Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Is the Bible actually against gay people?

Page 2 of 2 [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 Feb 2026, 9:16 pm

Mona Pereth wrote:
RachObi wrote:
The Leviticus laws governing homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13) were intended to be for God's chosen people which were the Israelites at that time. With Sodom that was pre Leviticus laws.


According to Ezekiel 16:49:
Quote:
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

Nothing here about men having sex with other men.

The idea that Sodom was destroyed due to the latter is based on an interpretation of the Genesis story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, in which the "men of Sodom" attempt a gang rape of the angels who were visiting Lot. But what made this so awful wasn't merely that it involved men having sex with other men; it was an attempted gang rape. In modern terms, it might also be described as an anti-immigrant hate crime.


I have absolutely no doubt that if the angels had arrived as women, the crowd outside would have reacted the same way.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EmpireHonda
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2025
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 385
Location: My happy place

20 Feb 2026, 9:34 pm

I'm of the opinion that Christian Fundies simply don't care if the Bible actually condemns homosexuality or not and just want an excuse to hate anyone with a different sexuality. Notice how homosexuality and abortion are the only two Biblical issues they care about, and both just happen to be issues they can use to oppress certain demographics. I don't see them chastising anyone for getting a divorce, or committing adultery (Trump, anyone?), or working on Sunday, or getting tattoos, or being judgemental towards others, or not helping the poor, or anything else the Bible instructs its followers against. It's just those two issues.


_________________
Lunatics are good at thinking outside the box.
-- TJ Kirk

My Music


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Feb 2026, 4:12 am

EmpireHonda wrote:
I'm of the opinion that Christian Fundies simply don't care if the Bible actually condemns homosexuality or not and just want an excuse to hate anyone with a different sexuality. Notice how homosexuality and abortion are the only two Biblical issues they care about, and both just happen to be issues they can use to oppress certain demographics. I don't see them chastising anyone for getting a divorce, or committing adultery (Trump, anyone?), or working on Sunday, or getting tattoos, or being judgemental towards others, or not helping the poor, or anything else the Bible instructs its followers against. It's just those two issues.


That's because those are two issues the political right has been able to manipulate the religious right through.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

21 Feb 2026, 7:31 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
When Martin Luther translated the Bible from Greek and Latin into German, he had a different take on that line from Leviticus, where "A man who lays with a man as with a woman is an abomination."
Luther maintained the actual reading was: "Any man who lays with a boy as with a woman is an abomination."
And so, according to Luther an the first Protestants, it's a condemnation of pedophilia rather than homosexuality.


Not mentioning girl (or child instead) tho, is troubling.



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 73,316
Location: Over there

21 Feb 2026, 8:34 am

Modern studies tend to have Leviticus 20:13 as a mistranslation and there are many articles online covering that.
Searching on "leviticus 20:13 mistranslation" finds many, including Wikipedia -

Quote:
More recent interpretations focus on the passage's context as part of the Holiness code, a code of purity meant to distinguish the behavior of the Israelites from the polytheistic Canaanites
Leviticus 18 & 20

So not so much the word of god, more like political propaganda.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


demeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 738

21 Feb 2026, 8:49 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
When Martin Luther translated the Bible from Greek and Latin into German, he had a different take on that line from Leviticus, where "A man who lays with a man as with a woman is an abomination."
Luther maintained the actual reading was: "Any man who lays with a boy as with a woman is an abomination."
And so, according to Luther an the first Protestants, it's a condemnation of pedophilia rather than homosexuality.


Not mentioning girl (or child instead) tho, is troubling.


When quite a few of these verses were written, pederasty was a common practice, especially in Ancient Greece and Rome societies. That is why they refer to boy rather than child.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder

21 Feb 2026, 10:07 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
When Martin Luther translated the Bible from Greek and Latin into German, he had a different take on that line from Leviticus, where "A man who lays with a man as with a woman is an abomination."
Luther maintained the actual reading was: "Any man who lays with a boy as with a woman is an abomination."
And so, according to Luther an the first Protestants, it's a condemnation of pedophilia rather than homosexuality.


Not mentioning girl (or child instead) tho, is troubling.


If I'm not mistaken the Talmud claims a girl's hymen grows back if she's younger than 3 when it is broken. This sure sounds like the yammerings of a culture that condones activities we'd find deeply disturbing, especially when viewed in the light of Sanhedrin 54b-55a, which frames sexual abuse of minors younger than 9 as legally acceptable under their religious laws.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder

21 Feb 2026, 10:12 am

demeus wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
When Martin Luther translated the Bible from Greek and Latin into German, he had a different take on that line from Leviticus, where "A man who lays with a man as with a woman is an abomination."
Luther maintained the actual reading was: "Any man who lays with a boy as with a woman is an abomination."
And so, according to Luther an the first Protestants, it's a condemnation of pedophilia rather than homosexuality.


Not mentioning girl (or child instead) tho, is troubling.


When quite a few of these verses were written, pederasty was a common practice, especially in Ancient Greece and Rome societies. That is why they refer to boy rather than child.


