June 26, 2016 Comments 39 Pink Panther 6714 Views

To Be Gay And Christian

Without doubt, people who fall within the rainbow family often appear to search for some spiritual reasoning or explanation that fully justifies the fact that they are not ‘freaks’. A greater percentage of the LGBT community, mostly youths, seem unhappy or unsatisfied in being themselves, not only because of the failed acceptance from their families and friends, but also by the perceived rejection from the Divine, as preached for centuries by their religious leaders. In all religions that believe in Abraham as their father by faith, there is one thing they have in common: the condemnation of homosexuality, all because of the misconception of the five books of Moses.

I cannot fully convince the general public that one can be both religious and gay, but I will point out the fact that the Divine isn’t homophobic and that the ideology of heterosexual union as the sole form of union was manmade.

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostril the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” Genesis 2:7

“And the Lord God said, it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmate for him. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof.” Genesis 7:18, 21

It is important to note that the above passages had the Divine fully involved; in Genesis 7:18, Adam was alone, he needed a helpmate, a companion and a friend, not a wife. The Divine did not put marriage in His plan but a platonic relationship, that same one that can exist between flat mates.

Many would however argue that Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 2:24 does institute marriage:

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth…” Genesis 1:28

The whole Bible makes us understand that God is love. If that is so, then love should have been in His command to the heterosexual union, but instead He uses words ‘like’, ‘fruitful’, ‘multiply’ and ‘replenish’. It is simple; the primary duty of the heterosexual union is child-bearing, not to serve as an agent of homophobia. The bible leads us to understand that companion and love can be found in opposite-sex relationships as in the case of Adam and Eve, Mary and Joseph as well as same-sex relationship as in the case of Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, and Jesus and the beloved apostle John.

It baffles me that no Christian seems to talk about 2 Samuel 1:26, where David professed that his love for Jonathan was more than that for a woman. When the issue comes up, many Christian scholars argue that their love was a “brotherly-love”, but this passage points otherwise:

“And it came to pass, when he made an end of speaking unto Saul that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father’s house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the rope that was upon him, and gave it to David and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow and to his girdle.” 1 Samuel 18:1-4

Now imagine that David was replaced with Martha, and on their first meeting, Jonathan gave her his armor and garment (an important symbol of his power and status as a prince). With this supposition, theologians all over would be talking about this story as the greatest love story ever and it would probably become the basis for lot of Hollywood movies. But the relationship was between two men, one which riles our bias, causing us to see it as just deep friendship regardless of the biblical evidence. The books of Samuel should be regarded as the greatest record of same love and theologians ought to accept Jonathan and David’s relationship for what it was.

Saul’s words to Jonathan were even more explicit, if theologians were to read them without perjury:

“You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen (David) the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established.” 1 Samuel 20:30-31

The greatest perceived homophobic part of the Bible, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, has been used over time to push homophobia in churches. However, we need to fully understand why those verses had to be included, hence the importance to treat them both contextually and historically. We need to grasp the concept of Leviticus 18: 1-3. God instructed the children of Israel not to behave like the Egyptians or the Canaanites, in whose land they dwell. Historians hold it that these nations hold fertility rites that were sexual in nature. These rituals were thought to bring blessings from the gods. During the rituals, whole families including husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, would have sex to draw favor from these gods. Also included was sex with temple prostitutes, in fact, there abounded every form of sexual intercourse. This was what was going on in Egypt and Canaan at the time the Levitical rules were announced. Chapter 20 is more specific, beginning with an injunction against the pagan practices associated with a god named Molech.

“And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people because he hath given of his seed unto Molech and kill him no.” Leviticus 20:3

Both chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus included a long list of sexual practices common in the cultic rituals of both the Egyptians and Canaanites. However, neither spoke to the question of whether two people of the same sex can live in a loving relationship with the Divine’s blessing. Historically, our model of loving and long-term homosexual relationships did not meaningfully exist in the Canaanite culture. Offspring was essential to survival in the primitive agricultural economy and the rigid distinction between men’s work and that of women. It is therefore not reasonable to believe that the author of Leviticus intended to prohibit a form of homosexual relationship that wasn’t in existence at that time.

