What the Bible says about homosexuality | Kristin Saylor & Jim O'Hanlon | TEDxEdgemontSchool

Translator: Leonardo Silva Reviewer: Ellen Maloney Jim O'Hanlon: I finally made it to heaven. This is so beautiful, and I have worked every day of my life to make sure I get to heaven, and now I am finally here. I really want to meet the big guy. Do you know who the big guy is? Kristin Saylor: Oh, did they tell you he was a boy? That is cute. JOH: Are you the receptionist? KS: Yes, no. Hello, I am God. JOH: Are you God? KS: Yes, welcome to heaven. JOH: Hello. KS: So, just a couple of questions to make sure you really belong here.

JOH: I am the perfect Christian. All my life I have been a perfect Christian. KS: Well, let's look at that. So, first of all, I just need to be assured that he has categorically rejected any scientific teaching that contradicts even one word of the Bible. JOH: Absolutely, absolutely. KS: Great. And then, on the authority of Scripture, do you accept the existence of talking snakes? JOH: Yes, they are in Genesis 2. KS: And

what

about the talking donkeys? JOH: Numbers 22. KS: Unicorns? JOH: Numbers 23. KS: And

what

about the hordes of suicidal, demon-possessed, cliff-jumping pigs? JOH: The Gospel of Mark, the fifth chapter.

KS: Okay, I'm impressed. So I just have one last question, before I let you in. JOH: Very good. KS: Did you do what I told you and sold all your possessions and gave the money to the poor? JOH: Well, I... Wait, what now? KS: Oh... yes. In fact, I said it twice. JOH: Were you serious about that? KS: Very serious. JOH: Oh... JOH: You may think that there are people who take the Bible too seriously, people who dismiss anything that contradicts the Bible: science, history... What this sketch asks you to think about is that maybe they You are not taking the Bible seriously enough.

Maybe they take the Bible very seriously, if they can use it to judge other people, if they can use it to shame someone or punish someone. But if the Bible was used to turn against themselves and they had to evaluate themselves and examine their own conscience, if the Bible were to humiliate them, then maybe they wouldn't take it so seriously. These people say they want the Bible to be taken literally, in its entirety it should always be literal, and that's ridiculous, you can't do that. When the Bible

says

, "God is our rock, our sword, our shield," when the Bible

says

, "The Lord is my shepherd," we cannot take it literally.

But there are people who rigidly say that the Bible should always be taken literally. They think it gives them some kind of strength that they can use, that they can win arguments, that they can resolve the debate, saying, "This is literal. It's cut and dried, it's simple." They are these people who believe they can dominate other people, with their argument, saying, "The Bible says so," people in positions of great authority. Last month, a U.S. congressman from Texas' District 1 stood on the House floor and said, "The government wants us to forget the Bible." He says, "In the Bible, it says that God created man and woman, period.

No question marks." He then has the idea that he doesn't want people to talk about sexual orientation. He doesn't want people to talk about gender identity as something other than biological gender. He has the idea that we should follow that without any ambiguity, without questions, just maintaining the status quo. He believes that he can use that by saying that the Bible should be taken literally, and that settles his argument. These people have bumper stickers that say, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," which they could probably shorten to say, "I believe it, that settles it." Because that's what they're saying, they want these things to be clear and defined.

It's interesting that people think they can take the Bible to explain their point of view, because the Bible doesn't have just one point of view. The Bible does not speak with one voice. The Bible does not have a single definition of God. There is no single way to describe God. The Bible does not have a single theology. We believe that if the Bible could be consistent about anything, it would be consistent in describing God, in the language we use, and in how we understand God. The Bible does not have a single definition of marriage. It does not have a single model of marriage.

There is no consistent ethic about sexuality throughout the Bible. The Bible speaks with these many voices. The Bible, properly speaking, is not a book. It's an anthology. It is truly a library with a wide variety of spiritual wisdom, things that have different ideas and speak with different voices. The Bible has all these voices and all these ideas throughout it. It's not just a book with a point it's trying to make. The Bible has many voices. And there are many stories in the Bible, and many of those stories are told from different points of view, from different perspectives and different voices.

KS: So given the amount of media attention the Bible has received recently regarding the issues of gay marriage and gender-neutral bathrooms, it would be easy for us to conclude that the Bible has a lot to say about

homosexuality

and it's not good. But actually, if you take the Bible as a whole and look at, in percentage terms, how much of the content is dedicated to the topic of

homosexuality

, it's less than one percent. Statistically speaking, it is simply not a priority for the Bible. And the few stories that do address the topic of homosexuality are often blown out of proportion and out of context.

