Christians and Jews Who Sanction Homosexual Sex

[Skwim]

Use of the term “knowing” is disingenuous.

Knowing how much god hates homosexual sex,

We know nothing of the sort,

So, you think god is in love with homosexual sex when he says:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, men who practise homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine. (1 Timothy. 1:9-10)​

?​

Your premise holds the church hostage to a very narrow (and fairly indefensible) treatment of the texts, themselves, and the way in which morality, ethics and doctrine are determined and formulated. It does not take under consideration the changing nature of the religion (and, indeed, the texts, themselves), nor does it consider the ways in which our views of the position the texts should hold change over time, whenever we are faced with the challenges of redefining ethics, based on changing cultural mores.

Yup, because god was unequivocal when he "wrote" the verses above. There where no ifs, ands, or buts that qualified to any of them:

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman they shall surely be put to death"

​

Now if the Christian religion wishes to change itself, disregarding what the Bible plainly states, and only chooses those verses that keep god and the Christian religion in a complimentary light , that's up to its members, but so far I haven't seen any such cherry-picking declaration.

.

​

 

[sojourner]

Right back atcha.

 

[sojourner]

So, you think god is in love with homosexual sex when he says:

God didn’t say:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, men who practise homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine. (1 Timothy. 1:9-10)

Yup, because god was unequivocal when he "wrote" the verses above.

God didn’t write anything.

There where no ifs, ands, or buts that qualified to any of them

There is cultural context, language barrier, and intended audience that present major qualifiers.

Now if the Christian religion wishes to change itself

It always has...
Xy doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

disregarding what the Bible plainly states

Your assumption is clearly incorrect. By definition, it can’t “plainly state,” because it’s not that kind of text, and because of the translational/exegetical problem.

Your post is intentionally provocative and trollish

 

[Skwim]

Try NRSV. None of them mentions homosexuality, specifically

So what? What is the Christian suppose to do, run from one Bible version to the other in order to find the the best rendering of those verses that support his theology? Bible Cherry-picking on the ultimate scale. Hell, he'd spend all his time plodding through a world of Bibles. According to the American Bible Society,

. . . the number of printed English translations and paraphrases of the Bible, whether complete or not, is about 900.
source
​

Point being, your choice of Bibles is no better than mine. Bibles come and go, and change to fit the prevailing needs of contemporary Christians, or their leadership, either as a whole or in particular. That your NRSV Bible doesn't mention "homosexuality" or allude to it in an outright manner is no doubt due to an attempt to appeal to those Christians with a more accepting attitude toward homosexuals. Practicality over piety. . . . .Hmm, . . . . . seems to be a whiff of avarice in the air.

​

and none of them means “homosexuality” in the same context as we mean it.

As if you knew. Sorry, but I don't buy wishful thinking.

.​

 

[Skwim]

God didn’t say:

No, but he did say:

", and if you don't understand what this means then I believe you're incapable of understanding much of anything.

Have a good day. I certainly am.

.

 

[Lyndon]

Not surprising most stheists are KJV men.

 

[sojourner]

So what? What is the Christian suppose to do, run from one Bible version to the other in order to find the the best rendering of those verses that support his theology

“What” has to do with “best translation,” defined as “what remains truest to the original meaning of the text, uncolored by bias.” The Xtian is supposed to look for the best translation, in order to glean the truest meaning.

Point being, your choice of Bibles is no better than mine.

Wrong. Some translations are “better” than others. THAT was MY point.

That your NRSV Bible doesn't mention "homosexuality" or allude to it in an outright manner is no doubt due to an attempt to appeal to those Christians with a more accepting attitude toward homosexuals

No, it’s no doubt due to the fact that there is no ancient Hebrew or Greek term for “homosexual,” which clearly shows us two things: 1) the translations that use that term are biased, and 2) the authors, not having a word for the condition, could not have meant a condition for which they have no language.

As if you knew

See point #2 above.

 

[sojourner]

No, but he did say:

View attachment 23534

", and if you don't understand what this means then I believe you're incapable of understanding much of anything.

Have a good day. I certainly am.

.

Nope. God said nothing. The writers said that God said, but that doesn’t mean God said.

 

[kiwimac]

And he's made that judgement.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

.​

Unfortunately for you, the Hebrew is not as clear as the English makes it appear. In Roman characters the verse reads as follows "..."V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee. . ."
and literally means "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"

You must take the verse in question in the context of the whole Levitical chapter .

Leviticus 18, verses 6 to 21, contain a whole series of forbidden forms of sexual behavior with::

• Verse 6: relatives that are "near of kin."
• Verse 7: one's mother.
• Verse 8: father's wife.
• Verse 9: sister or step sister.
• Verse 10: granddaughter.
• Verse 11: sister or step sister.
• Verse 12: aunt on the father's side of the family.
• Verse 13: aunt on the mother's side of the family.
• Verse 14: father's brother's wife..
• Verse 15: daughter-in-law.
• Verse 16: sister-in-law.
• Verse 17: both a woman and her daughter, or her granddaughter
• Verse 18: wife's sister as long as your wife is still living.

