HOMOSEXUALITY: What the Bible Does & Does Not Say

[almifkhar]

elvendon
i am a woman who was born in the u.s. so why would i be circimsised?

all holy books were set down not just for a mode of religious practice, they were also set down as a mode for the ideal society. one that would stand the test of time, however, man is lazy and becomes board and decides that he don't like this or that so sets out to change what he refuses to follow and keeps what he thinks is worth following. this not only destroys the religion itself, it also destroys the society.

adoption was something that was never ment to be because it tends to breed irresponisible sex. we are supose to accept our lot in life. if someone cannot have children, it should be accepted. i feel for someone who cannot produce a child, but perhaps there is a reason for it. perhaps the said person/couple was destined for something else in life?

you see no logical arguement for it because perhaps you don't take the time to look around with fresh eyes. ten years ago i would have agreed with you. i realize now that there are levels of perversion, and i see what it does to family and society as a whole. i don't see this from a religious view, i see it from a social view. like the wise man once said, "when society is morally corupt, that society will soon crumble."

agian, seriously i am not circumcised.

 

[Mystic-als]

almifkhar - I'm glad you're not circumcised! (which is possible for woman).
I like that you are sticking to your guns and not backing down. Good for you. However I would like to address one thing you've just said.

adoption was something that was never ment to be because it tends to breed irresponisible sex

It's not adoption that breeds irresponsible sex, it's hormones. Abortion is a regular occuance now. So if anything abortion or condoms breed irresposible sex. Adoption is a totally responsible thing to do. You obviously are not adopted.

 

[almifkhar]

mysticals

you make a good point, you really do, however, adoption is a practice that a birthparent (usually single) does in the hopes of giving the child a better life, or just plain didn't want to have the child in the first place. either way, if one is not ready to have children or does not want to have children, than there are ways to avoid this from happening in the first place, right? back in the old days, the soultion to this from happening was to marry off the kids so as to force both men and women to their obligations. i believe that when one has a child, that both who made it are obligated to take care of it. this is the right thing to do. in this day and age, if one wants to mess around, which is fine, but they have to be responisible while doing this. i am living proof that birth control works and it is free/or costs next to nothing for those who cannot aford it. there is also the option of getting fixed, or keeping it in the pants is another option. the problem is, lots of people don't do these things and this is why there are so many unwanted children out there. and saddly, there are older children who no one wants because they want babies instead. this shows that adoption does breed irresponisible sex, etc. saddly these are throw away children who in most cases will never be adopted. think for a minute how growing up like this would effect the mind of this child and how they would feel all their lives.

 

[James the Persian]

mysticals

you make a good point, you really do, however, adoption is a practice that a birthparent (usually single) does in the hopes of giving the child a better life, or just plain didn't want to have the child in the first place. either way, if one is not ready to have children or does not want to have children, than there are ways to avoid this from happening in the first place, right? back in the old days, the soultion to this from happening was to marry off the kids so as to force both men and women to their obligations. i believe that when one has a child, that both who made it are obligated to take care of it. this is the right thing to do. in this day and age, if one wants to mess around, which is fine, but they have to be responisible while doing this. i am living proof that birth control works and it is free/or costs next to nothing for those who cannot aford it. there is also the option of getting fixed, or keeping it in the pants is another option. the problem is, lots of people don't do these things and this is why there are so many unwanted children out there. and saddly, there are older children who no one wants because they want babies instead. this shows that adoption does breed irresponisible sex, etc. saddly these are throw away children who in most cases will never be adopted. think for a minute how growing up like this would effect the mind of this child and how they would feel all their lives.

Surely an awful lot of adoptions come about (both now and in the past) because the child being adopted is orphaned? I cannot, therefore, see how the parctice of adopting children can possibly be responsible for encouraging irresponsible sex. People who become pregnant by irresponsible sexual acts may indeed put their child up for adoption but I very much doubt that a single person has started a sexual relationship safe in the knowledge that if they fall pregnant somebody else could raise their child. It sems more like an afterthought (and a far more responsible and moral one than abortion) once the unwanted pregnancy has occurred than it does any kind of encouragement for the acts that might lead to one. I fail to see how anyone can argue that adoption is a bad thing.

James

 

[Mystic-als]

almifkhar - I don't have to wonder what it might feel like. I was adopted. So I know what I am talking about. If you see adoption as a license to screw whenever and whoever than it is you that doen't know what you are talking about.

