A serious question for the religious types about gay and trans people

[columbus]

Just saying see things in other peoples' shoes not just your own.

I do. One of my ethics is to live and let live. I don't much care what other people believe.
It's when they act that I start getting really judgemental.
Tom

 

[Tumah]

I didn't know a translation qualified as someone else thinking for you.

but what is so different between your translation or what you say the translation is vs. what I read in a given Bible? some translation is incorrect no matter what but many go I to the explanation and habe "works cited"

better yet why should I consider it so different?

Then you don't know much about Bible translations.

But that aside, the poster in question quoted some Bible translations with wording that could be read in one of two ways. He chose the wrong way. I provided the less ambiguous Hebrew with a direct translation demonstrating the correct intent of the English translation. The poster continued to claim he was correct, demonstrating the strength of his Christian conviction and everyone went on their merry way.
Here is the translation in question:

And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination

From the translation, it looks to be saying that the law that applies to a man laying with a man also applies to a woman [laying with a woman].
But in reality what its saying is, if a man lays with a man [the way a man] lays with a woman (ie. has intercourse).

You can see that the verse can be read either way. But from the Hebrew its clear that the second interpretation of the translation is the correct one.

 

[randomvim]

This is just proof that the Bible is wrong. The concept of sin fluctuates enormously, depending on what some human wants it to mean.
Tom

NO. the reasons why is explained I. great detail. one only needs to look into it themselves. for me. no greater place then Catholic.com or Vatican website. start where Bible comes from and if you are interested in how others explain it - then look into that. but if you are looking at a reason why you are wrong....i would think that view point would be obstructed.

 

[columbus]

NO. the reasons why is explained I. great detail. one only needs to look into it themselves.

I have. I keep seeing humans coming up with different meanings and specifics. They will often insist that they are the true experts on the subject, but they don't have anything to back that opinion up with except their own opinion.
Tom

 

[randomvim]

I have. I keep seeing humans coming up with different meanings and specifics. They will often insist that they are the true experts on the subject, but they don't have anything to back that opinion up with except their own opinion.
Tom

depends. a theologist with Catholicism has 2000 + years of theology. some people can go through the training but still have a different opinion but difference does not mean that all things are wrong.

the human error just creates a greater challenge.


by your description however, it looks looks like you are comparing two opposing view points or at least opposing persons.

what aspect do you have trouble with in terms of how different an explaianation is?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Then you don't know much about Bible translations.

But that aside, the poster in question quoted some Bible translations with wording that could be read in one of two ways. He chose the wrong way. I provided the less ambiguous Hebrew with a direct translation demonstrating the correct intent of the English translation. The poster continued to claim he was correct, demonstrating the strength of his Christian conviction and everyone went on their merry way.
Here is the translation in question:

And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination

From the translation, it looks to be saying that the law that applies to a man laying with a man also applies to a woman [laying with a woman].
But in reality what its saying is, if a man lays with a man [the way a man] lays with a woman (ie. has intercourse).

You can see that the verse can be read either way. But from the Hebrew its clear that the second interpretation of the translation is the correct one.

I thought that was common sense without the Hebrew translation? Am I wrong? A man should not like with man as with a woman. Looking at it contextually, and even literally, since it's talking about sexual actions, a man lying with a woman is having intercourse. So if one shouldn't lay on a man as with a woman, it's implying don't have the same sexual relations as you would with a female.

How could that be translated any other way without Hebrew translation?

 

[Acim]

Why do you care? If I decide to get freaky withy another guy, (I'd pick @columbus so I could be the dude, btw) what possible affect does it have on your life, or your relationship with God? If I decide to get 10 inches of pecker chopped off (ladies, how you doin'?) and wear dresses, how does it impact you?

Skimmed through most of the thread, and as anticipated it evolved into how sure we are scripture is at condemning gay and trans people. I find that not answering the question. I see a few posts that did address it.

Me, personally, I don't care in the way I think OP is asking about. But do care in the way that I think most people do.

I think we care because it is about building a community with rules for behavior that are acceptable and reasonable. So, this general assertion isn't going to help with specifics. But I think it address the "why do you care" inquiry. If in a neighborhood where it is deemed acceptable (it could be anything, really), then the impact is about how am I to behave, reasonably, given the sense of community being practiced.

