Christians and Jews Who Sanction Homosexual Sex

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You've just been pretty emphatic that the normal interpretation of the passage is wrong.

nonsense

Not by scholars.

absolutely by scholars. I'm sorry if that doesn't line up with what you think you know about the Bible and how it's understood, but it's a fact nonetheless.

Consensuses on value judgements are a bit different from consensuses on facts. Unlesd you have new evidence to bring to the table, I'm not going to believe that you've overturned the existing body of evidence.

i have made no such claim. Again, you seem to be reading things I'm simply not saying

Anyway, late now. Going to bed. Will continue tomorrow if you wish.

 

[sojourner]

I'M ignoring it.

Well, we know what category of “scholar” you fall under now...

 

[sojourner]

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)

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 Corinthians 6:10)

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. (1 Corinthians 6:10)


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)

ERV
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. (1 Timothy. 1:10)

NOG
Laws are intended for people involved in sexual sins, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for those who lie when they take an oath, and for whatever else is against accurate teachings. (1 Timothy. 1:10)

ESVUK
the sexually immoral, men who practise homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, (1 Timothy. 1:10)

.
​

Going “NUH-UH!!!” And flailing your arms is not a convincing, reasonable, or even grown-up method for argument.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are, in fact, Bibles with the sort of footnotes you're demanding.

Please tell me which version of the Bible has a footnote saying that Christians ought to disregard Leviticus 18.

 

[sojourner]

Not by scholars.

If you don't want to adopt an anti-gay position, that's fine: go ahead and say "yes, this passage that was the product of a homophobic and misogynistic ancient society is anti-gay, and as someone who knows better, I reject their advice for a position that's actually moral." That would be more honest than this idea you're peddling that we can't be sure that ancient Hebrew religious leaders didn't have views that are in line with those of modern liberal progressives

Judging by what you’ve written thus far here, it’s far from clear that you have much of an idea just what the scholars are saying.

I didn't say it did. What I am saying is that I'll put more weight behind the opinion of the many people who have actually put serious effort into the study of ancient Hebrew and translation, especially when they all agree, over the opinion of some guy on the internet who sure seems to be engaging in motivated reasoning

You mean the many people whose translations are informed by bias?

Consensuses on value judgements are a bit different from consensuses on facts. Unlesd you have new evidence to bring to the table, I'm not going to believe that you've overturned the existing body of evidence

And just what do you suppose that body of evidence to be?

 

[sojourner]

Please tell me which version of the Bible has a footnote saying that Christians ought to disregard Leviticus 18.

Please tell me your statement here is a valid, thoughtful response to the post.

 

[sojourner]

I can't care what your unnamed, so-called "highly credible scholars dispute." I'm only concerned with what today's Bibles are telling their Christian readers. And almost all of today's Bibles are telling their readers that homosexual relations---or words to that effect---are wrong; from being an abomination to being worthy of a death sentence.

.

You, no doubt, realize that a few translations are better than many others, and less informed by theological bias than many others? The NRSV is one of the best, and you didn’t list it. Why wouldn’t you list one of the best? Hey! I’ve a unique suggestion! Why not go directly to the ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek and see what the real texts, themselves, have to say on the matter. Then come on back and tell us just how cut-and-dried plain-speaking it is.

 

[sojourner]

Which Bible is that? There are hundreds of versions

Misdirection. “Versions” are later translations.

 

[DPMartin]

the church, in this case, is supposed to bring and support the ways and Judgements of the Lord God of Israel n the name of Christ into and in the world. but these bring the ways and judgements of the world into the church.

which tells you of the times we live in.

the church is an out post of the Kingdom of God in the world not a out post of the world in the Kingdom of God.


flesh is flesh and the fulfillments there in is according to man's pleasures, unless men follow the Lord.

 

[sojourner]

I’m talking about the consensus of scholarly opinion.

The people who actually study the Bible seriously in order to develop translations all render the passage as a condemnation of male-male sexual activity. The only people who don’t do this are liberal Christians who don’t want their God or their Bible to be anti-gay.

Reasons matter. Why did the writers say this? Does their opinion still matter cross-culturally? That it’s there isn’t under dispute. What’s under dispute is the translators’ use of terms and apparent cultural bias.

I was talking about the “standard” translation of this one passage, not of the whole Bible

What “standard translation is that?” The Bible I read doesn’t mention homosexuality. And it’s one of the most highly-regarded translations.

the euphemism of “lie with” for “have sex with” still works in modern English

No it doesn’t, for reasons I’ve already mentioned. Euphemisms tend to obscure meaning. In this case, we’re not sure of the circumstances the passage addresses, and we’re confident that they didn’t mean loving, consensual, same-sex relationships, as we understand them in our time and our culture. Modern English attaches different cultural meanings to those terms than the writers meant.

If someone gives a blanket condemnation of sex between men because they want to combat temple prostitution, then they’ve still given a blanket condemnation of sex between men

No, they’ve given a blanket condemnation of Temple prostitution.

