Now, I know what you might be thinking:

"Are we going to reinterpret the Bible to make it say what we want?"

Far from it. What we are embarking on is not a journey of convenient reinterpretation but rather a deep, scholarly excavation of truth.

We're going to rely on the wisdom and expertise of revered biblical scholars, historians, linguists, and other academics who have dedicated their lives to studying the Bible.

These are not armchair theorists; they are men and women who have spent decades poring over ancient manuscripts, understanding the nuances of Biblical languages, and exploring the historical and cultural contexts of the times when these texts were written. OK jim I'm gonna come back and have breakfast and then we can get eyebrows and then your hair

Their work, meticulously published and peer-reviewed, forms the bedrock of our exploration. These scholars have illuminated a crucial fact:

If your parents or clergy used the Bible to justify abandoning, ostracizing, neglecting, or harming you, take comfort in knowing they were wrong. They were misled by deadly, incorrect interpretations.

Our goal is clear: to save lives from untold emotional pain, abandonment, and neglect by casting a new light on Biblical texts. This is a journey of reclamation – reclaiming lives from the shadows of misinterpretation.

Why Our Analysis Is So Important

Rethinking the Bible's take on homosexuality isn't just academic—it's life-saving. The old-school view that it's anti-gay has been fueling some serious homophobia, both out there and inside folks' heads (internal homophobia). And let's be real, the consequences are dire.

Gay men? They're in the deep end, facing stats that should have us all on high alert. They are 300% more likely to experience depression and 113% more likely to suffer from anxiety disorders.

The shadow of mental health struggles extends to physical health.  For example, gay men have a 16% higher likelihood of adverse cardiovascular conditions and a 24% increase in high blood pressure. Every beat of a stressed heart is a reminder of the link between our mental battles and their physical toll.

The impact on lifestyle choices is equally alarming. The mental pressure cooker of living with untreated depression or anxiety can lead to a 38% higher likelihood of smoking, a desperate attempt to find solace in harmful habits.

Moreover, the stark 300%+ higher likelihood of contracting STIs is a sobering testament to how mental health struggles can lead to risky behaviors, as individuals search for connection or escapism from their internal turmoil.

The impact extends to addiction, with rates of alcoholism and substance abuse 178% and 122% higher, respectively. Moreover, gay men face a staggering 200% higher risk of homelessness and a heartbreaking 316% increase in the likelihood of suicide.

So, when scholars suggest the Bible might not be anti-gay after all, it's not just about theology—it's about saving lives. Changing this narrative could lift a massive weight off so many shoulders, challenging the roots of homophobia and paving the way for a world where love and identity aren't just accepted but celebrated.

Find out how Queer Theory can help you get rid of homonegativity and improve your health. 

What Does The Bible State About Homosexuality And Why Can't You Trust Traditional Interpretations?

Think about the Bible's journey through time. It's like a game of telephone that's been played across centuries and continents.

When we truly grasp the staggering journey of the Bible through time and across cultures, it becomes increasingly difficult to overlook the inherent possibilities of misinterpretation and alteration.

Over 3,000 years, traversing continents from the Middle East to Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas, the Bible has not just been translated, but reinterpreted within a multitude of diverse cultural and historical contexts. 

Consider this: with the Bible being translated into over 700 languages, and portions available in nearly 3,500 languages, each translation presents an opportunity for shifts in meaning.

How can we then be entirely confident in a literal interpretation, when each translator, influenced by their own era, beliefs, and linguistic nuances, could have swayed the original message?

The sheer time span alone – three millennia – is staggering. In this period, languages have evolved, societal norms have shifted, and what was understood in one century could be interpreted entirely differently in another.

The original Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Bible, for instance, were first translated into Greek around the 3rd century BC. Later, Latin translations like the Vulgate in the late 4th century AD became pivotal for Western Christianity. Each of these translations was not just a linguistic process but an interpretive one, potentially altering the essence of the original texts.

Each translator brought their own understanding, context, and sometimes biases to the table. What if certain key words were misunderstood? What if cultural contexts were overlooked? What if we've been reading an echo of an echo, losing the true essence along the way?

Think about it: we've had hundreds, if not thousands, of translators working on the Bible. Each one of them brought their own worldview, influenced by their specific time and culture. That's a lot of room for big changes, not just small edits. Therefore...

