What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality

This book is clearly written, well documented, and provides a detailed examination of all passages in the bible which appear to refer to homosexuality. It also contains important reflections on the nature of translation, interpretation, and changing views in society and how they influence our approach to the perceived law of God. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is concerned with homosexuality and Christianity. Even the most old fashioned fundamentalist will find things here to ponder. In a day and age when so many gay Christians are suffering persecution, inspite of their ardent desire to be united with the church, we owe it to ourselves to become informed on these topics. There is much scholarly debate on the subject, and we ought to seek knowledge in this area for our sake and the sake of all God's children. This book is an excellent start and a very thorough overview of the field.

I bought this mostly out of curiosity since Christianity seems to be the main source of the objection of homosexuality in our society. Not only did this book get me thinking on the issue of homosexuality and religion, but it has also prompted me to seek out other books on the Bible itself.Before reading this, whether or not to take the Bible in a literal fashion has never been a question in my mind. By this, I'm not referring to whether or not the story of Adam and Eve is a parable or a truth. One of the issues brought forth in this book is the problems that arise when translating words literally as opposed to what the people who spoke Hebrew and Greek meant by them. Every language uses words differently. As many hundreds of years has passed since much of this text was originally written, in translating and reading them literally, we might very well be misunderstanding the meanings of the passages, if only mildly.While one can look at this book as simply a study on whether or not homosexuality is broached in the Bible and, if it is, to what end, it's really more than that. It also provides a lot of information on what passages came from where, basic Biblical times history, and what the issues of those times were. It allows one to read the Bible with an understanding of the context of the times it was written in, which can only help to understand what it's saying.

As Father Helminiak points out, the Bible has no concept of homosexuality, which is a modern concept and word. What one can study is what the Bible says about what we would class as some forms of homosexual behavior. But the biblical authors lacked the concept, and so could not classify anything as homosexual. Therefore, there can be no general condemnation of homosexual behavior (our concept) in the Bible, like it or not. That's the fact. There are only a few texts in the Bible that clearly refer to homosexual behavior, and a few others, which may do so. However, to mention something, even in the Bible, is not always to condemn it. The contrary assumption is simply the fallacy of special pleading.Most of the points Dr. Helminiak makes are nothing new to anyone who has seriously looked into the subject.The Sodom story in Gen. 19:1-29 is really about the abuse of strangers, who according to the mores of the area should be offered food and shelter. It is well known that no text in the Bible interprets the sin of Sodom as homosexual behavior, but a whole host of other things. Helminiak makes the very apt point that it is really those who give a hard time to the strangers and outsiders in our time (which would include homosexuals in great part) are the ones really guilty of the sin of Sodom.Lev 18:22 and 20:13 are parts of the Holiness Code, a body of (ritual) uncleanness laws. The Holiness Code explicitly tries to keep the Israelites different from the pagans whose practices were considered impure, and probably involves a religious aversion to mixing of kinds (as sewing two kinds of seeds in a field or using to kinds of thread to make a cloth). The term translated as "abomination" in the King James Version is simply a term for uncleanness. Easily provable. Helminiak makes a good case that the only thing that would have really counted as sexual intercourse for the ancient Hebrews was penile penetration in either vaginal or anal sex. This would explain why the ancient Jews had little concern for lesbianism or many other sexual activities.In Romans 1:24-27, we find that Paul does not actually say that the sexual activity referred to is wrong, simply that it is a consequence and even punishment for idolatry. Paul was at that point addressing the Jewish Christians in Rome. Helminiak plausibly maintains that Paul maintains there are two sorts of consequences of idolatrous worship. There are impure, socially disapproved activities, as in 1:25-27, and there are other things which really are wrong, as in the listing in 1:28-32.The sin lists in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and 1 Tim. 1:9-10 may not even refer to homosexuality at all. "Malakos" simply means soft, and in times past was regarded as referring to the self-indulgent or even those who masturbate. "Arsenokoites" occurs in the Bible these two texts only, and no one really knows for sure what it means.There seem to be some positive accounts of homosexual relationships in the Bible, although the Bible could not catego

The monks originated logic as we know and study it today. Through the study of biblical teachings in a logical view (or what Daniel Helminiak refers to as historically reading) it is evident that the bible does not address the "sinfulness" of homosexuality. I would strongly recommend anyone, without exception, read this book. It does not matter what religious beliefs are held or what their sexual orientation is; this book is insightful and open. I have spoken with many pastors since reading this book and was surprised that many of the bibles that are being used today do not even follow the true word as it was written (I spoke with several Hebrew translators to discover this). A final note is that anyone who owns or reads a bible wherein Genesis 19 the words "have relations with" appears should question the validity of the translation of that book. According to several reputable translators this phrase is a serious mistranslation and anyone adhering to the gospel with such grievous mistakes should evaluate what they are reading as it is not translated accurately, therefore the words themselves cannot be seen as valid.

Helminiak's most important contribution to Biblical scholarship is not a new or creative viewpoint, but a readable summary of what we already know. And for me, the major revelation in Helminiak's book is not that homosexuality is okay, but that the Bible gives us what we need to understand this issue. A Christian only has to read Romans to learn that unrighteousness and uncleanness are two different things. The New Testament makes it clear that unrighteousness is inherently wrong, while uncleanness is not. And Paul clearly identifies homosexuality as uncleanness (Romans 1:26-27). We cannot honestly conclude from scripture, then, that homosexuality is wrong. This is only a small part of the Biblical evidence Helminiak presents, and all the evidence leads to the same conclusion. With this information available, why do well-meaning Christians still argue that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong? I suggest that there are at least four reasons. First, the Bible has been mistranslated, and second, we read what we've been taught into scripture. Third, many Christians don't understand important Biblical concepts, such as uncleanness. And finally, people cling to their opinions so zealously that they even end up reinterpreting God's Word to avoid changing their own minds. As Helminiak suggests, Christians should get clear as to why they believe what they do, and stop imposing their own views on scripture. It's time to be honest about what the Bible says.