Two groups are anguishing over the plight of the LGBTQ community. One group is LGBTQ-affirming. The other group is anti-affirming. If you are concerned about the plight of the LGBTQ community, then please bear with me as I get into religious weeds. If religious stuff bores you, then click here to watch some cute kittens. […]
The post Anguishing Over The Plight Of The LGBTQ Community appeared first on The Moderate Voice.
Two groups are anguishing over the plight of the LGBTQ community. One group is LGBTQ-affirming. The other group is anti-affirming.
If you are concerned about the plight of the LGBTQ community, then please bear with me as I get into religious weeds. If religious stuff bores you, then click here to watch some cute kittens.
Before continuing, I have one request: Please do not react to this commentary until you have read all of it.
Now, to continue . . .
Both of the aforementioned groups are very religious, claiming to be of the same faith and claiming to have biblical support for its belief about the LGBTQ community.
So, who is in error?
First, we need to clarify what it means to be LGBTQ-affirming.
Contrary to what the anti-affirming group claims, to be LGBTQ- affirming is not to condone acts of promiscuous sodomy.
Instead, to be LGBTQ-affirming is to affirm what the New Testament states in 1 John 4:15.
That verse applies to all people who believe and confess that Jesus is the Son of God, including people who are members of the LGBTQ community.
Whenever members of the anti-affirming group cite the Bible, they overlook an important fact. Jesus said that all sins are forgivable except one, with the one unforgivable sin being blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
Show me members of the LGBTQ community who believe and confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and I will show you members of the LGBTQ community who have not committed the unforgivable sin.
Second, the anti-affirming group gets sexual orientation mixed up with chosen sexual behavior.
Medical science points to one’s sexual orientation being not a choice. If that is the case, then it is wrong to condemn members of the LGBTQ community for something that they have no control over. The Bible certainly doesn’t condemn them for such a thing.
In contrast, one’s sexual behavior is usually a choice when one is an adult, and it is behavior that the Bible addresses, not orientation. One having a particular sexual orientation doesn’t mean that one will automatically participate in sinful activity.
Third, when I read the Apostle Paul’s letters, I keep in mind that Paul did not write them within a cultural vacuum. Instead, he had the Greco-Roman culture of his day in mind when he wrote. In his letters, Paul addresses issues pertaining to that culture. So, if we want to have correct understanding of Paul’s teachings, then we need to have a correct understanding of the Greco-Roman culture of his day.
For example, in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, Apostle Paul coins the Greek word Arsenokoitai, and it has no exact English equivalent. When Martin Luther translated the word into German, he translated it as Knabenschänder, which translates into English as pederast.
When the Apostle Paul was writing his letters, pederasty was routinely practiced by free Roman men.
History scholar Mariah Cavanaugh writes the following:
In Paul’s day, free Roman men routinely used sexual activity as a weapon, as Christian blogger Tim Challies explains:
A real man dominated in the bedroom as he did on the battlefield. He would have sex with his slaves whether they were male or female; he would visit prostitutes; he would have homosexual encounters even while married; he would engage in pederasty; even rape was generally acceptable as long as he only raped people of a lower status. “He was strong, muscular, and hard in both body and spirit. Society looked down on him only when he appeared weak or soft.” So Romans did not think of people as being oriented toward homosexuality or heterosexuality. Rather, they understood that a respectable man would express his dominance by having sex – consensual or forced – with men, women, and even children.”
In short, free Roman men expressed dominance by raping other men and boys as well as raping women and girls. It is possible that such behavior on the part of free Roman men is what Paul is talking about in Romans 1:26–27.
I notice the same thing happening the the biblical story about the ancient city of Sodom. The men of that city tried to rape Lot’s two male visitors. When I read what is in the New Testament book of Jude, I consider it possible that the men of Sodom acted just like the free Roman men of Jude’s day.
To be honest, we should acknowledge that the Tanakh (a.k.a. Old Testament) generally condemns one man sodomizing another man, but there may be a practical earthly reason for the condemnation.
Science points to sodomy being a medically dangerous activity.
If we are going to accept what science has to say about the origin of sexual orientation (Example A, Example B, Example C, Example D), then we need to also accept what science says about sodomy. Otherwise we will be hypocrites.
