Christians should not use religion as a reason to be against homosexuality!

Editor 's note: This article is excerpted from Ouyang Wenfeng 's WeChat public account, and the author is Pastor Ouyang Wenfeng.

Although I am the editor of the pastor's official account and not the original author, I see that there is still a gap-like misunderstanding of the relationship between Christianity and homosexuality, which leads to many gay Christians living in guilt because of their beliefs A sense of "hell on earth".

Therefore, I have moved this article here in the hope that more human beings, especially Chinese Christians, can see it and view it squarely.

Readers are welcome to share this article with brothers and sisters around you, and you are also welcome to have meaningful discussions and responses to the content of this article.

You may not be a Christian, but the homophobic culture in Christendom is one of the biggest anti-gay forces in the world today, so we cannot understand the anti-gay discourse of conservative Christians. This article will give you an idea of the anti-gay reasons of conservative Christians and the fallacies of the reasons.

Many anti-gay Christians will say that Christian tradition for two thousand years has always been against homosexuality, so Christians must be anti-gay, must oppose marriage equality, and insist that same-sex marriages are not allowed.

There are actually three major fallacies in this short sentence.

First, the word homosexual was originally German, coined by Karl Maria Kertbeny in 1869, but he is said to have used the word in private letters with friends in 1868. Homosexuality as a concept of sexual orientation can start from that time, before there was only same-sex behavior, and there was no concept of homosexuality and homosexuality as a person. Knowing this, we will find that since the concept of homosexuality did not exist before the 19th century, it is difficult to say that the church has been anti-homosexual and anti-homosexual for two thousand years , as we say It is just as inexplicably pointless to encourage or oppose Facebook a thousand years ago or even a hundred years ago.

When did the history of the Western Church's opposition to homosexuality begin? Of course, this must begin with the appearance of the word and concept of "homosexuality", otherwise there will be no concept and object of anti-contrast. The word "homosexual" first appeared in the English Bible in 1946, when the word "homosexuals" appeared for the first time in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. It was a new translation of the English Revised Standard Version of the Bible, which was markedly different from the King James Version, which had always been regarded as the definitive translation of the English Bible. The Bible reduces the two words "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" in the same passage of the King James Translation to one word "homosexuals". As a result, many people, especially Christians in the English-speaking world, cite 1 Corinthians 6:9, saying that the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin, that homosexuals "cannot inherit the kingdom of God", and some even go further Simplified to say the Bible says "homosexuals cannot go to heaven" or simply "homosexuals go to hell".

For the moment, regardless of whether the "unable to inherit the kingdom of God" in the Bible is equivalent to "going to hell", the most fundamental fact is that there is no such thing as "homosexual" in the original Greek text of 1 Corinthians 6:9. , which is entirely a masterpiece of translation. What is the original text of the scripture? There are two words in the original text, the first is malakoi, the second is arsenokoitai, another verse used by Christians to oppose homosexuality 1 Timothy 1:10: "Whoever commits adultery and prostitutes, steals people and Liars and false oaths, or set up for other things that are against the righteous way.” The original Greek word for “pro-male sex” is also the word arsenokoitai.

The malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 means "soft" and the King James Translation renders it effeminate. As for another keyword, arsenokoitai, it consists of two roots, "arseno" (man) and "koitai" (bed). Not finding the word, the King James translation renders it "abusers of themselves with mankind," but what does that mean? This word was probably coined by Paul, because there is no literature to test it, and as a result, everyone can only guess its meaning, and the translator must interpret it by himself.

Because arsen (male) is singular, before the reformation, that is, before the 16th century, many scholars and religious leaders thought it was masturbation, and condemned masturbation, saying that masturbation is a great sin and cannot inherit the kingdom of God. As for the meaning of malakoi as soft, the King James Version translates it as "feminine" or "sissy". Does the original text mean that feminine or feminine men cannot inherit the kingdom of God? And the first question that follows is, what is femininity or femininity? Who defines this "feminine" or feminine?

Obviously, the translation of the English Revised Standard Version of the Bible is not only an oversimplification, but is even an interpretation and translation with a strong presupposition, and Christians then use this presupposition to "prove" that the Bible is anti-homosexual , to put it bluntly. It is simply a logic of tautology that cannot "prove" anything at all.

Of course, many Christians will also use the story of Sodom in Genesis to say that God destroyed the city because of homosexuality, but the story of Genesis 18 and 19 does not have the word homosexuality at all. The prophet Isaiah, Jesus When Lemmy and Ezekiel mentioned the sin of the city, they did not mention homosexuality, but instead said that its sin was justice, injustice, adultery, pride and unloving! (Isaiah 1:10, verses 15–17, 3:8-9; Jeremiah 23: 14; Ezekiel 16: 48-50)

Some argue that Sodom's sin was homosexuality with a line from Jude 7 of the New Testament, which says, "And the people who lived in Sodom, and Gomorrah, and the cities nearby, Like those angels, they committed adultery and indulged unnatural sexual desires, and were thus punished by the fire that never quenched. This is a warning to men.”

