Anonymous said: Since you read the Bible and you're bi : What does the bible ACTUALLY say about homosexuality??? Good, Bad ?
It doesn’t say much, rly. It’s mostly up to interpretation, just like the rest of the book. You have to understand that believers’ reactions are personal and have absolutely no link to any kind of religious belief ; I’m pretty sure most of them barely read and studied the scriptures in their entirety and just focused on what their community told them (which is also why many christians focus so much on Jesus’ suffering instead of his teachings, when it’s not the point at all). Even if Jesus straight up had declared gays were a-ok, christians would still have found a way to dismiss gay people rights. That’s how people are.
Now for actual mentions of homosexuality in the Bible, and although they are very few and vague, you have to separate old testament and new testament. There are far more mentions in the old testament : in the leviticus (part of the holiness codes), there’s the famous line “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman” (18:22). Although this seems super clear, everyone should realize that the old testament has an incredible number of translation mistakes and most of the writings’ meanings are up to discussion : in this quote, it could be implied that a man should not TREAT another man like he would a woman. In other words : it’s not simply having sexual intercourse, but dismissing another male as if he was an inferior : ie, like a woman. Also, the holiness codes were mostly written in very confusing times for the jewish community and were more of a political move than anything else, so their religious importance is HIGHLY debatable.
Another often-used quote is the one from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah - which is an older scripture which had surprisingly few modifications, and which is usually considered more “essential” in its moral teaching. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are condemned by god for their unholy behavior : they are selfish, don’t care for the poor, murder, etc, etc. Interestingly enough, the sin of homosexuality is purely a modern interpretation. In the original story, the inhabitants are unholy for trying to rape the two angels being hosted by the only holy man in the city. It’s not sin because they are men toward men (since angels have no sex in the first place), but because they do not respect the social law of hospitality. Jewish people started condemning the cities for homosexual behavior (“coming after strange flesh”, which could be interpreted by literally ANYTHING but i guess they decided to go for dicks because dicks are super weird idk) much, MUCH later on, and it’s a modern modification probably put in there to add to their alleged sins. Due to this, Sodom was used as a derogation basis for “sodomy”, and now everyone equals the story to anal rape, which it wasn’t in the first place at all. Also, you have to think twice about following the moral of a story which idolizes a man who gladly offers his two innocent daughters to a crowd of raging rapists.
Now, in the new testament, we have much fewer mentions of homosexuality : some scholars think that it might come from the greeks and romans’ rather relaxed take on the subject, a behavior which MIGHT have made it more “ok” in the eyes of many people at the time, but it’s purely free interpretation, since there might still be condemnations in the book (once again, up to interpretation). I’m going to only concentrate on Jesus’ teachings, because most of the rest is just a rewrite of the old testament. In both Matthew : 8 and Luke ; 7, we read the story of Jesus healing a centurion’s slave. While this goes in the usual pattern of Jesus’ series of miracles, this story is interesting because of the special relationship between the slave and his master : the centurion shows a deep affection for his “doulos” or “pais” (both greek words for “slave” and “boy”, which MIGHT be read as a sexual slave, or at least a slave with very strong sentimental bonds toward his master) and a particular desperation for Jesus to heal him. This has been interpreted as a barely hidden homosexual relationship - a relationship Jesus celebrates, as he says he “has not seen such faith even in Israel” and promptly heals the slave. Scholars don’t really find a common ground on this interpretation, because the homosexual subtext in the bible is very heavy no matter how you look at it, and it’s hard to separate fraternity and actual acts of homosexuality : but the passage is interesting because of Jesus’ acceptance toward the two men (especially romans), no matter what their relationship might possibly be.
Another mention which is even more interesting is Jesus discussing the case of eunuchs in Matthew 19 : 12 : it has to be understood that, at the time, “eunuch” and “homosexual” were often used as similar definitions, so unless they were specifically mentioned as “court eunuch”, it could have been one or both of them. I’ll just leave you the entire quote because it is a fascinating one, with a very modern view, that can interest both homosexuals and transsexual christians in its meaning :
“For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
I think Jesus’ words speak for themselves : no matter what your sexual/gender identity or your sexual orientation is, no matter how and when it happened, he is shown accepting and even - gasp !- welcoming you into heaven. The story of the ethiopian court eunuch (and therefore an actual eunuch - possibly a homosexual, but it’s not confirmed) being fully accepted into the faith later on is another proof that those kind of acts were not judged nor condemned by Jesus : he might even have embraced them as acts of love.
Whatever these mentions are, everyone should know that they are very few, very unclear (apart from the last one, which is surprisingly straightforward and from the mouth of Jesus even), and more than anything else : they are NEVER the things the book was trying to focus the reader’s attention on the most. More than often, they appear late in a list of commandments or in a story, and seem secondary, even sometimes added as a second thought by later writers (remember that the testaments are constantly evolving writings which have been modified countless times by hundred of people to fit their own time). If anything, they should be taken with a grain of salt by everyone, just like the rule that we should not be eating pork, or never wear clothes made out of two different materials. These are outdated rules for other times and do not apply to a modern society anymore.
Reblogging because i talk about this a lot but less elequently