I would like to appologise to the Op for taking this thread a little off path.

 

[almifkhar]

i apologize too

but mysticals, just because you experienced one thing does not mean that someone else experienced the same circumistances.

in detroit, if a woman gives birth and does not want the baby, she can drop it off at a hospital or police and no charges will be given to her. do you know how many babies end up like this? how many do you think will see a adoptive home? no matter how you want to slice or dice it, it is irresponisible to bring a child into the world and just drop it off like trash. (referring to this type of situation because before they hatched up this law, babies were put right into trashcans in any type of weather stuffed into trashbags) like i said before, in this day in age we have birth control, and we can cruze over to a doctor and get the snip. if you want to keep up with this debate mysticals, pm me so we don't anger the op.

 

[Mystic-als]

I don't really want to debate this at all. So I think we can agree to dis-agree. But I do really appreciate your views. And I will reflect on them.

 

[almifkhar]

that's cool, i appreciate your views too and will do the same

 

[Elvendon]

Sorry that it has taken me awhile to get back to you all.

1) As far as homosexual offenses go, i think that you are reaching on that subject. If God does view homosexuality, is not it a sin? Plus i think the offender part depends on what kind of version you used. Speaking of which what version did you use? I used NKJV

New International Version. Also, you still have not addressed the main issue - whether it was Helleno-Roman homosexuality or homosexuality as a whole God was condemning. I see no reason to accept the former in scripture.

2) Yes i think that sex is an act of love. Biblically speaking it would be the symbolism of a male and a female becoming one in spirit after being married of course. I would almost say that could be a baptism for marriage. (another topic)

Therefore, if sex is an act of love, surely any two beings that love one another (ruling out animals), where the union is maturely consensted (ruling out children) and not incestuous (as this almost always causes health problems in any offspring that are not an illness to be cured) is acceptable to God?

Is the love between two males or females different to that between a man and a woman? Evidence please.

If love is the basis of God's sanctioned sexual relationships then it is wrong and illogical to say that a gay sexual relationship is less valid than a heterosexual one.

First of all, since you are a moderator please do not smite me for challenging your thoughts or something. It is true that the Bible does not contain a list of what is okay, but what is okay to void from the old testament can be rationalized for the most part. If it cannot be rationalized then the apostles went back and said it was ok. Ex pork. Some of the things from the Old Testament still stand like the 10 Commandments. Homosexuality like the rules of fornicating with animals, mother, ect... still stand. There really is no reason in the New Testament that would repeal the act of homosexuality. The Old Testament compares homosexuality with the act of fornicating with animals. I am pretty sure that Jesus would frown upon anybody fornicating with their pets.

Yes, the Bible does put these together, but this was

On a seperate note, not all of my points have been adressed.
1) the New Testament 1 Cor 6:9-10

I have addressed this.

2) defying God's design

God's design? Haha, don't try and win this with a design argument, the almighty wiki will invariably smite thee:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Academic_study
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

And I quote:

The modern scientific and medical consensus is that biological factors — whether genetic or acquired in utero — produce characteristically homosexual childhood experiences (such as atypical gender behaviour experiences), or at the least significantly contribute to them.

In other words, homosexuality results of biological, rather than social factors. Therefore, homosexuals are born, not made.

Furthermore, animals practice homosexuality.

If homosexuality isn't part of God's design, how do you explain these facts?

3) self-moral destruction

Please specify what this is.

4) (if i find another argument)

If you do, please share

i am a woman who was born in the u.s. so why would i be circimsised?

I do apologise, I assumed you were male. Forgive me But what is your view of male circumcision?

all holy books were set down not just for a mode of religious practice, they were also set down as a mode for the ideal society. one that would stand the test of time, however, man is lazy and becomes board and decides that he don't like this or that so sets out to change what he refuses to follow and keeps what he thinks is worth following. this not only destroys the religion itself, it also destroys the society.

Right. So you approve of stoning your children to death if they are disobedient? If you married a man who was abusive, would you be okay with being kept married to him?

The central principles (i.e. the gifts of the spirit, the golden rule) of the Bible is eternal, but the rules discerned from these principles are dependant upon situation.

adoption was something that was never ment to be because it tends to breed irresponisible sex. we are supose to accept our lot in life. if someone cannot have children, it should be accepted. i feel for someone who cannot produce a child, but perhaps there is a reason for it. perhaps the said person/couple was destined for something else in life?

