Homosexuals are not still condemned in the Bible

Thank you for accepting! I'd first like to state that I do indeed plan on being very thorough with my argument as much as I can. It will be quite a lot. I have come across many who believe that the Bible does condemn homosexuals, however, I believe that to be untrue. I am also open to new ideas! I will admit when I am wrong if proven, and I hope that it will be an understanding and civil debate. I'll begin by stating the many verses supposedly used against homosexuals: Leviticus 18:22 Leviticus 20:13 1 Corinthians 6:9 1 Timothy 1:9-10 Romans 1:26-32 Jude 1:7 (The story of Sodom and Gomorrah) These ones are in my familiarity. If I am missing any that you have come to recognize, let me know! So let's continue. ____________________________________________________________________ Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 - The Bible was not written in our day nor for our time. These two texts were written about 2,500 years ago in a time and place scholars generally refer to as the Ancient Near East. What did it mean for "a man to lie with a man as with a woman" in the Ancient Near East? Male-male same-gendered sex in the Ancient Near East"so far as ancient texts discussed it"had three possible meanings: domination, recreation, and religious devotion. To understand the first, one need only think today of prison sex or war-time rape, or read the news from Syria, where male rape has recently emerged as a tool of government repression. This modern thing is actually a very old thing. In the Ancient Near East male-on-male sex was usually seen as an act of violence. This was (and is) not gay sex. It was heterosexual phallic aggression. It was generally frowned upon, unless done in a context where violence and domination were the points, as in war. Today the practice is shocking. In the ancient world, not so much. It was one of the most common practices there was, which relates to back to Sodom and Gomorrah (which I will get to later). Ancient Near Eastern recreational male-male sex was a similar thing. This is something one might do with a slave or personal servant in the absence of female companionship. It was also frowned upon in some cultures, who viewed it as exploitative and demeaning to the man or boy who was forced to play the role of "catcher" in such sexual activity. 1 Corinthians 6:9 The issue with that verse is a mistranslation of a made up, obscure Greek word, "arsenokoites". Conservative Bible translators corrupted the verse and translated it as "homosexuals" in 1959 A.D. Prior to that point, it never referred to gay people, especially not lesbians as Arseno means male. Yet, the word "homosexual", as we know today, refers to women too. An obvious bias view because guess what? Two women having reciprocative feelings of love towards one another wasn't even recognized as existing in the world until 1900 AD, nor was two men having such love. As said before, dominance was the common practice among men over boy "lovers". No one really knows what it (arsenokoites) actually meant, however, in every classical usage of the word, it was always included in vice lists referring to economic exploitation. Never in the vice lists of sexual sins where it would be expected. Philo, a contemporary of Paul viewed it as referring to Pagan prostitution in the Greco-Roman temples. 1 Timothy 1:9-10 The word 'homosexual', as mentioned before, was not even a word until 1900 AD. It would not only be impossible for the Bible to have originally meant, as we know, homosexuals today (men loving men, women loving women), but it shows how warped the Bible becomes throughout time. After all, the people who translate the Bible are human. There will be personal views (based on societies standards of that time) inserted in the Bible whether Christians believe it or not. Romans 1:26-32 Romans is taken from Paul's philosophy on unbridled passion. It was pagan idolatry and temple sex rituals among heterosexuals that was the focus of Paul's issue. Sexual orientation was not even discovered yet, so while same-sex behavior existed (almost exclusively pederasty or prostitution) it had nothing to do with gay people. If at least 95% of the world is in the lesbian, gay or bisexual category of today's world, it would be highly unlikely for Paul to have even come across a homosexual in his entire lifetime. It was, after all, thousands of years ago. Jude 1:7 (The story of Sodom and Gomorrah) The sexual sin in Sodom and Gomorrah, if you must have sexual sin, was clearly not homosexual activity, because that did not happen. Jude 7 (KJV) mentions: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Strange flesh, as we know from an understanding of the original Greek words, can best be understood as "foreign flesh" or "different flesh". Most tellingly, Jewish scholars have never regarded homosexuality as being the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (and it is, after all, their holy text). Ezekiel 16:49 "49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." Never does it make mention of homosexuality, nor could it. _____________________________________________________________________ I look forward to your argument. The ball is on your side.