HOMOSEXUALITY: What the Bible Does & Does Not Say

[njcl]

i hear elton john is getting married this year..............hmmmmmmm

 

[nbtb]

a response to the first thread,
LEVITICUS 18:22 & 20:13

Christians today do not follow the rules and rituals described in Leviticus. But some ignore its definitions of their own "uncleanness" while quoting Leviticus to condemn "homosexuals." Such abuse of Scripture distorts the Old Testament
meaning and denies a New Testament message. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." These words occur solely in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel's priests. Their meaning can only be fully appreciated in the historical and cultural context of the ancient Hebrew people. Israel, in a unique place as the chose people of one God, was to avoid the practices of other peoples and gods.

Hebrew religion, characterized by the revelation of one God, stood in continuous tension with the religion of the surrounding Canaanites who worshipped the multiple gods of fertility cults. Canaanite idol worship, which featured female and male cult prostitution as noted in Deuteronomy 23:17, repeatedly compromised Israel's loyalty to God. The Hebrew word for a male cult prostitute, qadesh, is mistranslated "sodomite" in some versions of the Bible.

What is an "Abomination"?
An abomination is that which God found detestable because it was unclean, disloyal, or unjust. Several Hebrew words were so translated, and the one found in Leviticus, toevah, is usually associated with idolatry, as in Ezekiel, where it occurs numerous times. Given the strong association of toevah with idolatry and the canaanite religious practice of cult prostitution, the use of toevah regarding male same-sex acts in Leviticus calls into question any conclusion that such condemnation also applies to loving, responsible homosexual relationships.

How can the use of toevah show that Leviticus had only male cult prostitution in mind? If this were so wouldn't the term itself "qadesh" be used, instead of the arsen the hebrew term for male?

 

[njcl]

i suggest you read pauls epistles

 

[Mister Emu]

Greetings nbtb, and welcome to the forums,

These words occur solely in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel's priests.

Where does this idea stem from. My OT says

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying Speak unton the children of Israel, and say unto them,Iam the LORD your God

in Ch. 18

and

And the Lord spake unto Moses, syaing, again, thou shalt say unto the children of Israel...

in Ch. 20

I just don't see where one gets it. If someone could point it out to me I would be highly appreciative.

 

[nbtb]

i suggest you read pauls epistles

sorry, new here. I assume this was a response to my question? I have read Paul's epistles and this is exactly why I ask the question? If there is a connection between Paul speaking out against homosexual temple prostituion and the commands in the holiness codes of leviticus, why wouldn't the hebrew word qadesh be used in leviticus instead of the term zakar which means male?
and sorry it was late last night and I used the word arsen which is from the LLX. oops.
thanks for your patience.

 

[Mister Emu]

nbtb,

Paul does not just speak out about prostitution. He calls the act of homosexual intercourse un-natural Rom 1:27. He also says that "abusers of themselves with mankind" are "unrighteous" and "shall not inherit the Kingdom of God".

 

[njcl]

NBtB ...sorry not much of a welcome from me but didnt know you was new.......peace

 

[chlotilde]

ROMANS 1:24-27

What is "Natural"?
Significant to Paul's discussion is the fact that these "unclean" Gentiles exchanged that which was "natural" for them, physin, in the Greek text, for something "unnatural," para physin. In Romans 11:24, God acts in an "unnatural" way, para physin, to accept the Gentiles. "Unnatural" in these passages does not refer to violation of so-called laws of nature, but rather implies action contradicting one's own nature. In view of this, we should observe that it is "unnatural," para physin, for a person today with a lesbian or gay sexual orientation to attempt living a heterosexual lifestyle.

So when Paul calls homosexuality unnatural in Romans (irregardless of whether it refers to biological laws or God’s Laws because “laws of nature” is an ambiguous term)…this should really be read as Paul saying that homosexuality is an action contradicting one’s own nature. Although I’d agree, it is in contradiction to what was concluded.



This is a case where, when emotions are involved, people only hear what they want to hear.

 

[KitCloud]

The reference to love was intended to reflect human love for the homosexual commanded by Jesus and unconditional love means an acceptance of that total persona.

I don't think good ever commanded homosexual love. Unless I miss understand your meaning by the part of it.

I was also talking about the nature of God's creation. If he thought is was okay to give the animals homosexuality why do you think that he would not okay the same thing in his greatest animal.

I don't think animals have homosexuale relationships. I do know males will mount another male as a sign of domanice and as far as I know, only Dolphines and I think Octapuses have sex for pleasure. Otherwise it's only for reproduction.

 

[jeffrey]

Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but I thought unconditional love meant... unconditional. As in no conditions. Silly me, eh?

 

[KitCloud]

nbtb,

Paul does not just speak out about prostitution. He calls the act of homosexual intercourse un-natural Rom 1:27. He also says that "abusers of themselves with mankind" are "unrighteous" and "shall not inherit the Kingdom of God".

I believe the phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind" is refering to masterbation.

 

[jeffrey]

as far as I know, only Dolphines and I think Octapuses have sex for pleasure. Otherwise it's only for reproduction.

There is also sex between two people that is called love. The ultimate way to bond with your partner. Why would you want to deny that feeling to anyone? It's one of the greatest feelings on earth. To become one with the one you love.

 

[KitCloud]

I agree that sex is the ultamite expression of love. Which is has been for many years been taught as something to be saved untill you are married. I myself wouldn't want to denie that right to anyone.

Now, as far as the Bible goes it does say in

Lev 20:13
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.

I mean, it can't be cleared then that can it?

 

[Jaymes]

Good thing I'm not a man and Liz isn't a man either.