Verses 19 and 20 leave the topic of incest but continue the theme of forbidden sexual activity:

• Verse 19 forbids sexual activity with a menstruating woman.
• Verse 20 forbids adultery with a neighbor's wife.

At this point, there is a break in topic being discussed. The chapter switches to a condemnation of false forms of worship in general, and the worship of the Pagan god Molech in particular. Like many other Pagan temples, those dedicated to Molech had temple prostitutes on staff. His followers believed that engaging in sexual activity with these prostitutes would please Molech and "... increase the fertility of themselves, their spouses, their livestock and their fields." 1

• Verse 21 forbids ritual child sacrifice and names a Pagan god Molech to whom children were believed to have been sacrificed. The verse also forbids blasphemy against Yahweh.

Verse 22 is translated in the King James Version as: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

• If the verse is considered in isolation -- as it is most often done -- then a logical interpretation is that the verse condemns allsexual activity between two males.
  
  
• If Leviticus 18:22 is considered in the context of its surrounding chapters and previous verse, then one might expect that it refers to some forbidden idolatrous activity in a Pagan temple from which the ancient Israelites must separate themselves.=

Note [1]:

1. Paul Turner, "Seeds of Hope: 'But Leviticus Says," Whosoever, at:Seeds of Hope: Questions on Same-Gender Marriage

Source

The problem here is people's insistence in "proof-texting"; Once you've taken a verse out of it's context you are inevitably wrong in your interpretation of it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not surprising most stheists are KJV men.

Ever since I saw @angellous_evangellous recommend the NET Bible, I tend to go with that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem here is people's insistence in "proof-texting"; Once you've taken a verse out of it's context you are inevitably wrong in your interpretation of it.

The context sure seems to me to be a list of commands from God, though I assume for the Jewish people specifically. What do you see as the intended context?

 

[Lyndon]

You think the commands came from God, yet you're an atheist. What's wrong with this picture??? You're trying to hold a God you don't believe in responsible for what people say about him!!

 

[Skwim]

Unfortunately for you, the Hebrew is not as clear as the English makes it appear. In Roman characters the verse reads as follows "..."V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee. . ."
and literally means "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"

I assume you're talking about Leviticus 18:22. Not that it makes any difference, but does

"And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"
​

truly make more sense than

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman" (Leviticus 18:22)
​

?

You must take the verse in question in the context of the whole Levitical chapter .

Which makes "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman" mean what?

The problem here is people's insistence in "proof-texting"; Once you've taken a verse out of it's context you are inevitably wrong in your interpretation of it.

An irrational remark for sure, but in any case, let's hear your interpretation of "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman" in this all important context you're talking about.

The ball's in your court, kiwimac.

.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You think the commands came from God, yet you're an atheist.

I think the book presents them as commands from God.

Obviously, I don’t believe that this was actually the case, but what I believe is irrelevant to the author’s intent.

What's wrong with this picture???

A lack of reading comprehension on your part, apparently.

You're trying to hold a God you don't believe in responsible for what people say about him!!

No, I’m not. I’m saying that the passage in Leviticus is presented as if it’s commands from God.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

During Confession, my Catholic priest said that gay monogamous relationships aren't sinful...obviously dancing around it..but he was pretty clear.

Considering the fact that homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality, I would say that your priest is absolutely correct and is not "dancing around" anything. Unless, of course, you consider it to be "dancing around" if he stated that, although the Bible condemns promiscuous sexual relations, a straight monogamous relationship is not sinful.

The Bible says nothing about monogamous relationships of any kind being "sinful."

 

[Skwim]

Considering the fact that homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality, I would say that your priest is absolutely correct and is not "dancing around" anything. Unless, of course, you consider it to be "dancing around" if he stated that, although the Bible condemns promiscuous sexual relations, a straight monogamous relationship is not sinful.

The Bible says nothing about monogamous relationships of any kind being "sinful."

Sure it does. It says homosexual sexual relationships are "sinful." And because it doesn't specify monogamous or otherwise, monogamous relationships are included.

.

 

[Lyndon]

So supposedly atheist leftists don't think Christians should be supporting gay marriage because they think they understand the bible, which they obviously read for proof texts only. Frankly their position is homophobic, if only atheists are allowed to accept gays, that's blatant homophobia.

 

[kiwimac]

Then you might want to take a look at the New Testament. (I've given three examples for each of the following four passages)

Romans 1:26–27

ESV
6 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

KJ21
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature. 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet.

CJB
26 This is why God has given them up to degrading passions; so that their women exchange natural sexual relations for unnatural; 27 and likewise the men, giving up natural relations with the opposite sex, burn with passion for one another, men committing shameful acts with other men and receiving in their own persons the penalty appropriate to their perversion.