But some might argue that we take the words in Leviticus as they are i.e. out of context, but they seem to forget that theologians and the highest power of Christian authority, the Pope per se, inform individuals that the Bible is not black and white.

Another passage of the Scripture sometimes used against gay people is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which reads as follows in the King James Version:

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

In this passage, there are two key phrases. First, the reference to “effeminate” persons, which is often viewed as a reference to the nelly, the gay man. In truth however, the Greek word from whence the word “effeminate” in verse 9 is translated is quite broad. The word is malakoi, and it literally means “soft.” So Paul is possibly saying that “soft people” will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since we know Paul was not talking about the flamers, we have to ask what he meant. This common Greek word had different connotations, depending on the context in which it was used. In terms of morality, it generally referred to attributes like laziness, degeneracy, decadence, or lack of courage. The connotation was of being “soft like a woman” or like the delicate expensive fabrics worn by rich men. In the patriarchal culture of the time, women were thought to be weaker than men, more fearful, more vulnerable, and vainer. Thus, men who ate too much or liked expensive things were lazy, men who liked to dress well were considered “soft like a woman.” Although this type of misogynistic thinking is intolerable in our modern society, it was common in ancient times and explains why the King James Version translated malakoi to “effeminate.”

In recent years, some have suggested that in the context in which it appears in 1 Corinthians 6, malakoi may refer specifically to male prostitutes, who would have served as the receptive partner (i.e., soft, “woman-like”) in sexual intercourse. This translation is reflected in two of the most widely used modern English translations of the Bible, the New International Version and the New Revised Standard Version. Since malakoi was used to refer to men who exhibited the negative traits associated with women in first-century culture, it’s not hard to see how the term might also be used to refer to male prostitutes. They would be viewed as sexually indulgent (a trait associated with women) and as the ones who played a receptive role in intercourse (again, associated with women).

One translation technique is to look at the root words alone. Arsenokoitai is a combination of two existing words, one meaning “bed” and referring to sex, and another meaning “male.” Thus, some scholars surmise the term has something to do with male sexual expression — perhaps exclusive male sexual expression, since no woman is mentioned.

Unfortunately, this method of translation often leads people astray. For example, imagine a future translator coming across the word “lady-killer” two thousand years from now and wanting to know what it means. It’s clear the phrase is made from two words, ‘lady’ and ‘killer’. So, it must mean a woman who kills, right? Or is it a person who kills ladies? The difficulty in obtaining a good translation is clear — particularly when we know lady-killer was a term used in the 1970s to refer to men whom women supposedly found irresistible.

The nature of man is filled with flaws as we are meant to understand through the bible, hence the relevance to ask ourselves two important questions:

How many times did Jesus (the Divine) talk about sexual offences?

How often did he define the Divine’s wishes?

When we have answered the above questions, then we would realise that if neither Christ nor his eleven apostles condemned homosexuality, it is not in anyone’s position to do so. To individuals who identify themselves as GAY, if Christ did not, in His three decades on earth, condemn you, then surely you can follow Him. Simply put, you can fully identify yourselves as Christians if you wish.

In conclusion, I’d like to leave you with this passage from the bible that we as Christians and non-Christians alike hasten to overlook in our quest to persecute others:

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.” 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 NIV

Written by Lexus

Previous MGM: An Inevitable Destination?