It's About Understanding Not Discrediting

This skepticism is not about discrediting the Bible; it's about approaching it with a critical eye, understanding its historical journey, and recognizing the human elements in its transmission and translation.

By turning to the experts - those who understand the original languages like Hebrew and Greek, those who have immersed themselves in the ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman worlds, and those who have critically analyzed historical and archaeological evidence - we can begin to see a clearer picture.

Our aim is not to twist the words of the Bible but to understand them as they were intended. It's about looking at the logic, or the lack thereof, in current interpretations when held up against rigorous academic scrutiny.

Think about it. What is the impact of correctly understanding what the Bible says about homosexuality? No more children being thrown out of their homes, no more people feeling abandoned, neglected,  physically harmed or turning to addiction or alcoholism to cope.  coping mechanisms. It's not just about changing interpretations; it's about changing lives.

Sodom Was Associated With Sin, Not Homosexuality

Scholars like Miguel de la Torre  and Perry Kea argue against equating the sin of Sodom with homosexuality, stating there's not much supporting this interpretation.

Nowhere else in the Bible is homosexuality mentioned as one of the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah. When other parts of the Bible reference Sodom and Gomorrah, they focus on different issues.

For example:

1. **Ezekiel 16:49-50** emphasizes pride, gluttony, and neglect of the poor and needy as the sins of Sodom. It mentions that they were "haughty" and did "abominable things" before God, but it doesn't specify what these abominations were.

2. **Jude 1:7** refers to the sexual immorality and pursuit of "strange flesh" in the context of Sodom and Gomorrah. The term "strange flesh" has been subject to various interpretations, but it is not explicitly defined as homosexual behavior.

3. **Isaiah and Jeremiah** reference Sodom and Gomorrah in contexts that relate more to general wickedness and failure to follow God rather than specific behaviors.

What Does The Bible Say On Homosexuality?

The Real Reasons God Destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah

The idea that these cities were wiped off the map because of homosexuality? That's a shaky interpretation at best, and honestly, it's high time we called it out for what it is: a misreading that's been perpetuated for far too long.

In ancient Near Eastern culture, hospitality was not just important; it was considered sacred. When the men of Sodom approached Lot's house with aggressive intentions towards his guests, it was more than just a breach of manners; it represented a fundamental violation of their society's sacred values.

According to bible scholar John Boswell, "Most serious biblical scholars now recognize that the story of Sodom was probably not intended as any sort of comment on homosexuality."

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was not about sexual orientation but represented a stark disrespect for the basic principles of human decency and hospitality. This context underscores that the primary issue in this narrative was not about who people loved, but about a grave disrespect for deeply held cultural and moral standards.

Now, the Bible does paint Sodom and Gomorrah as hotbeds of sin, but let's be clear – it's not handing out specifics. We're talking about a range of bad behavior here. And let's not forget Ezekiel, who chimes in about pride, gluttony, and ignoring the needy. Sounds a lot more like a societal collapse than a specific commentary on sexual orientation, doesn't it?

And this idea of sexual immorality as the headline sin? Sure, it's a popular sermon topic, but it's not the only interpretation, and many scholars would argue it's not even the most accurate. The narrative that zeroes in on homosexuality as the big bad sin of Sodom and Gomorrah seems more like an after-the-fact addition, tailored to fit certain agendas.

What does the scripture say about homosexuality? It's never what traditionalists say.

A key point in this discussion is the nature of the sin that led to the cities' destruction. One perspective is presented by Perry Kea, an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Indianapolis. Kea emphasizes that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, as told in Genesis 19, needs to be understood in its broader biblical context.

He notes that Ezekiel 16:49-50, which describes the sin of Sodom, focuses on pride, excess of food, prosperous ease, and failure to aid the poor and needy, rather than explicitly mentioning sexual sin.

Kea also points out that the term "abominable things" used in Ezekiel has a broad range of meanings, not limited to sexual offenses. This interpretation suggests that Sodom's sin was more about social injustice and failure in hospitality rather than sexual immorality per se​​.

In addition, the narrative in Genesis 18-19, as outlined by Zondervan Academic, underscores the themes of hospitality and protection for strangers. Abraham's negotiation with God over the fate of Sodom highlights the emphasis on the presence of righteous individuals in the city.

This passage underscores the idea that the sin of Sodom involved a grave lack of hospitality and protection, as later demonstrated by the hostile behavior of the Sodomites towards Lot's guests​​.