But two points must be noted. First, the Greek original apelthousai opiso sarkos heteras is translated as "unnatural lust" in the Union Version of the Bible, and the revised version in the modern Chinese translation is translated as "indulgence of unnatural sexual desires". In fact, they are not accurate translations, because the original Greek It means "to pursue another body", if it is homosexual, it is the same body, how can it be another body (sarkos heteras)? Obviously, if you have read this story in Genesis, you will find that the people in the city are not actually raping humans, but angels who have turned into humans! That's why the author of Jude says "another flesh"!

Besides, before the 11th century, no one used this story to object to same-sex sexuality, and using this biblical story to create another word for sodomy (anal sex) was the work of an 11th-century god, Peter Damian , before the story was used Interpreted as proof of biblical anti-identity!

Other texts used by modern Christians to be anti-identical are Romans 1:26-27 and Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 . Let's start with Leviticus:

Leviticus 18:22—You shall not have sexual immorality with a man as with a woman; it is abominable.

Leviticus 20:13----If a man has fornication with a man, as with a woman, both of them have committed abominations, and they shall be put to death, and the sin shall be upon them.

The "abomination" in the Chinese Union Bible is abomination in English and toevah in the original Hebrew. What is toevah? The following are examples of what the Bible lists as toevah (abomination):

(1) Leviticus 11:12—Whatever is in the water without wings and scales is an abomination to you.

(2) Leviticus 11:20—Whatever has wings and crawls on all fours is an abomination to you.

(3) Leviticus 11:23—but all creeping things that have wings and four feet are an abomination to you.

(4) Leviticus 11:42—You shall not eat anything that walks on its stomach, and that walks on all fours, or that has many feet, that is, anything that crawls on the ground, because it is an abomination .

(5) Deuteronomy 17:1—You shall not offer any ox that is crippled, or has any ill disease, to the LORD your God, for this is an abomination to the LORD your God.

(6) Deuteronomy 22:5—Women shall not wear men's clothes, and men shall not wear women's clothes, for this is an abomination to the LORD your God.

(7) Deuteronomy 23:18----You shall not bring into the house of the LORD your God the money that a prostitute has earned, or the price that a prostitute (original as a dog) has earned, for both are the LORD- an abomination to your gods.

(8) Deuteronomy 24:1-4----If a man sees something unreasonable in him after he gets married and does not like her, he can write a letter of divorce and give it to him and send him away from his husband's house . After a woman leaves her husband's house, she can marry someone else. If the second husband hates him, and writes a divorce letter in his hand, and sends him away from his husband's house, or if the second husband who married him dies, the first husband who sent him shall not marry him again after the woman has been defiled, For this is an abomination to the LORD; you shall not defile the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

(9) Deuteronomy 27:15----Whoever makes an idol, which is abominable to the LORD, whether it is carved or cast, is the work of a craftsman, and it is set up in secret, and that man shall be cursed! The people would all agree to say: Amen!

(10) Deuteronomy 14:3-8----You shall not eat any abomination. The animals that can be eaten are cattle, sheep, goats, deer, antelope, roe deer, wild goat, elk, turkey, and blue sheep. You can eat any animal that splits its hoof into two lobes and chews backwards. But the ones that are not to be eaten are the camels, rabbits, and shamrocks—because they chew the hoofs, they are unclean to you; the pigs—because they have the hoofs that are not divided, they are unclean to you. unclean. You shall not eat the flesh of these beasts, and you shall not touch the dead.

(111) Leviticus 19:5-7----When you offer your peace offerings to the LORD, offer them acceptable offerings. This sacrifice is to be eaten on the day it is offered and the next day, and if any remains on the third day, it must be burned with fire. If it is eaten again on the third day, it will be an abomination, and it will not be accepted.

(12) Leviticus 7:15-18 --- The meat of the sacrifice of peace sacrifices shall be eaten on the day of sacrifice, and shall not be left for the morning. If the offering is for votive, or if it is offered willingly, it must be eaten on the day of the offering, and the remainder may be eaten the next day. But what is left of the sacrificed meat shall be burned with fire on the third day; if the meat of the peace offering is eaten on the third day, this sacrifice will not be accepted, and what is offered will not be counted as a sacrifice, but rather detested , whoever eats the sacrificed meat shall bear his iniquity.

(103) Isaiah 1:13---You must no longer offer vain offerings. Goods are abhorrent to me; New Years and Sabbaths and convocations are an abomination to me; iniquity and solemn assembly I cannot bear.