Because the question(s), as I understand it/them are really more about judgment than caring, it is challenging to convey impact. But as I thought about something that would make this all far easier to convey to really anyone on this thread, I'll go with it. If someone decides to get freaky with a minor, what possible affect does it have on your life? How does it impact you personally? Be very very clear on this point. Other than going with 'sense of community, I doubt someone would be able to make the case for how it actually impacts them, unless they invoke sense of harm as if it is presumed to be automatic, and/or if they claim they are or know the minor. Outside of those, I think the same thing about what the inquiry in OP is actually getting at, though not sure if author of OP realizes it. Perhaps. Not sure.

To me, as a spiritual person, sexuality in general is the bigger issue, and how that pertains to understanding love/attraction. As that cat is already (way) out of the bag, it is challenging to tackle that from spiritual perspective, but not impossible. Still possible to bring greater understanding to all that is currently occurring in relationships, despite the whole lot of superficiality that tries to pass itself off as commitment, devotion, love and honor. For the most part, 'judge not, lest ye be judged' is a good axiom to go with when it comes to these things. But if truly wondering what could possibly be wrong with this and how might it impact a person / member the community, I see no reason to shy away and address the points.

 

[metis]

My wife asks how about if a woman is lying with an old goat?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yes and No. discipline and how to react is human. lust is sin. Over all same sex activities are considered a sin. various reasons how and why apply.

Speaking theoretically and not referring to any official liturgical doctrines, but if we go by the Gospels every thing other than the fruit of the spirit comes from the human heart. There is no sitting on the couch watching the game for you, because that is not the fruit of the spirit. In Judaism, specific things are considered wasteful or not best practice, but this is not how things are in Catholicism. I think in Catholicism the waste is when you do anything that isn't a fruit of the spirit, and beyond that there aren't many specifics. From general principles you have to figure out what is the most spiritual way to live, which won't be confusing unless you are trying to please both heart and spirit -- two masters. Criticism is not a fruit of the spirit, either; so you won't have time for that. The Catholic life is a life that satisfies the spirit at the expense of satisfying the heart, thus few are interested unless they see it firsthand.

 

[Wirey]

Skimmed through most of the thread, and as anticipated it evolved into how sure we are scripture is at condemning gay and trans people. I find that not answering the question. I see a few posts that did address it.

Me, personally, I don't care in the way I think OP is asking about. But do care in the way that I think most people do.

I think we care because it is about building a community with rules for behavior that are acceptable and reasonable. So, this general assertion isn't going to help with specifics. But I think it address the "why do you care" inquiry. If in a neighborhood where it is deemed acceptable (it could be anything, really), then the impact is about how am I to behave, reasonably, given the sense of community being practiced.

Because the question(s), as I understand it/them are really more about judgment than caring, it is challenging to convey impact. But as I thought about something that would make this all far easier to convey to really anyone on this thread, I'll go with it. If someone decides to get freaky with a minor, what possible affect does it have on your life? How does it impact you personally? Be very very clear on this point. Other than going with 'sense of community, I doubt someone would be able to make the case for how it actually impacts them, unless they invoke sense of harm as if it is presumed to be automatic, and/or if they claim they are or know the minor. Outside of those, I think the same thing about what the inquiry in OP is actually getting at, though not sure if author of OP realizes it. Perhaps. Not sure.

To me, as a spiritual person, sexuality in general is the bigger issue, and how that pertains to understanding love/attraction. As that cat is already (way) out of the bag, it is challenging to tackle that from spiritual perspective, but not impossible. Still possible to bring greater understanding to all that is currently occurring in relationships, despite the whole lot of superficiality that tries to pass itself off as commitment, devotion, love and honor. For the most part, 'judge not, lest ye be judged' is a good axiom to go with when it comes to these things. But if truly wondering what could possibly be wrong with this and how might it impact a person / member the community, I see no reason to shy away and address the points.

Well put.

The minor thing I think can be explained easily. There's no possibility of consent. A child is not capable of determining whether or not they are ready for that relationship, while gay adults are. If I refuse to protect a child, really I'm condoning rape and that does affect me, as I may be next. When someone behaves in a predatory manner in my society they affect me. When two adults choose to be together, they don't as I have no role (except maybe as a neighbor).