Here are links to some science articles that point out just how medically dangerous that sodomy is:
Key Health Concerns for MSM (Men Who have Sex with Men)
Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Men Who Have Sex With Men
Gay and Bisexual Men’s Health Issues
Sex between men, not skin contact, is fueling monkeypox, new research suggests
What are the Risks of Anal Sex?
Why the monkeypox outbreak is mostly affecting men who have sex with men
‘High-Risk’ Sex Could Raise Odds for Crohn’s, Colitis in Gay Men
Anal Sex – 5 Reasons Why it is Not Good for Your Health
Scientists Find That Gay Men Are Twice As Likely To Have This Disease
Considering just how medically dangerous that sodomy is, one has a scientific reason to not condone promiscuous sodomy. As it turns out, one can be a member of the LGBTQ community and never participate in promiscuous sodomy. Thus, one can be LGBTQ-affirming without condoning promiscuous sodomy.
Now, one might ask, “What about lesbians? They don’t necessarily participate in sodomy. Doesn’t the Bible condemn lesbian sex?”
Yeah, we need to figure out what the Apostle Paul is talking about in Romans 1:26.
We should admit that what Paul says about the free Roman women of his day is vague. I quote Young’s Literal Translation in order to show what the verse doesn’t literally say.
English translators of the Bible are not prophets. They are fallible, and it isn’t unknown for them to read into the Greek and Hebrew biblical manuscripts something that isn’t there.
An example of such is seen in some English versions of the Bible that originated in the 20th Century CE.
In those versions, the translators decided to replace the previously-used word sodomite with the modern word homosexual. That is an error because the word homosexual has too broad of a meaning to be an accurate substitute for sodomite.
Here is how the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines homosexual:
Here is another definition of homosexual:
A person can fit the above-shown definitions of homosexual and never participate in sodomy. Indeed, one can fit the definition of homosexual and also be celibate. Thus, it is an error on the part of some Bible translators to put the word homosexual into versions of the Bible.
Besides, if a word in the Greek biblical manuscripts literally means sodomite, then sodomite should be the translation, thus giving the reader a clear, specific understanding of the Greek word.
Before closing, I want to touch on the topic of same-gender marriage.
If the only purpose of marriage is procreation, then same-gender marriage wouldn’t make sense.
In modern-day societies, marriage has a purpose other than procreation, which why one finds same-gender couples desiring marriage. That purpose of marriage has everything to do with the legal benefits that marriage provides. It is the same reason why heterosexual couples desire marriage even if they don’t want to procreate.
I do not see in the Bible a requirement for married couples to procreate. I do not see in the Bible a ban on married couples using birth control.
However, I do see an advantage in two gay men marrying each other. If they are committed to monogamy, if they don’t commit adultery, then any natural consequences of their sexual activity will be confined to their monogamous relationship.
Earlier in this commentary I mention the medical danger associated with the act of sodomy. It would be bad for a community to be exposed to the dangers of risky sexual activity, which is why I won’t condone promiscuity of any kind. I suspect that the Bible frowns upon promiscuity in general for that reason.
Yet, when two people are committed to monogamy, they do not expose the community to the dangers of risky sexual activity.
Thus, same-gender marriage has a public benefit as well as a private legal one.
Like it or not, marriage is a civil institution because it bestows certain legal benefits. I see nothing in the Bible that forbids members of the LGBTQ community from possessing those legal benefits.
In closing, I apologize if this commentary seems to be too long. I did not expect it to end up this long. However, members of the LGBTQ community are being unnecessarily harmed by the aforementioned anti-affirming group. I am saddened by this phenomenon because I do not see biblical justification in it.
If members of the LGBTQ community are sexually celibate or engaging in sex within the confines of marriage, then they are not risking harm to the general community. Harming the general community is what I see being condemned in the Bible.
The Bible tells me this: Spiritual salvation takes place on an individual basis, but godly living takes place on a communal basis. If we deliberately do something that poses a negative risk to the general community, and if we know that it poses a negative risk to the general community, then we have sinned.
The post Anguishing Over The Plight Of The LGBTQ Community appeared first on The Moderate Voice.