Many, many animals have homosexual sex and relationships... not just limited to the male animals. Female antelope have been observed mounting and licking each other, along with bonobos and just about every other primate. To say that males mounting other males is purely dominance is a bit silly, since in bighorn sheep the males being mounted have been observed not only not trying to get away, but actually moving to make it easier to be mounted.

 

[KitCloud]

Mmm, I think it goes along with females as well



I've only ever seen it done with felines, they'll holding them down and bite the back on there neck growling as a sign of domance.

But, truth be told. No one will ever know for sure untill the time of judgement. but there is a scripter in the Bible statiing it is a abomination. So that's what I have to go with.

 

[jeffrey]

KC, I'm not a big fan of the O.T. as far as trying to live my life by that. What did Jesus say are the to laws you should follow? Love God, Love everyone else. There is not an exception to that anywhere spoken by Christ. Show me one thing spoken by Christ that states being gay is a sin? God created all men (and women)equally. Christ says love everyone. Judge no one.

 

[Smoke]

The Advent page arguement is that there was no evidence from the whole holy book of Bible that prove inhospitality could bring forth the consequence of destruction of the entire city, but HOMOSEXUALITY, the sin abhored by God, brought wrath to those poor soul of children and women.

Whether it was homosexuality or hospitality, the destruction of the city was decided before it happened.

 

[Smoke]

First off, I don't know exactly what translation of the Bible you are using, so I won't get into that. I personally preffer the NASB. The way it renders Gen. 19:4 is "Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the peolpe from every quarter."
This verse is not trying to state that there were old ladies with canes and babies outside the house causing problems but clearly validates twice that what is meant by "all the people from every quarter" is all "the men of Sodom". Second, with that being noted, this was not even all the men of the "culture" but rather just the city which is very different. But, if you want to go there anyways, you should check out Scandinavia http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

First, The Hebrew word here translated men doesn't mean males exclusively, but humans generally. The word translated people means something like the German word Volk: the people of a certain tribe or area. There is nothing in the Hebrew to indicate that it was a crowd of males.

Second, I don't think anybody here would care to defend the act of gang rape, whether it were heterosexual gang rape or homosexual gang rape.

Third, once again, the destruction of the city was decided before the incident occurred.

It then states in verse 50 "Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before me..." The question then becomes, what exactly were these "abominations"? there are many things that are listed as abominations to God in the Bible.

For sure. In Proverbs we find seven listed together: "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."

 

[Smoke]

A man and a woman are designed to reproduce, when God created Eve, he made her fully capable of reproduction. How do you know that? Gen. 3: 16 , "To the woman He said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." That makes it obvious that God intended for Adam and Eve to reproduce at some point and that the womans desire was intended for her husband.He also instructs Noah to bring two of each species, male and female, and after the flood orders them to reproduce and fill the earth. In Chapter 9: 1 He orders Noah and his sons to, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth." and in verse 7 "As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it." Realize that I am not trying to condemn homosexuals, I have friends who are homosexual myself but I'm asking supporters of homosexuality to look at the facts and judge from a position devoid of passion and love, rather from a position of logic and a desire to find truth. I have listened to your argument so please listen to my very simple but well grounded belief and judge it accordingly. If it's a lie, tell me and give me proof as to why so that I can correct my ways, but if what I say is true, re-evaluate your position and judge for yourself if homosexuality is something God supports.

Two men cannot reproduce, Two women cannot reproduce. A healthy man and a healthy woman can. When a man and a woman create a child, they give glory to God because they create life. God is life. Even in situations such as rape do you believe God frowns on the child? Of course not, a life is a life and God sees every new child as a potential to accomplish something great. So for a man and a woman to create a child whether they do so in love or not, they create another life that has the potential to glorify God and witness for him. Two men who love each other and claim to love God cannot give that glory to him. Two women who love each other and claim to love God cannot give that glory to him. The only justifications for a homosexual relationship are love and pleasure. Rather, the two motivations for marriage is love and sex. Now lets pretend we have the "perfect" homosexual couple. They love each other, love God, and have commited to saving themselves for each other in marriage. How is that wrong? Love can be found anywhere, for instance, all churches can show love, all parents can show love, all friends can show love etc. So the only real reason for a "God fearing homosexual couple" to commit to a homosexual relationship is for pleasure alone since sex is the one form of love that is supposed to only be shared in marriage. Therefore a "homosexual christian" cannot exist because he/she is commited to giving glory and pleasure to him/herself rather than God. The devil wants glory for himself, the devil is concerned with self-pleasure. A homosexual couple exemplifies that aspect of the devils character perfectly then because they are incapable of reproducing, but unlike some males or females who are born incapable of reproducing they make a blatant choice to act out the devils character by refusing to give glory to God when taking part in what is supposed to be the most sacred part of marriage.

You do realize, don't you, that your entire argument applies equally well to infertile heterosexuals and to all heterosexuals who practice contraception?
Do you agree that heterosexual couples should separate after the wife's menopause? Do you agree that infertile people, including post-menopausal women, should not be permitted to marry?

 

[Smoke]

The words of Adam are interesting mainly because they are his own, not God's. And this was pre-downfall era. A time in which Adam held the scepter of power of the world (given to him by God, of course). It was Adam who first declared heterosexualness as an eartly law.

There is nothing of the kind in the text. If one insists on finding a "law" here -- which is a stretch in itself -- it's a law applying to heterosexual marriage. It does not make heterosexual marriage in itself a universal law, and if it had, anyone who failed to marry would be in violation of that law.

I never cease to be amazed at the lengths to which homophobes will go in justifying their prejudice.