Are you able to have children?

you see no logical arguement for it because perhaps you don't take the time to look around with fresh eyes. ten years ago i would have agreed with you. i realize now that there are levels of perversion, and i see what it does to family and society as a whole. i don't see this from a religious view, i see it from a social view. like the wise man once said, "when society is morally corupt, that society will soon crumble."

But homosexuality isn't necissarily a corrupting force. It's merely an orientation. Promiscuous sex in any situation, homosexual or heterosexual, is a terrible thing.

Explain to me why monogamous, integrated homosexual couples destroy society? If my eyes are closed, then open them. Reveal to me this impressive piece of revelation that has been shown to you.

agian, seriously i am not circumcised.

I should hope not.

 

[Fluffy]

First of all, since you are a moderator please do not smite me for challenging your thoughts or something. It is true that the Bible does not contain a list of what is okay, but what is okay to void from the old testament can be rationalized for the most part. If it cannot be rationalized then the apostles went back and said it was ok. Ex pork. Some of the things from the Old Testament still stand like the 10 Commandments. Homosexuality like the rules of fornicating with animals, mother, ect... still stand. There really is no reason in the New Testament that would repeal the act of homosexuality. The Old Testament compares homosexuality with the act of fornicating with animals. I am pretty sure that Jesus would frown upon anybody fornicating with their pets.

Don't worry no smiting required. I am fairly comfortable around people who believe homosexuality to be a sin due to scripture... I just totally disagree with them .

Analysing Biblical scripture, even on such a limited topic as homosexuality is a very timely exercise and, whilst I have done so in the past, my view on this particular topic can essentially be summed up on another site and far better than I could ever express. You can find my view of Cor 6:9-10 here.

 

[gnostic]

It is strange to have a law against incest in the Bible, considering that many of the patriarchs before Moses' time were the result of incestuous marriage. Even Moses himself is the result of incest. His father Amram had married Moses' mother Jochebed, who happened to be Amram's father's sister.

 

[wmam]

It is strange to have a law against incest in the Bible, considering that many of the patriarchs before Moses' time were the result of incestuous marriage. Even Moses himself is the result of incest. His father Amram had married Moses' mother Jochebed, who happened to be Amram's father's sister.

So when did this..........

Lev 18:12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.

........become effective? Before or after the fact?

 

[gnostic]

Well, it would have to before the fact or before the law was in place.

Nevertheless, Moses' birth is the result of marriage between nephew and aunt. Incest is incest, regardless if it is between uncle and niece, aunt and nephew. There is a strange law among the Trobrianders, where it prohibited sex between mother and son, but allowed sex between father and daughter.

In the case, of the US, marriage between cousins are illegal in some states, but legal in others. Even secular laws have problem in giving clear definition of illegality of incest.

Before Moses' introduction of the law, there were no laws that prohibited incest. The question is why put restriction on incest, when the building block of Moses' ancestors were based on incest?

 

[wmam]

Well, it would have to before the fact or before the law was in place.

Nevertheless, Moses' birth is the result of marriage between nephew and aunt. Incest is incest, regardless if it is between uncle and niece, aunt and nephew. There is a strange law among the Trobrianders, where it prohibited sex between mother and son, but allowed sex between father and daughter.

In the case, of the US, marriage between cousins are illegal in some states, but legal in others. Even secular laws have problem in giving clear definition of illegality of incest.

Before Moses' introduction of the law, there were no laws that prohibited incest. The question is why put restriction on incest, when the building block of Moses' ancestors were based on incest?

My question is ............ what tells you that it is a sin? How would you know anything was a sin without first being made aware by some means?

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Though we know that sin still was there even though we did not know of it........

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Now your question is why make a law against incest?

I say that there has always been the law, but not all knew of it. Ignorance of the law is a defense when it comes to the Most High. If you didn't know then you couldn't have done sin presumpteously..........

Num 15:30 But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth YAH; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Why do I say that there has always been the law? Well if you want to pin point one law it might be hard but in the case of Yosĕph and Potiphar's wife.........

Gen 39:9 There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against Elohim?

