Lgbt+Community Question

[rhonda74]

 Is the Lgbt+ community mention anywhere in the Bible?

[Ivy]

Well, yes.  But there is some debate on how to understand the passages.  They are often interpreted negatively toward queer folks.

I should leave this to other bible scholars.  (but it is tempting)

[Ashley0616]

It's mentioned a few times but mentioned in a way you would have to interpret it as such. It doesn't say it's a sin. It is said that in the Old Testament that it was a sin but there isn't any mention of it in the New Testament as a sin. Just like in the Old Testament it mentions eating pork is a sin but now it's not. 

[rhonda74]

  Isaiah 56 verse 4 and 5..

4. For thus says the Lord:
“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant,
5. I will give in my house and within my walls
a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that shall not be cut off.

 

 

 

 

[rhonda74]

Additional comment: the thing I don't get about churches today, especially the ones that don't support our rights, tend to keep that Bible verse from being talked about among their followers. 

[VickySGV]

Neither Trans nor Gays and Lesbians were in any Bible until 1946, and then it was a mistake in English translation that was corrected a few years later, but by then the damage had been done.  What was condemned in the earliest scriptures was male rape perpetrated on males either conquered in a war showing hostility and an attempt to humiliate and possibly kill the victim or to castrate him as a punishment for choosing the wrong side in a battle.  In the story of Lot, the citizens of Sodom did not believe in Lot's deity and wanted to rape the two angelic visitors to show contempt and lack of power to protect by Lot's god who was threatening to destroy the town at that point.  The reference to sharing a booth -aka tent" by two men referred to one showing the other who was the big guy in the tent, not an act of affection, it was a power play thing.  (I was the victim of that type of event on a Boy Scout camping trip twice.) The term "top dog" taken from actual observation of dogs where a resident male "tops" a visiting male best describes that situation.  The events when examined were not loving and friendly, and one more consideration was that they were bloody affairs which would keep a Hebrew Priest off his job for a prescribed length of time.  We don't have to force Trans into the Eunuch model and really looking at eunuchs in the history of the church paints only a few of them into possible Trans territory, and then more as Drag actors in the middle ages.  The Deuteronomy passages about clothing are a different issue all together.  Again English translation causes the problem.  The scenario of a "WOMAN" wearing male items is not accurate, since the word the KJ boys translated as woman actually in the Hebrew meant ANY person who was not fit for military service not necessarily actual Cis Women, since women are mentioned as warriors in other parts of the OT.  Men "not wearing things of women" is another cultural boo boo on the English side.  Leviticus very strongly gives the law on Menstruating women, their need for seclusion.  A priest who put on his wife's, daughter's, concubine's, or female slave's undergarments that they had worn during their period's would be on unpaid leave from his duties in the temple until he and the garments and the women could be ritually purified as per Leviticus.  The man's shortcoming was inability to perform his duties to the congregations.  They did not really have sexy underwear in those days so mistakes could happen if they were not careful.  We have enough on our side, lets leave the Eunuchs alone in this one.

[VickySGV]

@NatsYou hit the other angle pretty directly on as well. 

[Ivy]

I said I should leave this to other bible scholars, and I should.  But here I am lurking again… sigh.

Despite no longer having any skin in the game, I keep coming back as a spectator.  I guess this just shows how deeply this stuff gets embedded into those of us who grew up with it.

At this point I have opinions, but no standing.  So I'll just make some popcorn and kick back to watch.

 

[rhonda74]

Oh my, there's so much to learn about the history of the Bible, although it had been rewritten including different versions of the scriptures. 

[awkward-yet-sweet]

6 hours ago, rhonda74 said:

 Is the Lgbt+ community mention anywhere in the Bible?

 

Yeah, there's a few mentions.  Usually negative, and mostly directed at men.  "Men laying with men" is mentioned multiple times as being an "abomination."  There's really no way to mince words on that and accept the totality of Divinely-inspired Scripture.

 

Lesbians are pretty much exempt.  There's one mention in Romans 1:26 about women "exchanging natural relations for unnatural ones" but there are different interpretations of this.  My faith community views it as replacing normal family-rearing procreative activity for an exclusively female homosexual relationship.... but that within a family plural-marriage bond, female homosexual contact is actually beneficial toward peace and unity.

 

As for transgender folks, it is kind of a gray area.  There are prohibitions on men dressing like women, but since that is heavily dependent on cultural clothing styles, applying that to today has some nuances. 

 

4 hours ago, rhonda74 said:

  Isaiah 56 verse 4 and 5..

4. For thus says the Lord:
“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant,
5. I will give in my house and within my walls
a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that shall not be cut off.

