“How God Views Homosexuals”



myatheistlife’s cause is Heifer International.

Still waiting on the author to respond.

This might be a fun way to chat if you don’t have twitter:

Chat Room For This Post


13 thoughts on ““How God Views Homosexuals”

  1. sunofmysoul says:

    Hooray! (if i am following this correctly this is audience comments for “How God views Homosexuals”)
    I wanted to mention a couple of points, everyone knows the “clobber passages” referred to to slam the gays. But where are the clobber passages to slam the pedophiles? Say for instance were someone to marry their victim? what does the bible say then? or how about slave owners? (it’s a go right?)
    and If anyone is interested in a little more info…
    For any interested…

    Common mistranslations into the word “homosexual” first from the Hebrew Scriptures(old testament)
    “”qadesh” means a male prostitute who engaged in ritual sex in a Pagan temple. This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the surrounding countries. The word is often mistranslated simply as “sodomite” or “homosexual.” (e.g. the King James Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 23:17). The companion word quedeshaw means female temple prostitute. It is frequently mistranslated simply as “whore” or “prostitute.” A qadesh and quedeshaw were not simply prostitutes. They had a specific role to play in the temple. They represented a God and Goddess, and engaged in sexual intercourse in that capacity with members of the temple.”
    “”to’ebah” means a condemned, foreign, Pagan, religious, cult practice, but often simply translated as “abomination.” Eating food which contains both meat and dairy products is “to’ebah” A Jew having a meal with an Egyptian was “to’ebah.” A Jew wearing a polyester-cotton garment, or having a tattoo is “to’ebah” today.”

    Some pastors cite Genesis 19, a passage that condemns homosexual rape, as proof that God hates all homosexual behavior. Yet they would never quote a verse that condemns heterosexual rape and state that it applies to all heterosexual activity. We have noticed some pastors switching between Bible translations in order to find the version that is most critical of homosexual behavior. When quoting Deuteronomy 23:17 some deviate from their usual usage of the New International Version (NIV). It accurately translates the original Hebrew condemnation of male and female prostitution in the temple (a common Pagan practice). They prefer the King James Version (KJV) which incorrectly translates the passage as condemning female prostitutes and male “sodomite” ”
    from HERE

    and from the Greek: the two words that have been “turned into” the word homosexual after the 1600’s are:
    the word pornea , is the original Greek word often quoted as sexual immorality, Paul used was “porneia” which means “a harlot for hire”. (prostitutes were kept at the pagan temples) This sex with the pagan Gods is what Paul was talking about – fornication is an admitted mistranslation and has nothing to do with gays or singles sex. This rendering reflected the bias of the translators rather than an accurate translation of Paul’s words to a culture of 2000 years ago worshiping pagan sex gods. )
    IN some translations, the Greek word pornea is used, and in some the words arsenkoites…(abuser of self with mankind ) which is used in a few other Greek texts from the first few centuries after Christ, and none of them really give enough context to determine what the word means. An example of one, The Penitential attributed to John the Faster mentions arsenokoitia in the context of opposite-sex relationships.
    “The term “homosexual” dates from the late 19th century, when human sexuality first began to be studied as a science.
    There is no term that means homosexual orientation in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts of the Bible. The authors of the Bible did not understand sexual orientation and thus did not write about it. Thus, when you see one of these words in an English translation of the Bible, it is important to dig deeper and find what the original Hebrew or Greek text really means.” found at the first sited source
    Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
    9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
    10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
    11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
    12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
    Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
    9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
    10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

    other abominations…(depending on which translation you use between 64 and 69) to include adultery (lev 18:20) sex with animals (lev 18:23)
    remarrying one’s wife after she has had another husband in between (deut 24:4) cross dressing (to include slacks on women) (Lev 18:19) tattoos (lev 19:26-28) haughty eyes and telling lies (Prov 6:17 and 12:22)false weights and measures (Prov 11:1)
    for dinner…. rare steaks? (Lev 17:10)
    Lobster or crab cakes? (Lev 11:10)
    rack of ribs (Lev 11:10 and 11:7)

    oh my pet peeve~ charging OR paying interest (psalm 15:1-5 and Jeremiah 15:10)
    and of course….
    the wearing of blended fabrics ~(deut 22:11 and with more punch Lev 19:19)
    can you imagine a woman in a man’s button down if it happens to be an easy care blend of cotton and polyester? DOUBLE abominations! yikes!!!

  2. Thanks, sunofmysoul (tell me your actual name, please!) You’ve done a good job of demonstrating that Joel has misinterpreted and misrepresented the Bible. I’m always howling, on my blog, about Biblical misinterpretation, so you and I are on the same page.

    Let me show you how I attack this post in a different way. I’m willing to accept the claim that there are plenty of Biblical verses that say terribly nasty things about queer folk. Frankly, even when someone takes your Bible lessons to heart they can only conclude that these passages, taken together, are truly ghastly. They positively reek of ignorance and hostility — and they have had the effect, all these years later, of engendering ignorance and hostility into today’s world.

    Joel’s problem is more than a problem of misinterpretation. His problem is more general, in that he’s basing his teachings about homosexuality on “Scripture alone” (I’m quoting Martin Luther, here). No amount of Bible study is going to reconcile these famous passages with the thing that God really wants, which is for all of us to treat everyone with kindness and understanding. Once you’ve decided to chain yourself to the Bible you’re certain to sink — no matter how well you read Greek or Hebrew.

    I will say more after lunch.