Next Alleged Ex-Lover Of Orlando Shooter Speaks Out, Says He Did It For Revenge

Category Our Stories

About author

Pink Panther 5817 posts

View all posts by this author →

Dimkpa

June 26, 07:40 Reply

Each religion makes scores of purportedly factual assertions about everything from the creation of the universe to the afterlife. But on what grounds can believers presume to know that these assertions are true? The reasons they give are various, but the ultimate justification for most religious people’s beliefs is a simple one: we believe what we believe because our holy scriptures say so. But how, then, do we know that our holy scriptures are factually accurate? Because the scriptures themselves say so. Theologians specialize in weaving elaborate webs of verbiage to avoid saying anything quite so bluntly, but this gem of circular reasoning really is the epistemological bottom line on which all ‘faith’ is grounded. In the words of Pope John Paul II: ‘By the authority of his absolute transcendence, God who makes himself known is also the source of the credibility of what he reveals.’ It goes without saying that this begs the question of whether the texts at issue really were authored or inspired by God, and on what grounds one knows this. ‘Faith’ is not in fact a rejection of reason, but simply a lazy acceptance of bad reasons. ‘Faith’ is the pseudo-justification that some people trot out when they want to make claims without the necessary evidence.

But of course we never apply these lax standards of evidence to the claims made in the other fellow’s holy scriptures: when it comes to religions other than one’s own, religious people are as rational as everyone else. Only our own religion, whatever it may be, seems to merit some special dispensation from the general standards of evidence.

And here, it seems to me, is the crux of the conflict between religion and science. Not the religious rejection of specific scientific theories (be it heliocentrism in the 17th century or evolutionary biology today); over time most religions do find some way to make peace with well-established science. Rather, the scientific worldview and the religious worldview come into conflict over a far more fundamental question: namely, what constitutes evidence.

Science relies on publicly reproducible sense experience (that is, experiments and observations) combined with rational reflection on those empirical observations. Religious people acknowledge the validity of that method, but then claim to be in the possession of additional methods for obtaining reliable knowledge of factual matters — methods that go beyond the mere assessment of empirical evidence — such as intuition, revelation, or the reliance on sacred texts. But the trouble is this: What good reason do we have to believe that such methods work, in the sense of steering us systematically (even if not invariably) towards true beliefs rather than towards false ones? At least in the domains where we have been able to test these methods — astronomy, geology and history, for instance — they have not proven terribly reliable. Why should we expect them to work any better when we apply them to problems that are even more difficult, such as the fundamental nature of the universe?

Last but not least, these non-empirical methods suffer from an insuperable logical problem: What should we do when different people’s intuitions or revelations conflict? How can we know which of the many purportedly sacred texts — whose assertions frequently contradict one another — are in fact sacred?
Alan Sokal

39 Comments

ambivalentone
June 26, 07:32 Reply

*massaging temple* I’d love to read Chizzie’s song reviews now pls.
geeluv
June 26, 07:36 Reply

I can’t wait to read this but that will be when I’m back from church…. Lolz
KUNLE
June 26, 07:38 Reply

Good piece,welldone.
Dimkpa
June 26, 07:40 Reply

Each religion makes scores of purportedly factual assertions about everything from the creation of the universe to the afterlife. But on what grounds can believers presume to know that these assertions are true? The reasons they give are various, but the ultimate justification for most religious people’s beliefs is a simple one: we believe what we believe because our holy scriptures say so. But how, then, do we know that our holy scriptures are factually accurate? Because the scriptures themselves say so. Theologians specialize in weaving elaborate webs of verbiage to avoid saying anything quite so bluntly, but this gem of circular reasoning really is the epistemological bottom line on which all ‘faith’ is grounded. In the words of Pope John Paul II: ‘By the authority of his absolute transcendence, God who makes himself known is also the source of the credibility of what he reveals.’ It goes without saying that this begs the question of whether the texts at issue really were authored or inspired by God, and on what grounds one knows this. ‘Faith’ is not in fact a rejection of reason, but simply a lazy acceptance of bad reasons. ‘Faith’ is the pseudo-justification that some people trot out when they want to make claims without the necessary evidence.

But of course we never apply these lax standards of evidence to the claims made in the other fellow’s holy scriptures: when it comes to religions other than one’s own, religious people are as rational as everyone else. Only our own religion, whatever it may be, seems to merit some special dispensation from the general standards of evidence.