 

[columbus]

If I refuse to protect a child, really I'm condoning rape and that does affect me, as I may be next.

It isn't even that, IMNSHO.
Irresponsible sex can do a lot of damage.

Children are particularly vulnerable. And to an extent, there is a clear bright line. That is the age of consent. Either the person is of age or they aren't.
I don't want to live in a world with damaged people. There is no reason for anyone to make the mistake. Even if someone is mature enough, at an early age, they then should understand that the rules are to protect their less mature fellows. You can always do it later, undoing the damage is essentially impossible.
There is simply no excuse. And the harm caused is huge, subtle, and long term. But the event is often hard to detect. So the best we can do is come down hard when we actually do find out about it.
Tom

 

[Ingledsva]

There's a few things here:
1. Not every Ba'al is the same. There's Ba'al Hadad, Ba'al Zebub, Ba'al Zaphon and I'm sure others I can't think of off hand.

2. You've established that prostitution was practiced as part of Asherah worship, not Molech worship.

3. Reinterpreting "weaving" as intimacy is baseless. They could have been prostituting themselves and hanging up nice things for their idols. You'd have to bring a verse to establish that "weaving" is clearly a metaphor for intimacy or that the metaphor "weaving the fabric of creation" exists in Tanach.

4. The word "ṢoVOTH" is not related to the word "performing". Its derived from "ṢVA" meaning a host (like an army host, ie. a lot of them dedicated to a single cause). I'm not sure there even is a word for "performing" in Biblical Hebrew.

5. Kadeshah =/= Zonah. Leviticus 20 uses a form of the root word "ZNH". This form of the word is also found in Num. 15:39 in a non-idolatry specific instance. Neither Lev. 18, not Lev. 20 contains any word derived from the root KDSH.

6. If the point of these two chapters in Leviticus was to enunciate forbidden relations in idol worship, then it skipped out on a few: the one between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman, a married man and his wife, a married man an unmarried woman, a man and his niece and two women, are five that come to mind. Unless you intend to argue that some relations in idol worship are permitted, which I don't think has any basis.

7. If the passage didn't intend to enunciate a list of forbidden relations in general, than it wouldn't have had to itemize it. A simple, "do not have relations for idol worship" or some permutation of that would have sufficed. There also would be no need for such a list, because idol-worship is already prohibited in general.

8. If these were all forms of Molech worship, we'd expect Molech to be mentioned at the start of chapter 18, not 2/3rds of the way in. Although it is mentioned at the start of chapter 20, there's a clear progression of the discussion from Molech, to other forms of prohibited rituals practiced by the nations, to other forms of prohibited [sexual] activities practiced by the nation.

9. Even if you could disprove all the above, there is still another issue. Some of the prohibitions are repeated in non-idolatry related contexts. The one against adultery found in Lev. 18:20 and Lev. 20:10, is repeated in a non-idolatry context in Deut. 22:22. The one against relations with a menstruating woman is found in Lev. 15:24. This establishes that even if all these various types of intimacy are prohibited because they were found in idol worship, the actual prohibition extends even outside of idol worship.

I also want to point out that you seem to be attaching the word holy to the word kadeshah. The root word QDSH doesn't have anything to do with prostitution of any type or holiness. Its technical meaning is "something that is separated for a purpose." Its synonymous with the root BDL meaning "separate" without any indication of a purpose. Its because of this meaning that the root QDSH can be used for prostitution or holiness. In the former, the prostitute was separated from society (or at least the women's weekly get-together) to practice her career. In the latter, an object or entity is separated from the mundane for use in service to G-d (or with respect to G-d, separate from everything inherently). It could be that the word could also refer to temple prostitutes in the respect of their being separate as well. But what the word doesn't do, is indicate any type of sanctity to their action.

A similar example of this is with another synonym Zonah. The word Zonah is derived from the word ZON, meaning to sustain. This word when used in reference to a prostitute indicates that she chose her profession because she needed to sustain herself, and not because she necessarily wanted to. Other instances of this root is found in agriculture (ZaN - a strain or species) and war (ZaYiN - a weapon) and food (MaZoN - sustenance).