Greek and Roman societies were tolerant of homosexuality. The Hebrews were not.

Based on that, boy is likely specified because they didn't view the sexual abuse of girls as nearly as serious as acts which damaged the ritual purity of males.

As for the question of if the Bible is actually against gay people, I'd look at how people in period interpreted biblical laws, which seem to make homosexual relations between consenting men highly taboo and punishable by death.

Here's what the Talmud has to say regarding young males:

https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.54b.20?lang=bi

Quote:
The Gemara asks: What does it mean that the Torah does not deem a younger boy to be like an older boy? Rav says: It means that the Torah does not deem the intercourse of one who is less than nine years old to be like the intercourse of one who is at least nine years old, as for a male’s act of intercourse to have the legal status of full-fledged intercourse the minimum age is nine years. And Shmuel says: The Torah does not deem the intercourse of a child who is less than three years old to be like that of one who is three years old.


Also supporting the idea that the Hebrews prohibited male homosexuality, rather than specifically the abuse of boys:

Quote:
This is often explained that way, but the actual terms used makes it clear that it's discussing homosexuality (using the term for "male" (zachar) rather than "boy" (naar)). I'm sure others will disagree, but I never understood why people read it that way personally.


Supposing that person's understanding is correct, it seems clear cut that the Hebrews taboo was against male homosexuality.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


RachObi
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 26 May 2024
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 142
Location: UK

21 Feb 2026, 12:49 pm

Mona Pereth wrote:
RachObi wrote:
The Leviticus laws governing homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13) were intended to be for God's chosen people which were the Israelites at that time. With Sodom that was pre Leviticus laws.


According to Ezekiel 16:49:
Quote:
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

Nothing here about men having sex with other men.
The idea that Sodom was destroyed due to the latter is based on an interpretation of the Genesis story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, in which the "men of Sodom" attempt a gang rape of the angels who were visiting Lot. But what made this so awful wasn't merely that it involved men having sex with other men; it was an attempted gang rape. In modern terms, it might also be described as an anti-immigrant hate crime.


I didn't mention about Sodom myself. I know what happened in Sodom was about the story you wrote and also it was about poor behaviour to about wanting to much some money for crossing a bridge. It was not the main reason why God destroyed Sodom. I didn't think it was relevant so I never expanded on this about Sodom. The below link explains more about the story.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_ ... by-G-d.htm


_________________
The Gifts of the Holy Spirit as a Christian diagnosed with autism
https://www.autismchristian.com/


Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,669
Location: Houston, Texas

21 Feb 2026, 3:02 pm

Both the Bible and Quran need to be revised to say that:

1. Homosexuality is not a sin
2. Fornication is not a sin
3. Hell doesn't exist.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!


EmpireHonda
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2025
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 385
Location: My happy place

21 Feb 2026, 4:00 pm

Tim_Tex wrote:
Both the Bible and Quran need to be revised to say that:

1. Homosexuality is not a sin
2. Fornication is not a sin
3. Hell doesn't exist.

If Hell doesn't exist, then how will mega-preachers scare people into buying them private jets?


_________________
Lunatics are good at thinking outside the box.
-- TJ Kirk

My Music


exec
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Oct 2024
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,976
Location: USA

21 Feb 2026, 6:38 pm

EmpireHonda wrote:
Tim_Tex wrote:
Both the Bible and Quran need to be revised to say that:

1. Homosexuality is not a sin
2. Fornication is not a sin
3. Hell doesn't exist.

If Hell doesn't exist, then how will mega-preachers scare people into buying them private jets?
So true!


_________________
“Success is only meaningful and enjoyable if it feels like your own.” -Michelle Obama


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Feb 2026, 6:43 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
When Martin Luther translated the Bible from Greek and Latin into German, he had a different take on that line from Leviticus, where "A man who lays with a man as with a woman is an abomination."
Luther maintained the actual reading was: "Any man who lays with a boy as with a woman is an abomination."
And so, according to Luther an the first Protestants, it's a condemnation of pedophilia rather than homosexuality.


Not mentioning girl (or child instead) tho, is troubling.


If I'm not mistaken the Talmud claims a girl's hymen grows back if she's younger than 3 when it is broken. This sure sounds like the yammerings of a culture that condones activities we'd find deeply disturbing, especially when viewed in the light of Sanhedrin 54b-55a, which frames sexual abuse of minors younger than 9 as legally acceptable under their religious laws.


Jesus' mother, Mary, might have been as young as twelve when she was married to Joseph.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,610
Location: Texas

21 Feb 2026, 6:52 pm

EmpireHonda wrote:
Tim_Tex wrote:
Both the Bible and Quran need to be revised to say that:

1. Homosexuality is not a sin
2. Fornication is not a sin
3. Hell doesn't exist.

If Hell doesn't exist, then how will mega-preachers scare people into buying them private jets?

That didnt stop the JW's from getting so rich as a religion despite not believing in Hell. They were still able to fleece their flock.