1 Corinthians 6:9–10

ERV
Surely you know that people who do wrong will not get to enjoy God’s kingdom. Don’t be fooled. These are the people who will not get to enjoy his kingdom: those who sin sexually, those who worship idols, those who commit adultery, men who let other men use them for sex or who have sex with other men, those who steal, those who are greedy, those who drink too much, those who abuse others with insults, and those who cheat.

TLB
Don’t you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexuals—will have no share in his Kingdom. Neither will thieves or greedy people, drunkards, slanderers, or robbers.

NCV
Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit God’s kingdom. Do not be fooled. Those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob—these people will not inherit God’s kingdom.


1 Timothy 1:9–10

AMP
9 We also know that the law is not made for those who do what is right. It is made for those who are against the law and refuse to follow it. The law is for sinners who are against God and all that is pleasing to him. It is for those who have no interest in spiritual things and for those who kill their fathers or mothers or anyone else.for sexually immoral persons, for homosexuals, for kidnappers and slave traders, for liars, for perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

ERV
9 We also know that the law is not made for those who do what is right. It is made for those who are against the law and refuse to follow it. The law is for sinners who are against God and all that is pleasing to him. It is for those who have no interest in spiritual things and for those who kill their fathers or mothers or anyone else. 10 It is for those who commit sexual sins, homosexuals, those who sell slaves, those who tell lies, those who don’t tell the truth under oath, and those who are against the true teaching of God.

ESV
9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,[a] liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.


Jude 1:7

EHV
Like Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, who in a similar way indulged in extreme sexual immorality and pursued homosexual perversion, they serve as an example of those who are going to suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

GW
What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them is an example for us of the punishment of eternal fire. The people of these cities suffered the same fate that God’s people and the angels did, because they committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities.

NOG
What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them is an example for us of the punishment of eternal fire. The people of these cities suffered the same fate that God’s people and the angels did, because they committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities.

.​

The Bible is not a science-text, the writers followed their world-views, Just as I do not allow the Bible to influence my view of the cosmos, I do not allow 2000 year old POVs regarding homosexuality to influence me.

 

[kiwimac]

I assume you're talking about Leviticus 18:22. Not that it makes any difference, but does

"And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"
​

truly make more sense than

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman" (Leviticus 18:22)
​

?



Which makes "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman" mean what?



An irrational remark for sure, but in any case, let's hear your interpretation of "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman" in this all important context you're talking about.

The ball's in your court, kiwimac.

.

Did you miss this?

You must take the verse in question in the context of the whole Levitical chapter .

Leviticus 18, verses 6 to 21, contain a whole series of forbidden forms of sexual behavior with::

• Verse 6: relatives that are "near of kin."
• Verse 7: one's mother.
• Verse 8: father's wife.
• Verse 9: sister or step sister.
• Verse 10: granddaughter.
• Verse 11: sister or step sister.
• Verse 12: aunt on the father's side of the family.
• Verse 13: aunt on the mother's side of the family.
• Verse 14: father's brother's wife..
• Verse 15: daughter-in-law.
• Verse 16: sister-in-law.
• Verse 17: both a woman and her daughter, or her granddaughter
• Verse 18: wife's sister as long as your wife is still living.

Verses 19 and 20 leave the topic of incest but continue the theme of forbidden sexual activity:

• Verse 19 forbids sexual activity with a menstruating woman.
• Verse 20 forbids adultery with a neighbor's wife.

At this point, there is a break in topic being discussed. The chapter switches to a condemnation of false forms of worship in general, and the worship of the Pagan god Molech in particular. Like many other Pagan temples, those dedicated to Molech had temple prostitutes on staff. His followers believed that engaging in sexual activity with these prostitutes would please Molech and "... increase the fertility of themselves, their spouses, their livestock and their fields." 1

• Verse 21 forbids ritual child sacrifice and names a Pagan god Molech to whom children were believed to have been sacrificed. The verse also forbids blasphemy against Yahweh.

Verse 22 is translated in the King James Version as: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

• If the verse is considered in isolation -- as it is most often done -- then a logical interpretation is that the verse condemns allsexual activity between two males.
  
  
• If Leviticus 18:22 is considered in the context of its surrounding chapters and previous verse, then one might expect that it refers to some forbidden idolatrous activity in a Pagan temple from which the ancient Israelites must separate themselves.=

Note [1]:

1. Paul Turner, "Seeds of Hope: 'But Leviticus Says," Whosoever, at:Seeds of Hope: Questions on Same-Gender Marriage

Source

 

[Skwim]

Did you miss this?

No I didn't. I simply found it specious---there is absolutely no reason to consider Leviticus 18:22 in any kind of temple context (your Rev, Turner, whom you quote, is a grasping apologist of the worse kind: he has an agenda he's working to fulfill)---so I moved on to the issue at hand.

And FYI, when you directly quote someone, as you indicate by your italicization and attribution, it's against the rules of accepted composition to paraphrase it.

.

.