It's not "context-free" or "culturally-removed" to note that these passages really are the products of societies that disapproved of homosexuality and saw women as "lesser" or even as property, and that the passages reflect those values

And it’s not out of place to note that those societies are not these societies, and that those societal rules don’t apply here.

But until you proclaim - by whatever method - your rejection of those passages just as loudly as you proclaim your support for the Bible, you are endorsing what you claim to oppose

We’re not rejecting the passages; we’re rejecting the wholesale application of those passages to modern society.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

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)

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 Corinthians 6:10)

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. (1 Corinthians 6:10)


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)

ERV
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. (1 Timothy. 1:10)

NOG
Laws are intended for people involved in sexual sins, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for those who lie when they take an oath, and for whatever else is against accurate teachings. (1 Timothy. 1:10)

ESVUK
the sexually immoral, men who practise homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, (1 Timothy. 1:10)

.
​

The manner in which modern translations have stated things is not particularly relevant, since what you quoted reflects the current-day agenda of hatred for homosexuals.

You need to consider how things were viewed at the time those scriptures were written, and the activities engaged in to this day in Middle Eastern countries shows how those scriptures should be viewed. It was NOT about homosexuality...it was about same-sex relations between heterosexuals.

 

[Skwim]

The manner in which modern translations have stated things is not particularly relevant, since what you quoted reflects the current-day agenda of hatred for homosexuals.

But it's more than just the manner in which something is stated, but the actual thing that is said. And how do you know that what's said today isn't what was believed to be the truth way back then? Way back in 1611 the King James Bible said

Leviticus 18:22
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

1 Timothy 1:9-10
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;​

You need to consider how things were viewed at the time those scriptures were written, and the activities engaged in to this day in Middle Eastern countries shows how those scriptures should be viewed. It was NOT about homosexuality...it was about same-sex relations between heterosexuals.

Prove it. Show me the evidence that those verses condemning sex between people of the same sex wasn't about homosexuals, but about heterosexuals who, what, wanted a little one-on-one one time fling with each other? Flings of such a minor nature that "they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." And if that's the kind of punishment god meted out to heterosexuals who happened to stray off the path into a little same-sex fornication, what do you think he thought of true homosexuals---men and women who screwed around with those of the same sex on a regular and exclusive basis?

God's Guidelines for Consequences. Section 22: (Sexual Behavior)

22 - D. sexual relations between humans of the same sex

.. ... a. incidental sex between heterosexuals of the same sex: death

b. occasional sex between heterosexuals of the same sex; torture + death
c. regular sex between heterosexuals of the same sex; torture + death + maiming of one family member
d. exclusive sex between those of the same sex; Gold Star​

Nope, your amusing self-serving apologetics to save god's condemnation of homosexual sex here fails, and big time.

.

 

[Lyndon]

Some people are delusional about God being responsible for everything written in the Bible, case in point.

 

[Skwim]

Some people are delusional about God being responsible for everything written in the Bible, case in point.

And some people are delusional about what they need god to say. Case in point.

.

 

[Lyndon]

Sorry but you know nothing about God, all you do is spout nonsense

 

[Muffled]

.

Knowing how much god hates homosexual sex, and that it's almost a given that every homosexual couple engage in it, how can any Christian denomination or Jewish movement sanction same-sex marriages, in effect sanctioning homosexual sex?

Those religious Abrahamic religious organizations that sanction same-sex marriage.

Alliance of baptists
Conservative Judaism
Episcopal Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Reform Judaism
United Church of Christ (Congregational Church)
And perhaps the United Methodist Church (We'll know in February, 2019)

.​

.

I believe they salve their consciences by believing it isn't a sin. I had a thief tell me it was OK to steal if one was hungry. The abortionist say it is ok to murder children because they are just lumps of flesh. It is easy to deceive oneself to cover up sin but God is not deceived.

 

[Muffled]

Which is actually a true statement that the priest made according to the N.T. as it is the action that is forbidden, not the impulse.

As for me, I don't believe that whomever goes to bed with whomever is any of my business.

I believe the concept of gay people not having sex is very unlikely and the very public attempt to legitimize their activities makes it my business.

 

[Muffled]

You assume the first read through apparent meaning of the English translation accurately reflects the meaning of the author, who assumed contextual knowledge on the part of the reader and wrote in a different language during a period of different social conventions.

Many people don't.

I believe sinners who wish to legitimize their sin will go to any lengths to get the Bible to say what they want it to say but Jesus testifies to me directly that it is a sin.

 

[Lyndon]

more BS!!

 

[Skwim]

Sorry but you know nothing about God, all you do is spout nonsense

I assume you're responding to my last post, #154 ---it would be helpful if you learned how to use the RF reply function. It isn't that difficult. It's in the bottom right corner. In any case, I know what people like yourself believe about your god because Christians are always going on about him.

.