Traveling Inward to Come Out: Part 4

Political Discussion, religion

So, based on yesterday’s revelations, it seems like I have to admit the following:

  • I’m wrong and need to repent
  • If I continue acting, accepting, or living in support of this lifestyle I am fooling myself
  • If I advocate that Christians can be LGBTQ, I’m guilty of turning away, and encouraging other people to turn away from the true word of God.

Yet, I insist that none of the above assumptions are logical conclusions that can/should be drawn based on an in-depth study of God’s word. If you think I’m insane, bear with me, if only to let me sink myself.

Truth is, I have searched the bible and have pleaded with God for years to help me make sense of my life within the context of my Christianity. I pushed myself to search for answers for years with the weight of these verses compressing, squeezing, restricting my life while trying to figure out how these verses don’t contradict the core teachings of God’s love, mercy, and the foundational concept of faith.

During these years of searching, I found many good and bad resources on both sides of the issue. Some of them are listed below.

Condemning LGBTQ Community Biblical/ Christian Support for LGBTQ Community The term homosexuality in the bible God and the Gay Christian Book

I don’t have the time to outline all of the arguments above, and I certainly don’t want to make the same arguments that have already been made (otherwise I’d have no real purpose behind this blog), but if you are interested in reading what others have said about this complex issue, you are more than welcome to use the above list as a starting point for your own thorough investigation (and to be sure, a thorough investigation is what you should do before you make claims about people’s lives and/or salvation…)

What I want to point out here are a couple of key pieces of relevant information that can be used as a springboard into your own biblical plunge, all the while avoiding as many of the distracting arguments and logical fallacies as possible.

  • The term homosexual/ homosexuality did not exist in the original Hebrew or Greek transcripts of the bible because the concept of homosexuality/the homosexual as an identity marker is a modern phenomenon (1860s).
    1. Because of this, a translation of the bible that uses the term homosexual makes a huge leap from the original, because the original wording of these scriptures are phrased in terms of action, not identity.
    2. When one reads a bible translation that uses the word “homosexual,” the definition that should be applied to the situation should be the act of a person engaging in same sex behavior (within the context being described), not the definition of homosexuality as an identity marker.
  • There is a right and wrong way to interpret the bible. Seeing what you want to see is wrong (this is what most people accuse pro-gay Christianity of doing). This Link provides a good basis for the approach that should be taken when studying the bible; I strongly advocate for taking some time right now to read the link in its entirety before moving forward.
    1. I doubt many conservative Christians would argue against an approach to studying the bible that advocates for:
      1. Interpretation being based on author’s intention (historical, grammatically, culturally and literally), not the reader’s.
      2. Interpretation of individual verses should be done within the context of the whole.
      3. Using the whole of the bible to help interpret itself. This means interpreting difficult or ambiguous verses with clear ones. If one believes in the law of non-contradiction, it is important to remember that as soon as an interpretation of the bible reveals a contradiction, it is not the bible that is inaccurate or contradictory, it is the interpretation or the logic that got one there…
      4. Being cognizant of distinctions between the Old and New Covenant.
        1. “For example, in Lev 19:19 there is a command “you must not wear a garment made of two different kinds of fabric.” This was a binding command under the Mosaic law but not under the terms of the New Covenant.”

Join me tomorrow as we look at the first 3 verses following these guidelines.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s