How could it be a sin to sleep with another man's wife if the law of adultery had not been in effect until the time of Mosheh? We have to understand that He is the potter and we are but the clay here. He can do, and does, as He wishes with His own creations. What we think or feel is of no consequence when it comes to His will. What we look at as a sin may or may not be so with Him. We have to look with understanding of a pure heart to see His will in that which is written. Law had to be apart of the world prior to Mosheh. Here is a good example.......

Lev 18:24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:

Lev 18:25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

Lev 18:26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:

Lev 18:27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled

Lev 18:28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.

Lev 18:29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

Why would the land "vomiteth out" its people and the people be "spued out" of the land if there was no law? I mean the law was given to those that were going into the land in which the land, by law of sin, was vomiting. How can the land be defiled if there was no law?

Things that make me go "Hmmmmmmmmm".

 

[Deut 13:1]

Please indicate how you got "you agree homosexuality is a sin" from "It doesn't. That does not invalidate the argument, however. It just means that you happen to be immune to it."

Well the entire argument that your friends are putting forward is that homosexuality isn't a sin because eating shellfish isn't a sin. And since you just said the argument doesn't apply to me, I assume that eating shellfish is still a sin and thus, homosexual acts are still a sin.

Let me put it another way. All you have demonstrated is that we cannot condemn somebody for hypocrisy if he is not a hypocrite which is not one of the most enlightening revelations. The fact remains that many people will quote passages from Leviticus or Deuteronomy attacking homosexuality whilst happily ignoring all of the surrounding commandments. This is hypocrisy and so the argument applies to them.

Nice speech, this has to do with me how???

The Bible does not contain a comprehensive list of what is okay. Why does homosexuality require one?

The Torah is very clear on what is moral and immoral.

The Noahide Laws are interpreted differently by different people. Gilui Arayot is not always thought to include homosexuality. Besides, it certainly makes no mention of female homosexuality.

Since when is Gilui Arayot not throught to include homosexuality in Torah???

 

[Fluffy]

Well the entire argument that your friends are putting forward is that homosexuality isn't a sin because eating shellfish isn't a sin. And since you just said the argument doesn't apply to me, I assume that eating shellfish is still a sin and thus, homosexual acts are still a sin.

The argument goes as follows. There are a number of commandments in the Bible. Some people pick and choose commandments and only pick what suits them. However, if any of the commandments can be discarded, then there appears to be no reason why all of them cannot be discarded.

If you follow all the commandments then you avoid this argument. However, such a course is unacceptable to many Christians and therefore, they are forced to find and alternative way around.

However, that does not therefore make homosexuality a sin since that would be denying the antecedent.

Nice speech, this has to do with me how???

It doesn't necessarily need to have anything to do with you. The fact that it is a legitimate criticism of Biblical scholarship still stands.

The Torah is very clear on what is moral and immoral.

That may be the case. Perhaps we can look at that indepth on another thread? Either way, I disagree with you.

Since when is Gilui Arayot not throught to include homosexuality in Torah???

Look at it in an objective source such as wikipedia and you will find a lot of interpretations that do not include homosexuality. However, they all (as far as I can see) include sex outside marriage (which would include homosexuality in most countries).

 

[Arrow]

New International Version. Also, you still have not addressed the main issue - whether it was Helleno-Roman homosexuality or homosexuality as a whole God was condemning. I see no reason to accept the former in scripture.

I must of missed this. Can you explain?

Therefore, if sex is an act of love, surely any two beings that love one another (ruling out animals), where the union is maturely consensted (ruling out children) and not incestuous (as this almost always causes health problems in any offspring that are not an illness to be cured) is acceptable to God?

Is the love between two males or females different to that between a man and a woman? Evidence please.

If love is the basis of God's sanctioned sexual relationships then it is wrong and illogical to say that a gay sexual relationship is less valid than a heterosexual one.

Can a man love another man the way that a male and female can each other? This would be a loop hole argument where both of us have no evidence to back this up. The point is null because there is no way to prove either point.

Yes, the Bible does put these together, but this was

I think you got cut off.

I have addressed this.

You did and i meant to say that you did. It must of been one of those things where i thought i put it down but never actually did.

God's design? Haha, don't try and win this with a design argument, the almighty wiki will invariably smite thee:-

Furthermore, animals practice homosexuality.

If homosexuality isn't part of God's design, how do you explain these facts?