(104) Luke 16:15—Jesus said to them: You justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; abhorrent. (What people value? Including knowledge, degrees, youthful beauty, and gold and silver jewelry such as diamonds? So Christians must reject and oppose all of these, as opposed to homosexuality?)

Deuteronomy 22:9-11 also says: Do not sow two kinds of seed in your vineyard, lest both your seed and the fruit of your vineyard be confiscated. Do not use ox and donkey together to cultivate the land. Clothes made of mixed materials such as wool and linen shall not be worn.

Although these prohibitions and taboos are all in the Bible, should Christians today absolutely abide by them to the end, or they are violating God’s commands and the teachings of the Bible? And don't forget, if Christians come from Leviticus against gay marriage, Leviticus 20:13 also says: If a man has fornication with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed abominations, Put them to death, and the sin will be on them; so, shouldn't Christians not only be strongly against same-sex marriage, but also legislate to put to death those who have sex with the same sex? And interestingly, if this passage refers to homosexuality, why is it only for gay men, why is it only about male behavior as a problem, but not lesbian at all? The Old Testament does not mention homosexuality of women at all, so why was homosexuality of women not a problem in Old Testament times? So in the old covenant lesbians were not a problem, only gays were the problem, and then God changed his mind in the new covenant and said in Romans 1:26-27 that lesbians are not okay?

Romans 1:26-27 records: Therefore, God gave them up to shameful lusts. Their women have turned the use of the natural into the use of the unnatural; the same is true of the men, who have abandoned the natural use of women, become lustful, and covet each other, and men and men do shameful things, and receive this in themselves. Deserved retribution.

This passage is what many anti-gay Christians use to be anti-gay, because there are many anti-gay Christians who would say that Christians don't have to keep the Old Testament, but only the New Testament, so that they can avoid falling into using Leviticus. Contradictions with but not abiding by the Leviticus law of fasting pigs. But the first sentence of Romans 1:26 begins with "therefore". In other words, verses 26 and 27 are consequences, they are consequences, but what is the cause? What causes this "therefore"? To answer this question, we must read the entire passage (1:18-32), or we will inevitably take it out of context.

Romans 1:18-32:

It turns out that the wrath of God is manifested from heaven on all the ungodly and unrighteous, those who do unrighteousness and hinder the truth. The things of God, what man can know, are revealed in the hearts of men, because God has revealed them to them. Since the creation of the heavens and the earth, God’s eternal power and divinity have been clearly known. Although they cannot be seen by the eyes, they can be known through the created things, so that there is no excuse. For, though they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor thanked him. Their thoughts become vain, and their ignorant hearts are darkened. Claiming to be wise, he became foolishness, turning the glory of the immortal God into idols, in the likeness of mortal man and birds, beasts, and insects. Therefore, God allowed them to do unclean things according to the lusts of their hearts, so that they defiled their own bodies to each other. They turned the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen!

Therefore, God left them to indulge their shameful lusts. Their women changed the use of the natural into the use of the opposite; so did the men, who abandoned the natural use of the woman, became lustful, lusted after each other, and the men and the men did shameful things, and suffered in themselves. This is a well-deserved retribution. Since they deliberately did not know God, God allowed them to have wicked hearts and do unreasonable things; they were filled with all kinds of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice (or: insidiousness), and their hearts were full of envy, murder, Competitive, deceitful, spiteful; slanderous, back talkers, haters of God (or: hated by God), insulting, arrogant, boastful, fabricators, disobedient parents. Ignorance, broken promises, no family, no mercy. Although they know that God judges that those who do such things deserve to die, but they not only do it themselves, but they also like others to do it.

If Romans 1:26-27 is read and understood in the context of the entire passage, it becomes clear that the "therefore" in Romans 1:26 refers to the pagans at the time when Romans was written (around 50 AD). Idolatry, because of it, the things described in Romans 1:26-27 happened! If Romans 1:26-27 refers to homosexuality, then according to this passage, homosexuality is the result of idolatry! But is this a fact?

Many gay Christians will tell us that many of them have been Christians since childhood, and they are very devout Christians, and their homosexual orientation is involuntary. How can this homosexuality be the result of worshipping pagan idols ? This is completely different from the real life experience of gay Christians (even many gays), so Romans 1:26-27 can't refer to homosexuality in general, but to a certain kind of same-sex sexual behavior ; just like men Rape of a woman, even though it is a man and a woman, but when we condemn it, we condemn rape, not heterosexuality!

The author of Romans says: They turned the glory of the immortal God into idols in the likeness of mortal men and birds, beasts, and insects. So God gave them up to the lusts of their hearts to do unclean things that defiled each other's own bodies (Romans 1:23-24), and it is clear that this kind of sexual activity has something to do with pagan idolatry, not pagan idolatry. Refers to homosexuality!