In Biblical Hebrew, you need to look at the root and derive the meaning from there to the specific instance. It looks like what you're doing is taking a survey of the expressions of a word and applying them interchangeably.

I'd appreciate it, if after citing a verse or source, you'd add what you intend me to understand from it, so that we're both on the same page.

Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jewish virtual Library doesn't agree with you.

You missed the point of that text - they are the same. If you see Molech it is also Hadad-Ba'al/Milcom and Ashtoreth worship. That is why they are all together in that one text.

Did you miss that part where it said their worship included Sacred Sex, AND children passed through the fire?

"Other biblical texts refer to the sacrifice of children. Psalms 106:37–38 speaks of child sacrifice to the unnamed idols of Canaan. In prophetic sources, Jeremiah 7:31 and Ezekiel 20:25–6 speak disapprovingly of sacrificing children to Yahweh (for the "bad statutes" referred to by Ezekiel, see Ex. 22:28–29; but see Friebel); Jeremiah 19:5 speaks of sacrificing children to Baal; Ezekiel 16:21, 20:31, 23:37, 39 of sacrificing children to unnamed divinities; as does Isaiah 57:5. In none of these is there a mention of Moloch. Only in Jeremiah 32:35 is Moloch mentioned by name and there he is associated with Baal." http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/moloch.html

"Another expression occurring in the Punic inscriptions מלכאדם, turned out to be even more crucial for the understanding of the Hebrew molekh. Here again some scholars understood the term as human sacrifice. However, as in the case of מלכ אמר, no objective evidence has been found for this interpretation of מלכאדם. The most plausible explanation is, as has already been suggested, that the term means "king of humankind," and is the epithet of the god to whom the inscription is dedicated. The word "king" was indeed a common attribute of the deities in the Phoenician-Punic sphere, e.g., Melkart ("king of the city," i.e., Tyre), מלכבעל, etc. El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon, later identified with Kronos, was named Malkandros (Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride, 16) which means "king of man" (Greek aner [gen. andros], "man"), in other words מלכאדם. This is corroborated by evidence from the Assyrian-Aramean sphere where the epithet "King" is applied to the god Adad/Hadad, who is identified with the Canaanite-Phoenician Baal – was also called "King," cf. מלכבעל – "Baal is king." The identification of Hadad-Baal with Moloch provides the background to Jeremiah 32:35, which fulminates against the bamot-altars of Baal in the valley of Ben-Hinnom where male and female children were burnt to Moloch, i.e., Baal-Hadad." http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/moloch.html

"As will be shown below, the introduction of the Moloch coincided with the introduction of the worship of the "queen of the heaven," although the latter persisted after the reform of Josiah whereas the Moloch cult seems to have perished following the reform. The worship of the Moloch along with the worship of the "queen of the heaven" are therefore to be seen against the background of the widespread worship in the Assyro-Aramean culture of Adad/Hadad, the king, and Ishtar Ashtarth/Anath, the queen, that began in the ninth-eighth century B.C.E. ...

... As already indicated above, the legal and historical sources speak about passing children to Moloch in fire. According to the rabbinic interpretation, this prohibition is against passing children through fire and then delivering them to the pagan priests. In other words, according to this interpretation, this refers to an initiation rite. This kind of initiation or consecration is actually attested to in various cultures (see T.H. Gaster, in bibl.) and the Septuagint interprets Deuteronomy 18:10 in a similar manner. ... The common denominator of all these traditions is the understanding of Moloch worship as the transfer of Jewish children to paganism either by delivering them directly to pagan priests or by procreation through intercourse with a pagan woman. ..." http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/moloch.html, Encyclopaedia Judaica.

Quite interesting in view off these texts we are discussing - and Deu 23:17 -

Deu 23:17 There shall be no Qedeshah of the daughters of Israel, nor a Qadesh of the sons of Israel. (These Qadesh are Sacred Temple Prostitutes of Hadad/Ba'al/Milcom/Molech, etc., and Ashtoreth)

"The name Moloch results from a dysphemic vocalisation in the Second Temple period of a theonym based on the root mlk "king" and lmlk to the king. There are a number of Canaanite gods with names based on this root, which became summarily associated with Moloch, including Biblical מַלְכָּם Malkam "great king" (KJV Milcom) rendered 'mlkm', which appears to refer to a god of the Ammonites, as well as Tyrian Melqart and others. The 'sacrifice' theory is supported by thousands of clay seals stamped with lmlk from the time of King Hezekiah which indicate the term refers to a religious tithe, and the lack of any reference to a specific god named Moloch beyond the extrapolation that the biblical text is using lmlk as a name which is traditional but not supported by other materials (see below under 'Name')." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch

PS - it doesn't look (on my screen) like the Hebrew transferred correctly, - but oh well, - you can always go to the site.
*

 

[shava]

Yes, how does this have to do with gay people?