  3. Thank you both for getting the audience comments started! I’m going to be bored all day with family stuff, yet unable to respond much.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Hi Paul. Appreciate the comments. I think the bible if given “power” can be very dangerous. You could pick any hate and back it up if you cherry pick the verses to do so. I believe the issue is really with the “power” given to such a book. I, however, still enjoy and appreciate much of the bible as I do other books that have affected my life.
    kind regards,

  5. Really? I don’t mean this in a crude way, but I can’t stand it. The god-wannabe tone is irritating, because it’s meant to be taken seriously. If it were written as sort of existential, meta-satire about our origins, I might be able to stomach it.

    • sunofmysoul says:

      I look back at in now, from an entirely different perspective. And I see man trying to explain life from the knowledge they had at that time. Superstition and magical thinking were at an all time high…
      I wonder sometimes about ol’ Moses, and how very difficult it must have been growing up in the palace, and seeing your people beat, and used as slaves…and feeling powerless and yet guilty for the life of comfort…I wonder how smart it must have been to learn the secrets from the “magic men” at Pharaohs, and if there was some wise person who taught him to use it, and dream of the day he would be used to set his people free. Could there have been a wiseman who fell in love with Moses’ mother? However it began, Moses realized the effect and power of magic upon the people. And so it began….

  6. Kevin Daniel says:

    Here’s a different perspective: Not all Christians believe that the Bible is the actual voice of God. For instance, if Paul is writing to a church, I believe it is the voice of Paul and the wisdom god gave him. Paul too, was capable of mistakes and bigotry.

    The writer (of the blog) claims that all this is said in “God’s voice,” which it’s not. This opens up a can of worms but I thought I’d just throw it out there.

  7. I’m looking at what Kevin Daniel said, and he’s right. I approach the Bible in the way the Catholic Church teaches us to approach it. The Bible is a means to an end, it can’t be an end in itself. The goal is to know Jesus, to know the gospel, to know God.

    Here’s an analogy that makes sense to me. Imagine that instead of instituting a Church, Jesus instituted a school; and, instead of teaching the gospel, he taught algebra. It’s the job of the school to keep teaching algebra and, since it’s a useful tool, the school would probably assemble a textbook to help in the teaching of algebra.

    If this school has good teachers, those teachers will know algebra whether or not they have a textbook to refer to. And, since nothing in this world is perfect, their textbooks might have typos and errors that might confuse students who are still learning. Thing is, though, the students are learning their algebra from teachers, not from the textbook. A teacher can shoo them away from the errors in the textbook. Moreover, the teacher might do his best teaching without using the textbook at all.

    Same with the Bible. Somebody who already knows Jesus and already knows the gospel will be able to use the Bible as an aid to his teaching. A student who refuses to listen to the teacher and chooses to rely entirely on the Bible will never really understand the gospel. It won’t even dawn on that student that the Church itself assembled the Bible several generations AFTER it started teaching the gospel — so it follows that the Bible is subordinate to the teaching authority of the Church, not the other way around.

    It’s worse than that, though. The students who are unwilling to listen to the teachers who actually know the gospel have founded their own “schools”, dozens of them, thousands of them. They keep founding more and more schools and these schools have teachers that don’t actually understand the gospel. All these teachers can do is keep propagating the misunderstandings that arise when someone uses the text but refuses to listen to the teacher.

    When your reading of the Bible elucidates what the Church is actually teaching about human relationships, or family, or marriage, or sexuality then you’re using the Bible correctly. If, on the other hand, you read something that contradicts the teacher you’ve got to conform your understanding of the Bible to what the teacher says rather than decide whether or not to listen to the teacher based on your idea of whether or not the teacher’s lesson conforms to the Bible.


    • Argus says:

      Sweet … but I get told often that the ‘Bible is the Holy Word Of God’ and in the same breath that God is perfect. Ergo~?

      As for refusing to listen to the teacher I find it difficult to reconcile “Gentle Jesus meek and mild” with the Holy tortures of the Holy Crusades instigated by God’s holy agent on Earth (the Holy Father—the Pope) and the Holy church. Even ol’ Jeez themselfs (he’s 3 in 1) is quoted as saying that he/they was happy to set son against father, etc etc, and we should all be reaching for our swords. Ye gods, I never knew “Love thy neighbour” could be so bloody complicated!

  8. Argus says:

    For myself I’d be happy to start with the definitive Bible. The field is so vast … I do like (bits of) the KJV (the English language as an art form)(by accident, I imagine). All the modernist ones I’ve peeped into (actually read ’em? Yuk. Better things to do with my limited time) are like modern newspapers and things. Double yuk.


    which is the genuine all-singing all-dancing wholly holy Bible? Which is the per-actual Bible qua BIBLE?
    C’mon, ‘fess up, life is too brief and I want to get educated while there’s still a chance for my poor emaciated soul—don’t want none of yer ersatz crap here, it’s my eternity we’re talking about. Let’s be having you~!

    And once I hold the best Real Good Book in my hot sticky little paws I can go look up homosexuals and stuff and have a crack at the subject of this post.

Suggest Links, Challenge an author, defend your post, or just make general comments or suggestions.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Find a Debate



International Justice Mission


Love Africa


Fourat J

Doctors Without Borders




Heifer International

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

The Goal

To get at the truth, unite human beings with opposing views & drive new supporters to different causes. While debates remain active, each author will have their chosen charity displayed in the sidebar. "Active" will be defined as we go. This is a work in progress.

The Audience

%d bloggers like this: