Leviticus and Homosexuality

[sojourner]

I am being serious, what other context could the above be interpreted other than Yahweh finds homosexual acts so detestable that he makes a law with punishment being death?

saint_frankenstein I am not against gays but am dumbfounded that you would try to make Christianity conform to practicing homosexuals.

See my post above for the answer to your first question.

I'm equally dumbfounded that you would try to make Xy conform to your idea of what it "ought" to be. In fact, the gospels have Jesus weigh religious tradition against the good of individuals all the time. The disciples performed work on the Sabbath, plucking grain. And Jesus asserted that the Sabbath was made for humanity -- not humanity for the Sabbath, clearly establishing where the priority lies in this case. If human beings are harmed by the religious tradition, then it's time for that tradition to change.

 

[sojourner]

That loooooooooooong stretch of a interpretation still doesn't work. Read it again.

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."

The primary person being referred too here is the dominant one or penetrator, not the submissive or penetratee.

I think, though, that what you may be failing to understand is that in order for a man "give it to a man" as he would a woman, is for that man to act shamefully. It's the same cultural reason that dictates that a man may not slap one of inferior social status with the right hand.

You see, this isn't a moral injunction; it's a cultural honor/shame paradigm.

 

[sojourner]

Either the Bible is divinely inspired by God or it isn't.
It's either true or it isn't.

If it is divinely inspired and God left out something important, then shame on Him.

And if it is divinely inspired, do you really think God would leave out something so important?

If it isn't divinely inspired, then who cares what it says? In such a case, it's just another book of subjective opinions of men.

I don't think you're giving the texts or their authors full credit here. The texts simply aren't that black-and-white. It's just not an "either/or" proposition as you suppose here.

The bible is true in places, and not in others. None of that has any bearing on whether the texts are divinely-inspired.

In fact, the bible is a collection of rather subjective opinions, but I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water and say that it's "just another" anything, based on that criterion. The bible is subjective opinion, but it's cultural opinion that is an aggregate of many people over an extremely long period of time, and across several cultural mythologies. I think that lends a lot of weight to those opinions that we have to take seriously, yes, but not necessarily as intractable LAW.

 

[sojourner]

According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said, "...until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Or is this just a flawed statement by a flawed man named Matthew, who got it all wrong?

Again, you're coming at this, I think, from a stance of "all-or-nothing." The Mosaic Law is for Jews. Those who are not Jews, have no need to keep the Law, because the Law has been fulfilled in Jesus. That's precisely why the early church decided that Gentiles need not be circumcised.

You may need to be reminded how it's also recorded that Jesus allowed the disciples to pluck grain on the Sabbath -- and, Jesus, himself, did work on the Sabbath when he healed people. The point is that the Law is not immutable.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, but only for those who abide in Him.

Homosexuality is sin.
Drunkenness is sin.
Murder is sin.

If you abide in Christ you will be turning away from such acts.
And you will be forgiven for these acts.

But if you do not abide in Him, you will be condemned by that sin.

You appear to have a singularly black-and-white approach to religion that simply does not allow for grace.

I'd really like to see exactly how you came to the conclusion that "homosexuality is sin."

 

[sojourner]

You must abandon modern definitions. A homosexual engages in sodomy. A homosexual lies down with a man as if he were a woman.

I had said drunkenness. And a person who is drunk has abused alcohol, has lost control and is indeed a danger to others.

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

I think you're conflating some things here. "Drunkenness" does not always = "drunkard." There's a VAST difference between someone who parties once in a while and someone who's life is being ruined by alcoholism.

Second, not all homosexuals engage in "sodomy." The act does not define the orientation. You may find that a more subtle approach will create room for greater connectedness with the world around you.

 

[sojourner]

The Greek uses the word ἀρσενοκοῖτα, which when transliterated reads arsenokoites, which is defined by Strong's Concordance as "a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity

Again, even the Greek term =/= "homosexual." You're conflating the action with the orientation.

 

[sojourner]

Boy am I glad I'm not a Christian trying to convince myself that the Bible doesn't order my summary execution.

Tom

Why would you think it does??

Surely, you're aware that, even for the Jews, the OT Law was neither the sum total of Judaic law, nor was it the only source of law. From the beginning, there was always commentary and interpretation to mitigate what was written in the texts. It's just not responsible behavior to make such assumptions and publish such opinions about the biblical texts, when you don't have the full story. You're selling your own cognitive reasoning short here.

 

[sojourner]

I'm telling you. Listening to saint_frankenstien tell himself he can be a practicing homosexual Christian reminds me of skit from the Chappelle Show. The premise was he played a blind black Klansman but didn't know he was black....

Hmmm...
I'm not aware of one's sexual orientation being a disqualification for following Jesus. I'd really be interested in seeing how you come to that conclusion.


Or are you simply being unnecessarily snarky for your own entertainment?

 

[sojourner]

Men in bed together. That is homosexuality.

No. it isn't. Not even remotely. No wonder you can afford to take such a black-and-white, all-or-nothing approach to religion and human sexuality. You don't respect people.

I say that because the attitude you show in the quoted sentence is woefully shallow and uninformed. People are simply more complex than your attitude allows for. That's disrespectful of people to assume that they're as two-dimensional as you seem to feel they are.

 

[sojourner]

Men in bed together is an implication of sodomy, is it not?

No. It's not.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, I was taught to be straight

Sooo...
You're really naturally gay, and had to be taught to be straight?

 

[sojourner]

The topic of this thread was homosexuality, not lesbianism.

AFAIK, lesbianism is homosexuality...

 

[columbus]

Sooo...
You're really naturally gay, and had to be taught to be straight?

I laughed at that part too. None of the straight guys I know had to be taught that boobs were enticing. It just happened.
Tom

 

[sojourner]

I laughed at that part too. None of the straight guys I know had to be taught that boobs were enticing. It just happened.
Tom

Unless they were really gay, I suppose...

I'm really, really sick of the rampant and overblown entitlement I see going on in today's conservative Christianity.

 

[McNap]

Anyway, what ever the twist is, if a man lies with another man, the way lies with a woman it is an abomination.

But gay boys don't want to sleep with girls. They don't even like to touch girls.



You didn't answer my question.

I said:

And what if a man sleeps with another man, while he never slept with a woman yet?

Is that an abomination or no abomination according to you?

 

[firedragon]

But gay boys don't want to sleep with girls. They don't even like to touch girls.



You didn't answer my question.

I said:



Is that an abomination or no abomination according to you?

Nope McNap. According to the bible.

 

[sojourner]

Nope McNap. According to the bible.

Guess what? The bible is wrong on that point for this time and place, just as the creation myth is scientifically WRONG. We know more about the cosmos and about the human psyche than the biblical writers did.

 

[firedragon]

Guess what? The bible is wrong on that point for this time and place, just as the creation myth is scientifically WRONG. We know more about the cosmos and about the human psyche than the biblical writers did.

Thats alright brother. My point was not to say it is correct or wrong of the bible, just that the it was according to the bible. Thats all.

Peace.

 

[sojourner]

Thats alright brother. My point was not to say it is correct or wrong of the bible, just that the it was according to the bible. Thats all.

Peace.

Sure. But "according to the bible" isn't so cut-and-dried. "The bible" has no sense or meaning of its own, except that which is put into it and gleaned out of it. Therefore, "according to the bible" doesn't really mean anything. It would be more correct -- and more helpful -- to say, "according to the opinion of the writer of Leviticus..."