Skip to main content

Christians Should Love and Accept Homosexuals

By Incongruous Circumspection ~

Message: The rhetoric of the day from fundamentalist Christianity, the American religious right, and others is that the god of the Bible, whom they serve, hates homosexuality. Some say that he even hates homosexuals themselves. They have good reason to. It says so in the Bible.

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. - Leviticus 20:13

Other passages in the New Testament section of the Bible condemn homosexuality, as well, even stating that you will not be able to get into heaven if you're gay (We won't mention drunkards, idolators, adulturers, fornicators, thieves, etc. You're all going to hell too.)

So, the logical conclusion for a Christian is to say that god hates homosexuals, wants them dead, and even better, the issue is reiterated in the New Testament, validating the issue.

I would argue that you are wrong - dead wrong.

First of all, as society progresses, our understanding of humanity changes. We no longer look at an alcoholic as someone who should be cast out of society. We help them. But let us look at an argument that was a big deal back in the early 19th century.

At that time in history, many nations, including the whole continent of Europe had abolished the terrible practice of slavery. If they hadn't abolished it, they had scaled back the practice. In Britain, the home country was slave free whereas the empire still allowed it. Much was said in the halls of parliament about abolishing slavery throughout the empire. It would take many years for this to actually happen, but happen it did.

In America, by the 1830's, many politicians and upstanding citizens had spoken out against slavery and had branded it a "peculiar practice". This incensed many slave owners and their apologists came out of the woodwork, claiming that slavery was ordained by god himself. Not only was it ordained by god, but it was good and right. They had much in the way of proof from the pages of Scripture.

Many passages in Genesis speak of the ownership of slaves as a foregone conclusion. God even blessed the actions of those slaves that did exactly what their master told them to do - as in the story of Abraham and his servant who went after Rebekah. Isaac was given many slaves, male and female, so that god could make him the envy of his enemies.

In Leviticus 25, the same God who demanded that homosexuals be killed (the same homosexuals who Paul said could not get into heaven), made it a rule that the Israelites could buy slaves from the surrounding nations. Israelites could not be slaves. After the slaves were purchased, God called them property and even sanctioned the bequeathing of said slaves to the sons of the slave owner. This practice would continue forever, or at least until the slaves died. At the very end of his rules, god says that the Israelites could not own Israelites. He ends this rule by saying, "but you can't rule over your own kin ruthlessly." It would seem that this was a sanction to rule over those who were NOT their kin, ruthlessly.

Solomon made all non-Israelite men, slaves, to do hard labor for his great kingdom while making all Israelite men higher class soldiers. In fact, the Bible, the inspired word of God, says that they are slaves to this day.

We can look at it in another way too. Throughout the Old Testament, hundreds of times, God refers to people who do his bidding as "my servants." Even the human/God relationship is master/slave.

Books of the New Testament also refer to slaves as if it is normal. 1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:28. Pay special attention to Ephesian 6:5-9. Paul gives very special instructions to slaves and masters and how they are to treat one another.

There is much more in the Bible about slavery than there is about homosexuality. In fact, most of the verses that are referenced in the New Testament that people claim have something to do with homosexuality simply don't. They are hyper-interpreted to inject this "sin" into the text when many other things could be read into it.

These slavery passages propped up the arguments of the apologists for slavery in those times, but ultimately, they lost. They lost to the common understanding of the worth of human life in those days. Prominent abolitionists also made arguments from the same holy text, claiming that, though slavery was sanctioned by God, it shouldn't be practiced today. They had to go through plenty of theological pretzels to get to that conclusion, but it was still successful. Slavery was abolished and is no longer a part of America.

But, keep this in mind. Slavery is also thundered against from the pulpit. It is now viewed as a sin. Holding human beings against their will and everything else that goes along with the practice. Slavery is spit at, condemned, verbally fought against, and products manufactured by virtual slaves are boycotted from every ministerial pulpit in America. Then, the condemnation of homosexuals is heavily preached, as well, in many circles of religion.

Why? Why is slavery, sanctioned by God, re-sanctioned by Paul with rules for doing it right, and spoken of many many times more than homosexuality, a serious problem, while homosexuality - spoken of only a few times, the sentence for which was death, unable to get to heaven because of the practice - is condemned?

Homosexuals are just as human as slaves were. We abolished the practice of human abuse called "slavery" due to our common understanding of the worth of mankind. In fact, we poked our finger in God's and Paul's eye to make the argument to do so. In the same way, we can now abolish the practice of the human abuse of rejecting, ostracizing, and condemning homosexuals. We have rejected God's words - correctly - about slavery. We can now - correctly - ignore what the Bible says about homosexuality.

Are you with me?


Popular posts from this blog

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo

Why I left the Canadian Reformed Church

By Chuck Eelhart ~ I was born into a believing family. The denomination is called Canadian Reformed Church . It is a Dutch Calvinistic Christian Church. My parents were Dutch immigrants to Canada in 1951. They had come from two slightly differing factions of the same Reformed faith in the Netherlands . Arriving unmarried in Canada they joined the slightly more conservative of the factions. It was a small group at first. Being far from Holland and strangers in a new country these young families found a strong bonding point in their church. Deutsch: Heidelberger Katechismus, Druck 1563 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) I was born in 1955 the third of eventually 9 children. We lived in a small southern Ontario farming community of Fergus. Being young conservative and industrious the community of immigrants prospered. While they did mix and work in the community almost all of the social bonding was within the church group. Being of the first generation born here we had a foot in two

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not