is on this subject and man can look at it and twist it to however he wants but I did not find the same meaning when I read it. I had to really strain to even figure out how this was put together. Sad that man tries to dictate what God says in his word.
Thank you the fallen has brought us great misery
Why do you find it crazy that the Bible is "contorted into mans view", when it was written by men???
It onlt makes sense that translating a book from one language to another, and then to another, and then to another, would distort or at the very least, skew the meanings as words and phrases that can not be directly translated are put into words that have the closest meaning, and those translations are left up to the translator.
Yes..i agree...people try to twist the scriptures to suit their own need.....GOD will have HIS day...and say !!!
No words to express my anger on this writing. What is this guy talking about. Where are we heading??
Lev.18,22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.
leviticus 20:19 For everychild that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death
So is eating pork and shellfish, among many other rules. You're probably one of those who quotes Leviticus, while completely disregarding all the other rules. What makes this passage on gays so important, while the other rules in Leviticus (and there are a lot of them) are something you likely ignore?
If you are going to quote Levitcus – you had better grow a bear, not eat shellfish, and you are permtted to hold slaves and oh yes, stone female adulterers to death. You had better realize that you can not pick and choose.
That was grow a beard – I don't think they had a lot of bears in the Middle East back then.
Satan has utterly warped this guys mind. We are clearly told that Satan is a Liar and the Father of Lies, and that he will deceive many.
Yup...you hit the nail right ont he head !!!! Satan is trying REAL hard to get as many people to follow him right straight to hell...wake up people!!!!!
So, to be clear: the guy in this article trying to preach tolerance and understanding and equality and non-judgementalism is under the influence of 'satan', while you bible thumpers who are judging and hating based on your own personal bigotries and intolerance are influenced by 'god'.
Riiiiiiight.
If only "satan" were real, but, alas, it isn't.
I think this fellow needs to do a Greek word study !!!
The fall of America is at hand! It is even at our door steps!! Repent!!! Repent!!!! Repent!!!!!
Yes i agree w/you. we are going to suffer for the sins of this nation....there is a lack of Reverence for God and sin has taken over big time...this man told me that he has been trying to get 2 male electrical connections put together . IT DOESN'T WORK>>> it is not natural!!!!!!
Phyl, if you sandwich something with two holes between them, it does work. It's called a threesome.
never sieces to amaze me, how the media uses its out there status to stir up trouble..still haven't heard a word from this media on the sale of US Banks to the chinese..question; whats to hide..
Do you even know what an op-ed is?
The word is "ceases". It is hard to take someone seriously when you can't find the time to use spell check or at least look up the correct spelling of a word.
I'm just saying...
Religion no religion it's unnatural and I still say name the species proven to be born gay
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
Now what?
Someone asked, "How come no animal has evolved in the last 3,000 years?" Three THOUSAND years? Are you kidding me? Palm to face. SIGH!
While in principle you are correct kevin, in fact animals have evolved in the last 3000 years. Read up on the methuselah fly experiments, or antibiotic resistant bacteria, or DDT resistant mosquitoes. All proof of evolution in action.
3000 yrs should be enough to se SOME kind of a hint of a change-Yet nothing!!! If we're still here in another couple thousand, someone will still be asking the same question and getting the same response
They were still flies not birds or goats
yes, insects and bacteria, which have a much shorter generation span than say, goats or people. Thus evolution is actually visible and recordable. You can squirm all you like, this is evolution, in action, proven.
I actually think he was saying that the fly did not come from or turn in to a goat... Just another example of a failed school system. Or possibly home schooling.
I just wanted to point out that no one ever actually believed that the world was flat. At least not as far back as we have written record, and certaintly not the Jews during the time period those passages were written.
True, this is a ploy by the left to try to portray those on the right as anti-science. Once I read that statement it told me everything I needed to know about this "professor".
Leviticus 18:22 Amplified You shall not lie with a man as with a woman;it is an abomination
Leviticus 20: 19: For everychild that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death
Indeed!
And ABOVE ALL – Don't take anything said on the internet as the truth........ People's opinions/comments are not the underlying truth....
The Christians are right to defend marriage, just not necessarily from gay people. The liberal view of marriage, something trendy and fashionable to do, to be ended when you are bored with it, does not help society. Many statistical studies have shown that marriage creates a strong foundation for society and provides children a stable environment to grow up in. Abused children are more likely to come from step-parents...not saying all step-parents are bad, just statistical true. Single parent homes are more likely to fall into poverty as well. The Christians are correct to elevate marriage beyond "liberal convenience". Gay people don't help themselves either with magazine articles like the one in "the advocate" saying a strong gay community depends on how many leatherman contest winners there are and if it has nude yoga. You have but to walk through an OWS "protest" to see how warped the moral values of the "progressive" liberals are. But having said all that not all gay people are permiscious. There are several gay people who are pillars of the community and provide for it's strong foundation. Some have strong moral fiber and deserve the right to be treated as such.
Blah blah blah blah....
Do you think anyone is actually going to take the time to read this shit?
The divorce rates in the red Bible-belt states are higher than in the traditional blue 'liberal' states.
In other words, you fail.
One wrong answer Gaunt, when you breakdown who got the divorce, not by state but by affliation, Liberals divorce at much higher rates. Good try though.
EAT SHIT TECHIE.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistfamiliesmarriage/a/AtheistsDivorce.htm
The highest divorce rates are in the Bible Belt: "Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce...the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average" of 4.2/1000 people. Nine states in the Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Maryland) have the lowest divorce rates, averaging just 3.5/1000 people.
techie: i dont mind that you are an irrational bible thunper. I do mind that you are a liar.
By every measurable statistic, severely religious have higehr divorce rates and higher teen pregnancy rates than liberals.
You lose.
I'm not a bible thumper at all, I believe gays should have the right to get married. I just agree with the Conservatives that marriage needs to be protected from turning into a convenience. I don't want to see it turn into something fashionable. There are huge negative consequences to having America turn into a giant OWS protest.
The statistics are biased for a few reasons. One is that Christians "accept the sinners'; so people who have been permiscious, children out of wedlock, etc, been through troubled times and found Jesus can join the ranks. This will skew their numbers. So in fact you are dumping many of the liberals who found morality latter, into the Christian numbers.
techie, what a steaming load of bullshlt. Firstly, the divorce rates are gathered at the time of the marriage and divorce, so even if your silly made-up lie about flocks of divorced liberals later fleeing to god, it would STILL be wrong.
Secondly, even if we ignore that your lie is totally unevidenced AND impossible as I just demonstrated, it still does not explain why the divorce rate is consistently higher in Bible belt states.
Your posts would be a lot more credible if you didnt keep just making stuff up as you type kid.
The statistic are not based off of when their were married or what their affliation was. Don't just surf the web for statistics that fit your arguement. But let's move on...we won't agree here at all. I notice you don't argue the reverse about statistics on more abused chidren from step parents or single parents home more likely to fall into poverty. So for me it's a national issue of having a strong socieity but for you it's just about bashing conservatives but ultimatly is meaningless beyond just arguement.
I'll give you the last word, then I am off to work.
@sam stone
If I'll become a President. I would impose Blasphemy Law.
Let's just see.
Then you must want to live in the Middle East. So go, and live there, if you want a blasphemy law.
And ABOVE ALL – Don't take ANYTHING