 

Let me give some cultural context on this one.  In ancient times, being a eunuch wasn't a voluntary thing.  Nobody chose it, and IIRC it was also against Jewish law for a master to mutilate a slave and make that person a eunuch.  So, eunuchs were inherently victims of violence.  Eunuchs also were ineligible for the priesthood, and were unable to have children, which was a really important thing.  God really places priority on protecting the less fortunate - widows, orphans, the poor and destitute, servants and slaves. God encourages helping them and places condemnation on any who oppress them.  It is in keeping with God's values to provide some encouragement for eunuchs - victims of horrible intimate violence.

 

However... I think that verse is relevant to our situation in a certain way.  I believe that many LGBTQ+ folks are the way we are because we have been affected against our will and without our knowledge by chemicals in food, water, and household goods.  For example, the effects of BPA in plastic have been well-documented in animal studies.  In effect, because of our modern world many of us are victims of a form of quiet violence.  Would we have lived "normal" cisgender, heterosexual, binary, "socially acceptable" lives without pain or dysphoria?  Possibly!  We won't ever know.  I certainly would have preferred it, and I certainly didn't choose how I feel.  

 

Alright, so I'm guessing what some folks really want to know is.... can you be LGBTQ+ and Christian?  Can you be transgender and Christian?  While many conservative interpretations of Scripture shout a resounding "NO!" and many liberal interpretations of Scripture proclaim "YES!" I personally believe the issue is a little more nuanced. 

 

As a believer in Biblical literalism, I don't have the convenience of just saying that "those rules were for ancient times, and things are different now."  And in the context of Romans 6:1-2, I know I am discouraged from deliberately committing sin and presuming upon Grace.  Some effort toward holier living is expected, although thankfully grace and forgiveness absolve me from the requirement to be perfect.  So for me, I look at the guidelines in Scripture and do the best I can with what I've got.  For me, that has been to keep my sexuality within the bounds of marriage and to mostly avoid modifying my body.  And in recognizing that this is really a gray area brought about in the modern era, I accept that my interpretation of Scripture and my willingness to follow the rules of my community are my own choice, and your choice most likely will be different.  I have a couple of trans friends who see things differently, and while we discuss it sometimes, we agree to disagree.  Faith is personal, after all.

[VickySGV]

Something to remember and think about though, is that if we gave one of our current Bibles to any of the original scripture authors, it would mean nothing to them because they cannot read English and probably would  give them a headache and eye strain.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

Just now, VickySGV said:

Something to remember and think about though, is that if we gave one of our current Bibles to any of the original scripture authors, it would mean nothing to them because they cannot read English and probably would  give them a headache and eye strain.

 

OK.... if this is part of the argument about inaccurate Bible translation, multiple authors, and such.... well, I have reasons to disagree.  It may not be exactly on-topic for the thread, but I'll address it briefly since it seems to be coming up.

 

2 hours ago, VickySGV said:

Neither Trans nor Gays and Lesbians were in any Bible until 1946, and then it was a mistake in English translation that was corrected a few years later, but by then the damage had been done. 

 

This statement is demonstrably inaccurate.  Just take a look at a copy of the Geneva Bible from 1599, which was the preferred translation during the time of the Pilgrims, Oliver Cromwell, and folks of that era.  Copies of which are commonly available electronically.  Various passages such as Leviticus 20:13 are perfectly evident, with no doubt or word games about the contents.  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus 20%3A13&version=GNV

 

The Bible is actually one of the best-preserved documents in history, directly translated from originals for our use today.  Being of Greek ethnicity, I can read a bit of Koine Greek (the language the Apostle Paul wrote in originally).  I don't find an issue with the KJV translation.  Consider that the Hebrew Scriptures have been handed down for thousands of years, faithfully copied with an incredible standard of accuracy. https://www.josh.org/scribes-faithfully-transmit-old-testament/  The Hebrew Scriptures were also translated into Koine Greek over 200 years before Jesus' physical time walking among us.  Those documents are still available. 

 

We accept as accurate various accounts written by historians such as Tacitus and Suetonius, Livy and Pliny, personal accounts such as Julius Caesar's Commentary on the Gallic War, or the thoughts of philosophers such as Aristotle.  For many of these records, we only have one or two copies still remaining, sometimes even  incomplete.  Historians find those documents enlightening, and approach them as facts from the time.  Yet people want to criticize the documents that comprise the Bible, when we have many more copies that match one another?  I'm no scholar, but even my basic high school education tells me that sure seems like one standard of reasoning for some sources, and a different standard of reasoning for others.  For me, reason does not support dismissing the contents of Scripture as poorly translated, inaccurate, or relativistic.