And here, it seems to me, is the crux of the conflict between religion and science. Not the religious rejection of specific scientific theories (be it heliocentrism in the 17th century or evolutionary biology today); over time most religions do find some way to make peace with well-established science. Rather, the scientific worldview and the religious worldview come into conflict over a far more fundamental question: namely, what constitutes evidence.

Science relies on publicly reproducible sense experience (that is, experiments and observations) combined with rational reflection on those empirical observations. Religious people acknowledge the validity of that method, but then claim to be in the possession of additional methods for obtaining reliable knowledge of factual matters — methods that go beyond the mere assessment of empirical evidence — such as intuition, revelation, or the reliance on sacred texts. But the trouble is this: What good reason do we have to believe that such methods work, in the sense of steering us systematically (even if not invariably) towards true beliefs rather than towards false ones? At least in the domains where we have been able to test these methods — astronomy, geology and history, for instance — they have not proven terribly reliable. Why should we expect them to work any better when we apply them to problems that are even more difficult, such as the fundamental nature of the universe?

Last but not least, these non-empirical methods suffer from an insuperable logical problem: What should we do when different people’s intuitions or revelations conflict? How can we know which of the many purportedly sacred texts — whose assertions frequently contradict one another — are in fact sacred?
Alan Sokal
- Doe eyed monster
  June 26, 08:03 Reply
  
  Haba! After the long post, you gave us an even longer comment, who you epp? Lol. Just kidding.
- pete
  June 26, 09:07 Reply
  
  Dazzall. Apt.
- Tobee
  June 26, 12:43 Reply
  
  Nice one Dimkpa!
bruno
June 26, 07:57 Reply

lmao. dear lord. how many hoops are you going to jump through to convince yourself you can follow a religion that doesn’t want you.
- chuck
  June 26, 11:47 Reply
  
  Exactly.
- Sasha
  June 26, 12:29 Reply
  
  touché @Bruno
Kenny
June 26, 08:11 Reply

This is for those that care. I’ve made peace with my sexuality and faith or lack of it……
Orlando
June 26, 08:27 Reply

practicing a religion that preach hate about you and your kind,that is unapologetically opposed to your sexual orientation, and find big big oyinbo to make yourself feel better and accepted by this religion, its stupid and delusional,no matter what,Christianity will never accept homosexuality, the earlier you realize that,the better. keep consoling yourself, you need it. as for me and few others, we are secure in our sexuality, beliefs and non religious nature.
lonz
June 26, 09:08 Reply

This is a piece of steaming horse shit. Homosexuals were burnt at the stake during the inquisition, by the Catholic Church. The very same people that compiled the bible in nicea .

Guys you can be happy without god. Religion is an age old myth and it is time we yank it out and not alter it to suit us.

The same bible that talks of stars falling to the earth and snakes talking and man walking on water. And a sea parted yet god could not defeat people with iron chariots.
- Tiercel de Claron
  June 26, 12:44 Reply
  
  ‘Homosexuals were burnt at the stake during the inquisition, by the Catholic Church”
  Really?.
Francis
June 26, 09:20 Reply

This perpetual hustle to prove the bible isn’t homophobic. *Sighs*
Masked Man
June 26, 09:32 Reply

Sigh!
I’m just wondering why you have to go through all the stress of wanting something that doesn’t want you. Why you have to struggle to identify with something that doesn’t want to identify with you. Sounds like too much work to me. I’d rather not bother.
Dickson Clement
June 26, 09:59 Reply

The bible and God… I love love God

There is so much we can’t understand
- Monde
  June 26, 18:51 Reply
  
  It always seemed to me a bit pointless to disapprove of homosexuality. It’s like disapproving of rain.
Canis VY Majoris
June 26, 10:24 Reply

“To individuals who identify themselves as GAY, if Christ did not, in His three decades on earth, condemn you, then surely you can follow Him. Simply put, you can fully identify yourselves as Christians if you wish.”