People relate the word gay, homosexual and queer, with those whose sexual preference is of the same sex.

 

[shava]

Yes it is wrong. Not about everything, but lots and lots of stuff.
Not because the original authors and audience were stupid or evil. They were just primitive.
Modern people know so much more than they did. So when Scriptures contradict modern ideas, from speciation to marriage, just claiming to believe that God says something else doesn't change the facts. You're wrong to believe that the earth is a few thousand years old. You're wrong to believe that my marriage is immoral because we are gay.
Claiming to speak for God isn't at all credible.
Tom

Is it really I that's wrong, or God of the bible who you simply do not believe in but blame for my way of living my life.

 

[Ingledsva]

It's a sin to have a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. Romans chapter 1. I suggest reading all of Romans chapter1.

Romans 1 is also about Sacred Sex.

It's pretty obvious if you read it in context, especially from Rom 1:21 down to 26 and 27, that they are talking about sexual acts in relationship to Pagan worship.

He is talking to the people of Rome where there are a lot of Temples with Temple Prostitutes.

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and serpents.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

~~ ~ NOTE: the people in 24 that dishonor their bodies, are the people WHO worship the Act of Creation in 25! Religious Sexuality! ~~~

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of Deity into a lie, and worship and render religious homage to the "Act of Creation" more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

So, they are worshiping God as a Serpent, - through Sacred Sex, - which recreates the Act of Creation, which was by sex between the God and Goddess.

It is not an "against homosexuals" verse.

We know from ancient descriptions that this worship included sex with anyone, and also animals.

*

 

[shava]

Exodus 21:

And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed.

Completely clear. Gay = bad, selling daughter for sex = good. Gotcha.

The Old Testament is no longer in effect, why not use what we as Christians use, the New Testament.

 

[Ingledsva]

You say " most " of the verses, so you agree then that "some" are referencing homosexual as a sin, right?

NO.

*

 

[Wirey]

The Old Testament is no longer in effect, why not use what we as Christians use, the New Testament.

The slave one, right, that you already said was outdated. That one?

 

[Ingledsva]

The Old Testament is no longer in effect, why not use what we as Christians use, the New Testament.

Did you see the - "are you folks hypocrites" - post?

You just told us the Tanakh laws are no longer in effect. You yourself don't have to follow them.

Yet you bring up ONE of them anyway, - to condemn an act you don't agree with.

Jesus said nothing against homosexuals.

*

 

[shava]

Romans 1 is also about Sacred Sex.

It's pretty obvious if you read it in context, especially from Rom 1:21 down to 26 and 27, that they are talking about sexual acts in relationship to Pagan worship.

He is talking to the people of Rome where there are a lot of Temples with Temple Prostitutes.

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and serpents.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

~~ ~ NOTE: the people in 24 that dishonor their bodies, are the people WHO worship the Act of Creation in 25! Religious Sexuality! ~~~

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of Deity into a lie, and worship and render religious homage to the "Act of Creation" more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

So, they are worshiping God as a Serpent, - through Sacred Sex, - which recreates the Act of Creation, which was by sex between the God and Goddess.

It is not an "against homosexuals" verse.

We know from ancient descriptions that this worship included sex with anyone, and also animals.

*

You can deny all you want, but God is clear on how he feels about same sex and same sex marriage..

Did you see the - "are you folks hypocrites" - post?

You just told us the Tanakh laws are no longer in effect. You yourself don't follow them.

Yet you bring up ONE of them anyway, - to condemn an act you don't agree with.

Jesus said nothing against homosexuals.

*

The New Testament is in effect, and God's feelings were transferred to make sure that his feelings were not forgotten on the same sex issue.