Britannica also notes that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed due to their wickedness, as described in Genesis 19:24. The story, especially Abraham's negotiation with God, emphasizes the search for righteous individuals in Sodom and God's willingness to spare the city for their sake.

This narrative underscores the gravity of the cities' sins, which, as suggested by other biblical texts, encompass more than just sexual immorality and include severe violations of social and ethical norms, especially regarding the treatment of strangers and the needy​​.

Again, what does the Bible say about being gay? It's never what you've been taught. In fact, bible scholar William Loader had this to say about using scripture to bash LGBT people:

"It would represent an inappropriate use of scripture because these were not the people which the scripture had in mind."

First, let's understand that the Holiness Code in Leviticus, those chapters from 17 to 26 (which include passages describing homosexuality as an abomination), were a kind of guidebook for the Israelites.

Its purpose was to show them how to be different and holy. It's like God was telling them, "You're my chosen people, so you've got to be different from everyone else."

This guidebook had all sorts of rules. There were instructions about how to do sacrifices properly, what foods were okay to eat and what weren't, and how to stay clean. It even included stuff about how priests should behave and laid down some serious rules about moral conduct, like not stealing or lying.

But it wasn't just about following rules for the sake of it. The idea was to create a community that really cared for each other, especially those who were vulnerable. For example, farmers had to leave some of their crops unharvested so that poor folks could come and pick them up. This is what they called gleaning. And there were rules about paying workers on time, especially those who were living hand-to-mouth.

So, in a nutshell, the Holiness Code was about setting the Israelites apart through their actions and lifestyle, making sure they reflected God’s holiness in how they lived, treated each other, and even how they worshipped. It was all about being a community that mirrored what God stood for: fairness, care for others, and being different in a good way.

There Were Rules In Leviticus That Had Nothing To Do with Morality

For instance, there's a rule saying don't eat pork (Leviticus 11:7). Back in those days, without modern cooking methods, eating pork could be risky, health-wise. But today? We understand how to cook pork safely, so this rule isn't seen as necessary by most people.

Then there's the rule about not wearing clothes made from two different materials mixed together (Leviticus 19:19). Imagine if we followed that today - we'd all be walking around in garments that feel like potato sacks, because so much of our modern clothing is a mix of fabrics for comfort and durability.

Now, let’s think about the Leviticus rule on men not lying with men (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13). Some folks take this rule very seriously, but let's put it in context. This rule might have been about ensuring the tribe grows in numbers, which was super important for survival back then.

Today, we're not struggling with population growth. So, if we're okay with setting aside the pork and fabric rules because we understand they were specific to their time and not as relevant today, why wouldn't we consider the same for the rule about same-sex relationships?

The point is, if we took every rule in Leviticus literally and applied them all today, we'd be avoiding bacon and shrimp, wearing only single-fabric clothes, and following a bunch of other rules that make absolutely no sense in the modern world. It's about understanding the context and purpose of these ancient rules and thinking critically about how they apply (or don’t apply) to our lives now.

So what does God say about being gay? In this case, the same thing he said about eating shrimp, getting a tattoo and touching a woman who's having her period.

What Does Scripture Say About Homosexuality?

A Word About The Word "Abomination"

Leviticus  says homosexuality is an "abomination."  That word certainly sounds evil and unholy.  Surely such a scary word was reserved for the very worst of behaviors, no?

No. 

In Leviticus eating pork or shellfish was called an abomination.

In Proverbs 6:16-17 "A lying tongue or a proud look" was called an abomination.

In Isaiah 1:13 "incense is an abomination unto me;"

In Deuteronomy 22:5 A woman wearing men's clothing and vice versa is called an "abomination to the Lord your God."

In fact, the word "abomination" is used 70 times in the Bible (in the King James Version).

The term "abomination" is like a catch-all for anything that's off-limits or out of the ordinary for that time. It’s been thrown around more than a football at a tailgate party. Seventy times, in fact! So, let's not get all high and mighty about the word, especially when it’s been applied to things as benign as seafood and fashion choices.

The truth is, calling something an "abomination" in Leviticus is less about divine fury and more about societal norms of a bygone era. It’s like saying, “Hey, this isn’t how we do things around here.” But times change, and so do norms. We’ve evolved to understand that wearing a poly-cotton blend or enjoying a shrimp cocktail doesn’t spell moral decay. So why are we stuck on the word when it comes to homosexuality?