I understand that this blog might be full of Atheists, Agnotists & the whole lots. Which is fine, it requires a superior mind to balance the synergy.

However, to fellow kindreds of like minds towards CHRISTian spirituality and sexuality, the above extract is for us.

Keep on keeping the faith.
- Pink Panther
  June 26, 11:20 Reply
  
  This I admire. In the face of much dissension from a majority of non-believers, keep believing.
- chuck
  June 26, 11:48 Reply
  
  Superior mind that runs away from reasoning? Lol
- Sasha
  June 26, 12:33 Reply
  
  LMFAO @Superior mind. Let’s just say none of your kind will ever win an intellectual contest.
  - Delle
    June 26, 23:28 Reply
    
    Ouch! Ouch! That hurt! Ouch!
Delle
June 26, 11:19 Reply

*picks up pink Bible and heads for Evangelism*
Mike Daemon
June 26, 13:40 Reply

Truthfully, i do not fucking care what any religion has to say about homosexuality
- Pink Panther
  June 26, 14:18 Reply
  
  I dont think the piece is about whether any unbeliever cares or not. 🙂 I think it’s about encouraging gay believers not to feel ostracized by their faith.
  - bruno
    June 26, 15:19 Reply
    
    true, pp. I guess very soon, we’ll have a follow up post on how patriotic Nigerian should not feel ostracised by its gay laws because the Nigerian government and public are actually very much pro gay. 🙂
    - ambivalentone
      June 26, 16:46 Reply
      
      looool
  - Pryor Hosanna
    June 28, 11:03 Reply
    
    Thankyou…
Chuck
June 26, 15:54 Reply

Lexus, when will you write about how God lets “CHRISTian” men “make love” to men while married to an unsuspecting woman?
- YOU-KNOW-WHO
  June 26, 21:55 Reply
  
  LMAO!!!
Khaleesi
June 26, 17:15 Reply

Extremely intellectual piece, well laid out and logical, but at the end of it all, the simple truth remains that the bulk kf Christians and Christianity DO NOT want us! Especially in this part of the world, from the lowest to their highest levels of religious authority, they have made it absolutely clear with no ambiguity that they hate, reject and are repulsed by us, if you doubt me, present this piece before any gathering of senior religious clergy of any denomination! As for me, I’ve made my piece and find my joy, they can all run to Egbin Power station and hug all the transformers there!!
Gregory Ander
June 26, 18:32 Reply

“For those who believe in God, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe in God, no explanation is possible.”
Hirsch
June 26, 19:51 Reply

Lovely piece, loved it.
Jesus loves me,gay,straight,unicorn,Pegasus. My identification is in Christ not some archetype
Evil Empress
June 27, 11:17 Reply

Hmmmm…

I see this blog has a lot of Atheists…but how can u refute the fact that there indeed is a God?
@Ionz how exactly do u produce ur own oxygen and will ur heart to beat, ur brain to think, ur eyes to see, ur nose to smell *u get my drift*
Come unto me….and I will give u rest!

God doesn’t segregate…In his eyes, we are all one! Gay..straight..bi..watever.

To the Christian Gay Community on here, i’d say keep serving God the way u know how.

A wise gurl once said to me “If u say we are all different and unique, isn’t that uniqueness our similarity?”
Pryor Hosanna
June 28, 11:06 Reply

My Jesus Loves Me..
his eyes are on the Sparrows,
We’re Children of The Light.
Dim
June 29, 02:34 Reply

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/26/world/pope-apologize-gays/
Yitzhak
June 29, 08:09 Reply

Good insight but you quoted a scripture that I think you should look at from other translations like NIV nd Good news.
“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
1 Corinthians 6:9‭-‬10 NIVUK
http://bible.com/113/1co.6.9-10.NIVUK
- lexus
  June 30, 00:49 Reply
  
  KJV was the 3rd English Bible to be accepted, you should first ask yourself when the NIV translation came to be…. KJV used to effeminate for Malakoi, who is to say NIV ain’t a spin-off of KJV?