Kyk ook:
Die Bybel veroordeel homoseksualiteit op vyf plekke in die Bybel baie duidelik:
- Twee keer in die Ou Testament: Lev 18:22 en Lev 20:13.
- Drie keer in die Nuwe Testament: Rom 1:27, 1 Kor 6:9-10 en 1 Timoteus 1:9-10.
Sommige mense wat homoseksuele verhoudings goedkeur, redeneer dat die Bybel nie verwys na liefdevolle, homoseksuel verhoudings nie, maar dit dui op tempelprostitusie, of dit het ‘n okkultiese konteks of dit is gemik op pederastrie en pedofilie. Hulle beweer dat liefdevolle homoseksuele verhoudings nie bekend was in Paulus se tyd nie.
Daar is egter baie goeie aanduidings dat daar wel liefdevolle homoseksuele verhoudings was in Bybelse tye.
In Kevin DeYoung se boek What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality? skryf hy die volgende:
Every kind of homosexual relationship was known in the first century, from lesbianism, to orgiastic behavior, to gender-malleable “marriage,” to lifelong same-sex companionship. [Non-Christian classics professor Thomas K.] Hubbard’s summary of early imperial Rome [in Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents] is important:
The coincidence of such severity on the part of moralistic writers with the flagrant and open display of every form of homosexual behavior by Nero and other practitioners indicates a culture in which attitude about this issue increasingly defined one’s ideological and moral position. In other words, homosexuality in this era may have ceased to be merely another practice of personal pleasure and began to be viewed as an essential and central category of personal identity, exclusive of and antithetical to heterosexual orientation.
If the ancient world not only had a category for committed same-sex relationships but also some understanding of homosexual orientation (to use our phrase), there is no reason to think the New Testament’s prohibitions against same-sex behavior were only for pederasty and exploitation….
Nascent ideas about orientation were not unknown in the Greco-Roman era. Consider, for example, Aristophanes’s oration in Plato’s Symposium (ca. 385- 370 BC), a series of speeches on Love (Eros) given by famous men at a drinking party in 416 BC. At this party we meet Pausanias, who was a lover of the host Agathon—both grown men. Pausanias applauds the naturalness and longevity of same-sex love. In the fourth speech we meet the comic poet Aristophanes, who proposes a convoluted theory, including notions of genetic causation, about why some men and women are attracted to persons of the same sex. Even if the speech is meant to be satire, it only works as satire by playing off the positive view of homosexual practice common in antiquity.
Suggesting that the only kinds of homosexual practice known in the ancient world were those we disapprove of today does not take into account all the evidence. Here, for example, is N.T. Wright’s informed conclusion:
As a classicist, I have to say that when I read Plato’s Symposium, or when I read the accounts from the early Roman empire of the practice of homosexuality, then it seems to me they knew just as much about it as we do. In particular, a point which is often missed, they knew a great deal about what people today would regard as longer-term, reasonably stable relations between two people of the same gender. This is not a modern invention, it’s already there in Plato. The idea that in Paul’s day it was always a matter of exploitation of younger men by older men or whatever…of course there was plenty of that then, as there is today, but it was by no means the only thing. They knew about the whole range of options there.
Nêrens in die Bybel is daar egter enige sprake daarvan dat hierdie homoseksuele verhoudings goedgekeur word nie. Ons het dan geen ander alternatief as om tot die gevolgtrekking te kom dat stilte in die Bybel daaroor beteken dat die status quo gehandhaaf moet word nie.
Baie verkondig hul glo die Bybel is waarlik deur die Gees inspireer. Ek glo dit ook. Die Bybel raak hierdie onderwerp maar enkele kere aan (soos hierbo na verwys) en dit is duidelik genoeg vir enige een wat kan lees. Mens glo dit of jy glo dit nie.
Die rede waarom beide liberale menings – wat dié dele herinterpreteer – en konserwatiewe menings – wat dié dele glo soos geskrywe sonder herinterpretasies – soveel polemiek veroorsaak met hewige debatte, en hul dit dan ook vér meer opper of belig as ánder sondes (soos egskeiding, lieg, steel, skinder, kontrakbreuk, vloekery, God se Naam misbruik/onteer/bevloek, egbreek pleeg, duisende moderne afgode aanbid, korrupsie, onwilligheid om politici/sakemanne/miljoenêrs/biljoenêrs/diakens/ouderlinge/leraars/werkskollegas/familie/vriende/eie gesin se gierigheid en leuens en valse tonge aan te spreek, louwarm-koud-demoniese harte [Openbaring2-3 kerke], biddeloosheid, hoereer met die 👁👁, en baie ander) is eenvoudig; hulle voorbeelde en woorde en kompromie, het oor dekades die grond gebraak en onkruidsaad gesaai vir “woke-ism” wat nou in ‘n oerwoud ontaard het. Eintlik in hul eie harte, aanbid hul, hul eie 🧠 denke. Want die Skrif ( soos hul voorbeelde) moet maar diep buig voor die mens se 🧠; ook in die kerk. God moet dus voor húl buig. Net soos in Lukas 4, praat hul harte die woorde van die duiwelslang se gefluister. Is ook ver meer partydig teenoor die wat soos hul dink. God is nie so nie.
My 👁👁 het oopgegaan toe ek besef, dat Esegiël 23 (ter voorbeeld) nooit gebruik word vir deur ‘n kerk of “podcaster” of “youtuber” of straatpredikant of ouderling of diaken of enige “christen” , om na hul eie skaamdele te kyk, en te besef: maar “…voor God se Gees, is my sonde soos ‘n hoer. ‘n Hoer wat borste betas. Wat nie genoeg kan kry van haar luste nie. Ek is ‘n hoer in Sy 👁👁…”.
Nee wat. Die kerk meen sy is vér beter as die eertydse Israeliete.
Daarom glo ek nie eens meer die sg “behoudendes” nie, maar net die Skrif. En 👁👁 die geweldige prys van God se 🫀vir al my sonde.. Na meesste kerke, luister ek nie eens meer. Want die Kerk is verrot in haar wese….selfs die ouderlinge en diakens. Die dominees. Pastore. Profete. Apostels. Evangelste. Herders. Hul hoogmoed is soos ‘n hoë boom wat strek tot net voor die Hemel se Poort.
En die Hemel se Poort, gaan nie oop vir ‘n hoogmoedige en trotse 🧠 nie.