This fixation on the word “abomination” is like holding onto an ancient map while trying to navigate modern city streets. It’s outdated, and it's leading us astray. We’ve ditched so many Levitical rules without batting an eye. It’s high time we look at these verses through the lens of context, culture, and history.

What does it say in the bible about being gay? Nothing. "Being gay" was a foreign concept back then. So when the word "abomination" is used it's not for that.  Keep in mind the word was not used as a divine decree etched in stone; it’s a term deeply rooted in a time and culture vastly different from our own. It’s about time we stop using this ancient word to judge and start using our modern understanding to love and accept. After all, isn’t that what any faith worth its salt is really about?

Imagine stepping back into the ancient Greco-Roman world, where relationships were ensnared in a complex web of power and hierarchy, a stark contrast to our modern ideals of equality and mutual consent. Now, let’s get this straight: pederasty in ancient Greece wasn’t merely about sexuality.

It was an institutionalized form of mentorship where older men took younger boys under their wing, but with a sexual twist. Looking at it with today’s eyes, it’s undeniably exploitative and abusive, a complete antithesis to our values of equal and consensual relationships.

Let’s delve deeper into the disturbing realities of these societies. Sexual exploitation and slavery were rampant. Imagine being a pawn in a game where your consent doesn’t even enter the equation.

That’s a horrifying thought, right? This context throws a wrench into how we interpret ancient texts. The concept of sexual consent, as we understand it today, was virtually non-existent then.

And don’t get me started on same-sex relationships of that era. They were riddled with power imbalances, marked by glaring differences in age, social standing, and power. These weren’t partnerships of equals; they were about maintaining social structures and exercising control.

Now, let’s bring this home. When we sift through biblical texts like 1 Timothy 1, it’s clear as day that love is the cornerstone. Progressive interpreters argue with conviction that same-sex relationships, if rooted in mutual respect and love, perfectly align with the essence of these scriptures.

So, the notion that these verses unequivocally condemn homosexuality? It’s on shaky ground. What the Bible teaches about homosexuality, according to traditionalists, is just plain wrong.

What Did Bible Say About Homosexuality?

Jude 1:7 (NIV)

7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

---

Jude 1:7, often cited in discussions about homosexuality and the Bible, really deserves a closer, more critical look. The common interpretation that it condemns homosexuality doesn't hold up under scrutiny, and here's why.

This verse references the infamous story of Sodom and Gomorrah, pointing out their "sexual immorality" and pursuit of "strange flesh." But let's dissect this a bit. The term "strange flesh" is the crux of much debate and interpretation. Traditional views have quickly jumped to the conclusion that this phrase means homosexual behavior. However, this interpretation is not just simplistic; it's a significant misreading of the text.

Firstly, the translation of "strange flesh" is not straightforward. Some Bible versions, like the NASB (New American Standard Bible), initially included "angels" in italics, suggesting that Sodom’s sin involved human-angel relations. This inclusion was later removed, underscoring the interpretative nature of these translations. Other versions, such as the NIV, keep it vague, using terms like "sexual immorality and perversion" without delving into specifics.

Now, let's bring in some scholarly viewpoints. Richard Bauckham, for example, suggests that "strange flesh" could refer to an unnatural desire for angels, challenging the traditional interpretation that it’s about condemning homosexuality. On the other side, Thomas Schreiner posits that it refers to same-gender relations, though even this viewpoint has its issues. The men of Sodom, after all, didn't know they were dealing with angels; to them, they appeared as men.

So, to assert that Jude 1:7 is an outright biblical condemnation of homosexuality requires ignoring these nuances and complexities. This interpretation doesn't just stretch the text; it practically snaps it. The phrase "strange flesh" could well be pointing to something far more unusual and specific (like, say, angelic beings) than what we understand as human sexual orientations today.

Furthermore, the context of Sodom and Gomorrah's story in the Bible is key. The sin of these cities is often reduced to a single aspect (homosexuality), overshadowing other significant sins like violence, injustice, and a lack of hospitality. This reductionist interpretation does a disservice to the text's complexity.

In essence, using Jude 1:7 as a tool to condemn homosexuality today is not just a stretch; it's an interpretive leap that doesn't land within the bounds of credible biblical exegesis. The verse, when understood in its historical and literary context, does not support the often-cited view that it's a clear denunciation of homosexual relationships. Instead, it speaks to a specific, historical situation and should be read as such, not as a timeless directive on human sexuality.