One of the most famous examples of these texts is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which some of you may be familiar with. It is a story that has become famous because of the anti-sodomy laws that still exist in some places today and this concept of sodomy that is derived from this biblical story. And "sodomy" is a word we use a lot, without necessarily understanding what it means. We might have an idea that it refers to gay sex, which is somehow bad, when in reality it has a very specific definition and is any sexual act that is not procreative.

That opens the door wide to a whole host of things that aren't limited to same-sex couples. And it's interesting to remember that in a context where our society loves to take the Bible out of context and use it for its own purposes. So what does the story of Sodom and Gomorrah really say? Once upon a time there was a city called Sodom, and two men were traveling trying to find a place to stay within the city limits. They weren't having any luck. They were about to give up and spend the night in the town square. But a man named Lot took pity on them and let them spend the night in his house.

Thank goodness he did, because less than five minutes later, the town mob knocked on his door, demanding that he bring out his guests so they could "meet" them. Now, when the Bible says "know" in this context, it's not saying, "Hey, nice to meet you! Let me shake your hand!" No. It's: "Let's get to know them intimately and sexually" and, in this case, violently. In this case we are talking about gang rape. And the story continues. Lot pleads with the crowd: "Please, I beg you, do not act so wickedly." He then turns around and offers his two virgin daughters to the crowd in exchange, which is very twisted.

And then the story ends with God getting angry at the whole situation and destroying the entire city because of his sins. But what exactly was the sin of Sodom? Was it men sleeping with men, or was it an angry mob banging on a man's door and demanding to rape the guests of his house? And you can see how quickly we jump to conclusions and how quickly that starts to affect our judgment. JOH: So what does the story say? And what doesn't history say? The story describes an entire city converging on one house for the purpose of raping these two people.

Does that mean this is a story about two adults who want to be in a consensual relationship, who want to publicly affirm a monogamous relationship and their commitment to each other? How does it all really connect to that when you're talking about an entire city wanting to have a mass rape of two people? Then they see this man, Lot, who sees this, and he opposes them, a person who opposes the whole city. You see these two people, you see that they are vulnerable, they are traveling, they are far from home, they are people who could be preyed upon, they are foreigners, they do not belong.

They are weak and susceptible in many ways and he wants to protect them. And when the city says, "Let them come from here because we want to know them," he begs them not to do this evil. And when he faces the whole city, they turn to him and say, "You know what, Lot? You haven't been here that long. You're not really one of us. You don't have the same." beliefs like us." So this is Lot, a man who is vulnerable in this situation, who is going to expose himself for someone who is even more vulnerable than him.

And as we hear, he says, "Take my daughters instead." , which begs the question: why would anyone insist that you have to read this literally and that you have to unquestionably apply morality in a way that you must be obedient? So when the Bible talks about what the sin was? of Sodom, you can look throughout the Bible: for hundreds of centuries, it keeps referring to Sodom and how bad Sodom was and how evil Sodom was, but what specifically is the Bible saying? Is it about same-sex couples or about violence and sexual violation of people? There is a part in the Bible, a little later, in the book of Ezekiel, where it talks about what Sodom did that was so wrong.

And it says in Ezekiel. : "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom." And he says "sister" only metaphorically. All these cities are in one location. They are sister cities. They refer to the population as daughters. But they are talking about the city and its population. "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were fed up, arrogant, and carefree; they did not help the poor and the needy. They were haughty and did abominable things in my sight." So it seems that this has become something that is used to target a minority group, to say that this minority should be rejected and punished, when talking about how the people who are weakest among us, the people who love us the most need, the most vulnerable people among us, are people we should think about.

So when people look at the Bible, they need to think about all these different types of literature: love songs, poems, different types of literature, people dealing with big life questions. There are different types of literature and genres. And when we read something in the Bible, we have to put it in its literary context, we have to put it in its historical context, understand who these people are and what the time period was. KS: So when we read the Bible in our own context, especially in light of the recent attention LGBTQ issues have received, it's important to do two things.

And the first is exactly what we have been doing: taking the texts that talk about homosexuality, however few they may be, and delving into them, reading them for ourselves and asking ourselves: "What do they really say and what do they say?" You really don't say it? And then what does that mean?" And the other thing we can do is read the Bible in context, as a whole, in all its many diverse voices, and ask ourselves, "What counter-voices could we raise up that might actually be queer? -positive?" Now, that's different than saying that the Bible somehow has a hidden gay agenda, because it doesn't.

