What do you think?
Rate this book
God is not a Homophobe: An unbiased look at Homosexuality in the Bible
Is God a gay-hating ogre? This author's research demonstrates that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality as a consensual life-style. Find out what the Bible really says about homosexuality.
Paperback
First published February 26, 2004
3 people are currently reading
31 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 7, 2023
A useful book.
My overall conclusion is that Thelos’ analysis of the words used in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, and his analysis of the cultural setting — and what those words meant in that setting — are sound. And his conclusion — that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, per se, but only specific acts of homosexuality used as either acts of idolatry or acts of oppression of others — is well supported.
I didn’t finish the book. I made it 3/4 of the way through. That got me past his analysis of the words The Old Testament used, and the words Paul used, and the cultural context of those words. That was the analysis I was most interested in, so I stopped there. I was also getting tired of some of the weaknesses of the book.
The author’s main problems are: first that he’s very redundant, and second, that he came at this study with a strong agenda — he was looking to prove the points he wanted to prove, and was sometimes willing to contort pretty obvious meanings to do that.
The first time he revealed that he truly could not be trusted on this, was when he insisted that since the Greek term in Jude 7 for something being forbidden included the word “heteras“ in it, that clearly meant it could not apply to homosexuality because “heteras” is the same root as “hetero“ in our modern word, “heterosexual.“ My jaw dropped when I saw that — the words “heterosexuality“ and “homosexuality“ had not been invented when that line was written in Jude. That could not possibly be what the author of Jude meant. The author of this book just completely went off the rails there. And that was not the last time I saw him doing somersaults to “prove“ that certain texts either did, or did not mean the things he wanted or did not want them to mean.
But most of the author’s analysis was sound. And, ironically, he firmly condemned that sort of nonsense when his philosophical opponents used it. I really was surprised to see him resort to it the few times that he did.
So the book is not entirely sound. But the author does do some useful research and analysis. I would say that if you are interested in this subject, and don’t mind slogging through some redundancy, this could be a useful book. Just make sure you both keep your mind open, and analyze critically everything he says.
2 1/2 stars, rounding up to three.
My overall conclusion is that Thelos’ analysis of the words used in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, and his analysis of the cultural setting — and what those words meant in that setting — are sound. And his conclusion — that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, per se, but only specific acts of homosexuality used as either acts of idolatry or acts of oppression of others — is well supported.
I didn’t finish the book. I made it 3/4 of the way through. That got me past his analysis of the words The Old Testament used, and the words Paul used, and the cultural context of those words. That was the analysis I was most interested in, so I stopped there. I was also getting tired of some of the weaknesses of the book.
The author’s main problems are: first that he’s very redundant, and second, that he came at this study with a strong agenda — he was looking to prove the points he wanted to prove, and was sometimes willing to contort pretty obvious meanings to do that.
The first time he revealed that he truly could not be trusted on this, was when he insisted that since the Greek term in Jude 7 for something being forbidden included the word “heteras“ in it, that clearly meant it could not apply to homosexuality because “heteras” is the same root as “hetero“ in our modern word, “heterosexual.“ My jaw dropped when I saw that — the words “heterosexuality“ and “homosexuality“ had not been invented when that line was written in Jude. That could not possibly be what the author of Jude meant. The author of this book just completely went off the rails there. And that was not the last time I saw him doing somersaults to “prove“ that certain texts either did, or did not mean the things he wanted or did not want them to mean.
But most of the author’s analysis was sound. And, ironically, he firmly condemned that sort of nonsense when his philosophical opponents used it. I really was surprised to see him resort to it the few times that he did.
So the book is not entirely sound. But the author does do some useful research and analysis. I would say that if you are interested in this subject, and don’t mind slogging through some redundancy, this could be a useful book. Just make sure you both keep your mind open, and analyze critically everything he says.
2 1/2 stars, rounding up to three.
Displaying 1 of 1 review