Thread by @JoLuehmann

Thank you for the unsolicited education Brent. This is all stuff I have been told and was indoctrinated into growing up. Changing my mind required a lot of studying but I’ll give you a quick summary. Since you decided to try to teach me I figured I’d return the favor.

1/

https://twitter.com/caudillbrent/status/1366243646576619520

We start in Gen 19. First look at Ezekiel 16:49-50, now go back to Gen 19 and notice the issue was not homosexuality but rape! Because we can all agree rape is horrific, and per Ezekiel and Genesis the issue wasn’t at all consensual, respectful homosexual relationships.

1/

Now let’s take a look at Lev 18:22 and Levi 20:13. Hebrew has 3 word for man: אִישׁ ('iysh), זָכָר (zakar), and גֶּבֶר (geber). And those verses look different in Hebrew than they do in English where it seems to simply imply male homosexual relationships are an abomination.

2/

Lev 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male (זָכָר - zakar), as with a woman. It is an abomination.

Lev 20:13 - If a man ('iysh) lies with a male (זָכָר - zakar), as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.

3/

So what is זָכָר (zakar)? Why use two different words for man if it’s just sex between two men?

Well זָכָר (zakar) means male, young boys, mankind… many words in Hebrew have many different meanings. This one has different meanings and we get to decide which meaning we...

4/

are going to go with based on context and cultural/historical understanding.

If we read the entire ch and book I’d argue it is talking about abuse of power. Women had less power over men in the time, men didn’t get to lie with other *men*...

5/

(the change in word is significant here), as they lie with women.

So basically no male rape where anal penetration happened. Other type of male rape was allowed though; and a reminder that raping women was ok as well, so long as she was a virgin and...

6/

that the one that raped her married her! (the Bible is really NOT a book to follow on sexual ethics).

And of course you don’t have to read it that way and instead assert the change in word is not significant at all, just a weird coincidence;

7/

and this is talking about no sex with men ever. And in my personal opinion that would be you trying to hold unto your homophobia by using the Bible to excuse it. And you are absolutely allowed to so so, and I am absolutely allowed to call you a homophobe.

8/

Now let’s talk about 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy and the Greek words that have been translated as homosexual since 1946 (yes, the word homosexual was added just in 1946 to Bibles in English).

9/

There are actual Greek words to signal same-sex relationships and yet they aren’t used at all in the Christian Bible. The words used in the Christian books of the Bible are ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoites) and μαλακός (Malakos), which would be more appropriately translated as...

10/

pederasty and acting on pedophilia (this was about boys kept for homosexual relations with a man). Which we can all agree is wrong in every possible way.

Now what do we do with Romans? Let me go ahead and take a minute here ok?

11/

Entire books have addressed this, you can find a list of them on the link in my bio; but I’ll just share a few thoughts:

1- The understanding of gender and sexuality that Romans had was different from how the Jews saw women and sexuality.

12/

Pederasty was common and legal, abusing enslaved people was common and legal. All sexual relationships between equals (minors and enslaved people were seen as less than), were illegal, unless they were in what they understood as a marriage (a business agreement/transaction).

13/

2- Vs 24 - “God gave them up to ἀκαθαρσία (akatharsia)” which means physical or moral uncleanliness. Uncleanliness is determined by Leviticus, which does not include homosexuality but does include male anal rape, no mention of lesbian relationships in the Hebrew law at all.

14/

3- Vs 26 - Vile affections there is the same as dishonorable lusts. Nothing dishonorable about consensual homosexual relationships. Not even per levitical law, when you read vile affections and imagine two men or two women, you are inserting your own bias into the text.

15/

4- Vs 26 women changed their instincts into that which was para-instincts - again this has nothing to do with consensual relationships between women. This is actually about patriarchy and how women were not submissive as they ought to be.

16/

5- Vs 27 - Also the men leaving the natural use of a woman - this indeed is a reference to see within the patriarchal Jewish society of the first century. He’s speaking about women as objects, which is addressing sexual exploitation.

17/

Because men exploiting women was right and acceptable, but men exploiting men wasn’t.

6- Many of the early church fathers interpreted this to be a reference to anal sex exclusively! Not to lesbianism or any other respectful homosexual relationships...

18/

(Augustine a fav of evangelicals and that’s how he read it).

7- Lastly a reminder that these verses are inside a larger text addressing gentile idolatry and what Jews considered gentile sexual immorality, which is not necessarily the same as unethical behavior today and now.
19/

So there you have it. I absolutely did not require your unsolicited education, but thank you for the opportunity to share a bit of what I have learned, yet again, with my timeline. You also mentioned the Bible as the word of God and unfortunately that’s really idolatry.

20/

The word of God is Christ per the Christian Bible, not books written by any humans. And yes there is the verse in 2 Timothy that says scripture was inspired by God, but inspired ≠ written by. And scripture ≠ the Christian Bible.

Another reminder to check out the kids in my bio for more resources on LGBTQ+ people and Christianity ❤️🙏🏽