It really doesn't have any agenda. But there are different voices that contrast with what the media would tell us lift up. I think one of the most powerful examples is from the book of Acts, which is basically the story of the early years of Christianity, in which people like Peter and Paul go out into the world and share what they have learned. and having been taught by Jesus and encountering a lot of diverse and unexpected scenarios along the way. And one of those is when the apostle Philip is on a road, traveling somewhere, and he meets an Ethiopian eunuch. what's that?

Well, Ethiopian, in this case, is simply an abbreviation for anyone from Africa, south of the Sahara, with dark skin. So there you have it: an outsider on the one hand, by the looks of him. And a eunuch is a man who worked in a royal court and had undergone ritual castration, in order to serve the monarchy without posing the threat of producing male heirs who could usurp the throne. Now, eunuchs, in the Judaism of that time, were not full members of society. They were subject to all kinds of ritual prohibitions, they were excluded... So, again, we have a double outsider in this Ethiopian eunuch.

And what happens? Well, he and Philip start talking, one thing leads to another... The next thing you know, the eunuch says, "Hey, look! Here's a puddle of water on the side of the road. What's stopping me?" to be baptized, to become a full member of this community, here and now?" And Philip says, "Sure. Let's do it." He does not question him about his sexual practices. He doesn't say, "Oh no, you're not qualified." No! He simply welcomes him on the spot. And that story is a powerful counter-voice that values ​​the inclusion and acceptance of someone who, in the current context, could havesome parallels with the transgender community.

Another example I would like to leave you with (there are many) is the letter to the Galatians, which is a very early piece of Christian correspondence in which Paul describes what life after death is like. And he says, "In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, and there is neither male nor female." So you are radically erasing all the boundaries and distinctions that we put between us and saying, "In the end, none of that matters." So my question to you is: what does it mean to say that in Christ there is neither male nor female, in a world where people insist that the Bible says, "No, there is actually a man and a woman," and that affects what kind of bathrooms we have and that affects what kind of marriage we have?

And in reality, what the Bible says is much more complex than that. JOH: And why do we care about what the Bible says, these stories of thousands of people? Years ago? If you look at our society, we've made a lot of progress in this generation alone, in terms of our understanding of homosexuality. The medical community, just a generation ago, described homosexuality as a disorder. those manuals so that they no longer describe homosexuality as a disorder. Now, it's one of a different range of sexualities. Legally and politically we have come very far. Just in the last two decades, right at this moment, right during the lifetime of these high school students, the Supreme Court struck down laws that were against sodomy, the Supreme Court said there is marriage equality.

Why would we go back thousands of years, tens of thousands of years, when we have made so much progress in recent times in our understanding of human sexuality? The reason is that people still continue to base their values ​​and morality on these old scriptures. People still look to their religious traditions and the understanding that they gain from these religious traditions, they continue to underpin, they continue to be the basis of our science, of our laws. That's why we need to understand what beliefs and values ​​people come with. And we see that there are still people whose beliefs and values ​​lead them to discriminate.

This congressman who was in the House of Representatives last month doesn't want people to talk about equality for same-sex couples. He doesn't want people to talk about gender identity as something that can be defined differently than biological gender. And he wants to use the Bible because he believes he can use it to get his point across and tell people that they can't argue with that. We need to look at the Bible and understand the values ​​and morality that people should get from it, because people continue to discriminate and even continue to use violence. We see gays, lesbians, transgender and homosexuals, young people, high school students, who continue to be discriminated against, harassed, ridiculed and tormented.

We continue to see stories like that of 18-year-old Tyler Clementi. In 2003, his roommate thought it would be fun to videotape him having an intimate moment. He ended up taking his own life. And there are many stories like this, which is why it is important. In Greenwich Village, as recently as 2013, a man was going around harassing people, giving them a hard time because he thought they were gay or lesbian, confronting them and tormenting them. Finally, he approaches a man and begins to interact and have an altercation with him, until he finally pulls out a gun and shoots him.

Mark Carson, 32, murdered for being gay, was walking through Greenwich Village, a few blocks from the Stonewall Inn, where the modern gay rights movement began. That's why these Scriptures are important, that's why it's important that we look at them, and that's why it's important that we take them seriously. We take these stories seriously and we take seriously the lessons we draw from them. We see the story of Lot, a man who opposes an entire city who believes they can discriminate against people because they are outsiders. He is against them because of their discrimination, he is against them because of their violence, because they want to sexually violate these people, and we see this as a very serious story for us, which we can learn from today.

And that's why we're here today, saying that we believe that being gay is not a sin. Period. Thank you. (Applause)