 

In my life, the book changes me, I don't change it.  I didn't write it.  Stating what I find in the book and that the contents are accurate to the original is separate from making a judgement about those contents.  What we say about the Bible says more about us and our worldview that it does about the Bible itself.  So, five questions are relevant for me:

 

1. Since this book can withstand historical criticism, do I trust its contents as truth? 

2. If I trust the contents as truth, am I able to understand the meaning?

3. How am I able to align my life with that understanding, does it motivate me to obey?

4.  What benefits and drawbacks are there for understanding and obedience?

5.  If these things make me uncomfortable, can I be honest with myself about why that is?

[VickySGV]

Just now, awkward-yet-sweet said:

This statement is demonstrably inaccurate.  Just take a look at a copy of the Geneva Bible from 1599, which was the preferred translation during the time of the Pilgrims, Oliver Cromwell, and folks of that era.  Copies of which are commonly available electronically.  Various passages such as Leviticus 20:13 are perfectly evident, with no doubt or word games about the contents.  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus 20%3A13&version=GNV

The terms Homosexual and Transsexual did not even exist until the latest 1800's and earliest 1900's, and therefor could not have been in a holy scripture in the 1500's.  There was a movie that came out last summer titled 1946 based just the terminology thing.  Forcing new words into the mouths of long dead people is done often, but does not make it true.  I have seen those old Bibles and they do not demonstrate anything but their single niche in history.  Did they have ideas about other things they hated about their neighbors in the 1500's, yes of course they did they were fully human but we cannot put today into their times. 

[Ivy]

I have a question.  In the bible, is being transgender the same as being gay?  I don't think so.  

If I, as a trans woman, do stuff with a cis (or trans) man, is that gay sex?  Or straight sex?

And how much of this is based on patriarchy?  Abrahamic religions seem to be basically patriarchal.

 

My concept of my gender and my spirituality are very much intertwined.  And for much of my life, "scripture" forbade me from exploring who I am.

 

And it is also my understanding, that there are quite a few variations among the various new testament manuscripts.

(I should clarify, that I personally no longer consider the bible as authoritative, although I did so for the biggest part of my life.)

[awkward-yet-sweet]

5 hours ago, VickySGV said:

The terms Homosexual and Transsexual did not even exist until the latest 1800's and earliest 1900's, and therefor could not have been in a holy scripture in the 1500's.  

 

Yes, you are quite correct about the terms. The Bible never speaks about or bans being gay or homosexual or transgender.  Not even current versions of faithful translations use those terms, "1946" or not.  The Bible only mentions specific physical actions, and that has never changed. 

 

What muddies the water are some versions of the Bible that use new vocabulary and are not really translations as much as they are paraphrases. "The Living Bible" is a popular one.  Personally I think those do harm rather than good, because adding words is something specifically banned in Revelation 22:18-19

 

Just now, Ivy said:

I have a question.  In the bible, is being transgender the same as being gay?  I don't think so.  

If I, as a trans woman, do stuff with a cis (or trans) man, is that gay sex?  Or straight sex?

And how much of this is based on patriarchy?  Abrahamic religions seem to be basically patriarchal.

 

I don't believe that "being" trans or gay are against the Bible, and the Bible doesn't address the essence of transgender existence. I don't believe that we can build a case around something in which the Bible is silent. 

 

However, we can learn God's intent regarding sexual activity by what the Bible does say. And yeah, it tends to be patriarchal and procreative, and definitely bound to marriage.  

[Lilis]

On 12/27/2024 at 5:18 PM, rhonda74 said:

 Is the Lgbt+ community mention anywhere in the Bible?

From a spiritual perspective, I believe the Bible does speak to the LGBTQ+ community. The Bible teaches that humans are both physical and spiritual beings, created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). This dual nature, physical and spiritual, reflects the depth of who we are, both in body and in spirit.

 

When considering the LGBTQ+ community from this spiritual perspective, I see the Bible’s core teachings as affirming God's eternal love and the sanctity of the heart, rather than focusing solely on outward identity or physical expression. God looks beyond the external (1 Samuel 16:7) and judges by the heart, which aligns with the Bible’s emphasis on spiritual identity in Christ over physical characteristics (2 Corinthians 5:16-17).

 

I believe that the core of our being, our hearts and spirits, holds greater significance in our relationship with God than our external expressions of identity, such as gender or sexuality.

 

In Galatians 3:28, the Apostle Paul speaks of unity in Christ that transcends physical distinctions of gender, race, or social status, pointing to a deeper spiritual unity. This reflects the intrinsic worth and dignity of all individuals, including LGBTQ+ people, who are created in the image of God both physically and spiritually.

 

From this lens the Bible affirms the fundamental dignity of every person, created with both physical and spiritual significance. This calls us to recognize the inherent worth of all individuals and to love them as God loves them, fully, unconditionally, and eternally.

[rhonda74]

2 hours ago, Lilis said:

The Bible teaches that humans are both physical and spiritual beings, created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). This dual nature, physical and spiritual, reflects the depth of who we are, both in body and in spirit.

I agree, thanks for sharing.