Also, Romans 1:26 says "God left them to indulge their shameful lusts." This "shameful" is atimia in the original Greek, but does atimia mean immorality? 1 Corinthians 11:14 says, "Do not your nature also show you that if a man has long hair, is it a reproach to him?" The Greek word for "disgrace" is atimia!

Does this mean that men with long hair are immoral? Christians cannot have long hair, Christians must strongly oppose men having long hair or prohibiting men from having long hair, just like the strong emphasis that we must oppose gay marriage and ban gay marriage?

For the sake of discussion, I can even take a step back for the time being—let’s first assert that the Bible really opposes homosexuality or same-sex behavior or same-sex marriage, and my interpretation and interpretation above are all wrong, but does this mean that Christians should Anti-gay, or anti-gay behavior? This is my second fallacy - anti-gay Christians believe that because the Bible is anti-gay and anti-gay (let's believe they're right for now), Christians must be anti-gay or anti-gay !

This "so" is an oversimplification, because the Bible supports slavery from the Old Testament to the New Testament, and there is no word for "abolition of slavery". Does that mean that Christians must insist on supporting slavery, not abolish slavery? slave? Obviously, modern Christians will know this is an absurd conclusion, even though the Christian Church has made this mistake in the past, pro-slavery and scolding Christians who advocate for its abolition.

Therefore, this also shows that the so-called "always tradition" or the teaching of the Bible is not necessarily irrefutable. But some anti-gay Christians may immediately say " this is not the same, because slavery is not an absolute truth, it is just the culture of the time, but homosexuality is different, it is an absolute truth ". Well, for the sake of argument, I'll take a step back and think that this statement is true, but does that mean that if anti-gay or anti-gay sex is true, Christians must be anti-gay marriage? This is the third fallacy I'm going to talk about.

The third fallacy is that because anti-gay or anti-gay sex is really a religious truth that Christians believe, Christians must therefore insist on anti-gay marriage!

This is actually a very unreasonable thing. Even if anti-gay marriage is really an uncompromising truth for Christians, if anti-gay marriage really has the function of identifying heresy and orthodoxy in the Apostles' Creed, Christians should not object to it . Same-sex marriage or marriage equality , since many Christians are anti-divorce, including Catholics, outlaw divorce, but can or should Christians oppose divorce laws?

If Christianity forbids divorce, then at most Christians cannot get divorced, but they cannot prevent all people, especially those of different beliefs from getting divorced; similarly, if Christian beliefs are against homosexuality or same-sex behavior, at most Christians will not be able to get divorced. Marriage of the same sex should be done, but Christians should not and have no right to prohibit others from marrying the same sex! Many Christians believe that only by believing in Jesus can one go to heaven without believing in Jesus and go to hell, but can Christians forbid others from believing in other religions because they believe that Christianity is the only and absolute truth? Christians can oppose religious freedom because they believe that only Christians can go to heaven, thinking that people must believe in Jesus? Christians are even staunchly opposed to atheism, but can Christians legislate against or against anyone believing in atheism?

If not, why do Christians use their religion as an excuse to tell everyone that everyone must be heterosexual, and that if they want to get married, they must marry the opposite sex?

So, in conclusion, even if the Christian teaching is really anti-homosexuality and anti-sexuality, Christians have no such power and should not oppose or prohibit other people from marrying the same sex!

in conclusion:

The entire Bible has a total of 31,173 verses, but the average anti-gay Christian insists that the so-called anti-gay verses are only 6-7 verses, accounting for 0.02%! But isn't it surprising that many churches and Christians today are almost entirely opposed to one another?

What's more, if we read the relevant scriptures carefully, not out of context, and understand the historical background of the scriptures' writing, it is not difficult to find that it is not the Bible that contradicts the same thing, but the people who interpret the Bible. The interpretation of the above scriptures by anti-Christians cannot stand the test of the times and is full of prejudice. If they want to arbitrarily monopolize the power of interpretation, it will be even more unreasonable. What I want to reveal in this article is that we can have a more reasonable interpretation of the above verses, and this interpretation of the Bible will not only not shake the Christian faith, but will face the world view and interpretation of modern society and the ancient world. The conflict between the laws highlights the spirit of the Bible and ultimately maintains the validity of the Christian faith in today's society. You can imagine if there were still Christians today, as they did in the past, citing the Bible and insisting on relevant verses emphasizing that the earth does not move and the sun moves, not the earth revolving around the sun, but the sun revolving around the earth. Hold on, do you think it will make people want to get closer to Christianity, or can't wait to leave?

Why shouldn't Christians be against homosexuality? (one)

Why shouldn't Christians be against homosexuality? (two)

Why shouldn't Christians be against homosexuality? (three)

Why shouldn't Christians be against homosexuality? (Four)

Why shouldn't Christians be against homosexuality? (five)

Why shouldn't Christians be against homosexuality? (six)

Why shouldn't Christians be against homosexuality? (seven)