(Please do not bring animals into this. If you really want me to respond to it, i will, but please.)

Cleptomaniacs, Alchoholic children, crack babies, ect...
These people all have a medical illness that would make them want to steal, drink, do drugs, ect... Is stealing wrong for a cleptomaniac? I understand that some people are born with or at least come into effect at youth.
My point is, what would make homosexuality different?
My point in that it is not part of God's plan is this:
1) The Bible continually mention husband and wife. Example: Eph 5:31 For this cause473, 5127 shall a man444 leave2641 his848 father3962 and2532 mother,3384 and2532 shall be joined4347 unto4314 his848 wife,1135 and2532 they two1417 shall be2071 one3391 flesh.4561
2) The act of homosexuality is even likened to that of beastiality.
3) Until i get clarification: 1 Cor 6: 9-10
4) There is a reason why God created both male and female. A general study of Genesis would say that Adam was missing something even though it appeared that he had it all. God did not create for Adam another male, but a female. Eve was in a sense a part of Adam. (Warning: CONTROVERSAL) Biblically speaking, Adam and Eve had a connection that could not be duplicated by any male to male or female to female relationship.
5) (This gets into my point of self-moral destruction) Eph 5:22 Wives,1135 submit yourselves5293 unto your own2398 husbands,435 as5613 unto the3588 Lord.2962Eph 5:23 For3754 the3588 husband435 is2076 the head2776 of the3588 wife,1135 even2532 as5613 Christ5547 is the head2776 of the3588 church:1577 and2532 he846 is2076 the savior4990 of the3588 body.4983
I understand that this point as well is controversal, but it is what it is i guess. Anyway, going with the assumption that you believe that the Bible spells out different rolls for males and females, i make my point. If two men are joined together, then who is to be submissive if both were meant to lead? If two females are joined together, then who is to lead if they both were meant to be submissive?
Wow this is long.

 

[Arrow]

Fluffy, i went to the religious tolerance website and found it very interesting. I still believe what i believe much like you believe what you believe, but i found the article insightful.
Thanks
Arrow

 

[Booko]

adoption was something that was never ment to be because it tends to breed irresponisible sex. we are supose to accept our lot in life. if someone cannot have children, it should be accepted. i feel for someone who cannot produce a child, but perhaps there is a reason for it. perhaps the said person/couple was destined for something else in life?

My dear, I happen to be adopted, and believe me, you don't even want to know what I think of what you wrote here.

 

[Booko]

mysticals

you make a good point, you really do, however, adoption is a practice that a birthparent (usually single) does in the hopes of giving the child a better life, or just plain didn't want to have the child in the first place. either way, if one is not ready to have children or does not want to have children, than there are ways to avoid this from happening in the first place, right?

Wrong.

None of the birth control methods available today are 100% effective.

And there are perfectly valid reasons why married couples have children they are unable to raise themselves.

i believe that when one has a child, that both who made it are obligated to take care of it. this is the right thing to do.

You should do a little more research into why some people put their children up for adoption before you some to such firm conclusions.

in this day and age, if one wants to mess around, which is fine, but they have to be responisible while doing this. i am living proof that birth control works and it is free/or costs next to nothing for those who cannot aford it.

1. I am living proof that birth control does NOT work 100%. Using the most effective means there is correctly, well, go ahead and see the pix of my kids in the gallery here. It wasn't a problem for us to raise them, fortunately -- they just came a bit unexpectedly is all.

2. Birth control is NOT free or even available in much of this country, because thanks to certain religious busybodies who are too worried about what others are up to in their bedrooms. They have made sure that access to birth control is limited in rural areas and not to the poorest among us. They have also succeeded in large part in ensuring that those most likely to produce children out of wedlock are the most ignorant about the entire subject of birth control and sex.

there is also the option of getting fixed, or keeping it in the pants is another option. the problem is, lots of people don't do these things and this is why there are so many unwanted children out there. and saddly, there are older children who no one wants because they want babies instead. this shows that adoption does breed irresponisible sex, etc. saddly these are throw away children who in most cases will never be adopted. think for a minute how growing up like this would effect the mind of this child and how they would feel all their lives.

Yes, you're absolutely right.

I would rather that my birth parents just never had me at all.

:sarcastic

EDIT: Oops, this is terribly off the OP, but if anyone wants to pursue it, I can split it off into another topic...