Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Is being Gay a sin?

Is being gay a sin?  OK, this one will get some responses.  The Bible is cut and dry about this one right?  WRONG!  Let me preface this with the statement that I'm not saying it's cut and dry that it's not a sin.  I'm just saying it's more debatable than one would think.  The Bible calls it an abomination!  Yes, and the Bible calls eating Pork an abomination.  Most Christians wouldn't consider that a sin.  (Admittedly, a few still do)  In the same book that calls it an abomination (originally, not when Paul, reiterates it in the New Testament) they also call many other things laws and such that we no longer practice today.  Anal sex is considered a "sin".  But I don't see anyone holding up signs saying that couples who practice anal sex are going to hell?  Want some other less extreme ones?  How about these...

       a.  Drinking Alcohol in Holy Places
       b.  Letting your hair become unkempt
       c.  Eating Fat
       d.  Eating Seafood without fins or scales
       e.  Going to church within 33 days of giving birth to a boy
       f.  Going to church within 66 days of giving birth to a girl
       g.  Marrying your wife's sister while your wife still lives (But polygamy was acceptable)
       h.  Mixing fabrics in clothing
       i.  crossbreading animals
       j.  Sleeping with another man's slave (But sleeping with your own was fine)
       k.  etc., etc, etc

http://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2012/06/13/76-things-banned-in-leviticus-and-their-penalties.html

So obviously, that particular scripture is up for debate.  You certainly would have a lot of explaining to do in order to say why some of these are no longer sins and that one still is.  I've heard it said that some were "cleanliness" laws that no longer apply.  Pork is much cleaner now, and it's FDA approved.  If that is the case, then couldn't you argue that Gay sex is much cleaner now?  We have condoms, so we can tamper the spreading of disease and if they are practicing monogamy, then it really isn't any more unclean than anal sex (Which doesn't appear to be considered a sin any longer)  Believe it or not, many of the above things were punishable by death.

OK, so there is one more scripture that could be construed to mean that being gay is wrong written in the New Testament.

That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

While there are a few other similar verses, all written by Paul.  This is where the "PERFECTION" of the Bible gets a little cloudy to me.  Remember that Paul was the one running around murdering Christians, because he thought they were shameful too, until his conversion.  Paul was a radical person, who had very strong opinions about things.  In my opinion the things he is describing as "shameful" are more his opinion than anything.  To him they were shameful.  To him they were sinful, but remember, back then it was still extremely dangerous because we didn't have protection like we do now.

But at the end of the day, I don't believe in the perfection of the Bible.  I believe it's the best thing we have, but we still need to measure everything we read against the greatest commandments according to Christ.  In this instance I think Paul was misguided, and probably homophobic.  There are other cases I believe he was sexist.  But so was just about everyone else of the time period.  So the things he says make sense for the time period.  It's important to note though that those were not Jesus' words.  They were the words of an imperfect human being who had obvious displays of incorrectly condemning people in the past.

How does the concept of being gay measure up to the greatest commandments?  Well, that's debatable.  Is it unloving to God or to your neighbor?  I think we can throw the second one out pretty quickly.  There is nothing about being gay that is unloving to other people.  But is it unloving to God?  You could argue that it goes against his creation.  He made women for men and men for women, and you can't procreate with the same sex.  Besides, God said to be fruitful and multiply.  (I think this command no longer applies.  I mean come on people.  The world is suffering all over the place because of overpopulation.  People are dying in famines, and the earth is near a tipping point)  In this respect, Gay men and women are actually good for society because they can't reproduce.  They are also starting to take on the role of adopting children who need families.

So, is going against God's natural use for something unloving to him?  My son has autism.  His brain doesn't work right.  It's not how God intended him to be.  The Bible teaches us that these things exist in the world because of sin.  Otherwise disease and famine and brain abnormalities wouldn't exist.  Science has proven that being gay is really not a choice, but something they are born with.  Is it the normal way God intended?  No, but neither is the way my son's brain works.  Both are genetic.  Both are not how God intended.  So my question is this; Is it a sin, or is it a symptom of a sinful world?

Look at how many people are born these days with both male and female parts and the parents have to choose the sex, or even leave them how they are.  Which is a sin for that person?  Sex with a man or with a woman?  Neither!

You want my opinion?  My opinion is that God is most loved by you when you are being true to yourself.  Trying to pretend to be something you are not is unloving to God and unloving to yourself.  Whether that's being Gay, being a woman with amazing leadership abilities, being a man who likes to dance, etc, etc.  Be yourself, the best you that you can be!  Love other people, love God, and don't hold anything (including sex with men or women) above God as an idol.

The people who persecute and judge gay people on the other hand.  That very quickly fails the greatest two commandments test!!  Those are the sinners on par with the Pharisees of Jesus' time.  Quit Hatin', start Lovin'

7 comments:

  1. This is a very well written article. Thank you I will post it on my site.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This text:
    "That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved."

    This describes normally heterosexual people abandoning what's normal for them.
    It's not normal for a gay person to have sex with someone of the opposite sex, THAT would be the perversion.
    And what about bisexuals, of which I happen to be? What's normal for me (and those like me) is that we don't see gender, only an individual.
    Being raised in the Catholic church I didn't come to accept myself and my orientation easily. As a matter of fact it was only on the brink of suicide that thankfully I had some divine intervention and from that point on, I knew that I was *exactly* as God had intended me to be.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Poorly written and poorly reasoned blog. The author inserts their opinion all over the place and their opinion trumps the clear teachings of the word. Both Romans 1 and 1 Cor. 6:9-10 clearly condemn homosexuality. There is no ambiguity in Paul's words.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Poorly written and poorly reasoned blog. The author inserts their opinion all over the place and their opinion trumps the clear teachings of the word. Both Romans 1 and 1 Cor. 6:9-10 clearly condemn homosexuality. There is no ambiguity in Paul's words.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I find it laughable that you question the writing & reasoning of this author's blog and then use as your counter-argument that he's wrong because Paul said so. You criticize his blog but then all you've got as your own reasoning is the translation of a translation of a translation of something written by a person you've never met and do not know who lived roughly two millennia ago. Do you see the complete lack of reasoning in your own position? Do you read Aramaic? Probably not. You're simply blindly accepting Paul's opinion for some arbitrary reason instead of this author's well thought out and evidence supported article. If anything, we can accept this person's opinions more than Paul's since the author at least has the perspective of history and the human experience over that last 2,000 years. Also, we can discuss these subjects with people today rather than just simply accepting a dead man's perspective without bothering to put any thought into it. God gave us brains to think... we honor God by using them. Considering that, you'd realize that "Paul's" words aren't Paul's at all. Who knows how many other people interpreted, translated, and rewrote the things Paul said over the years?

      Delete
  5. You can always come up with seemingly convincing reasons to live in delusion..let your conscience judge you

    ReplyDelete