Leviticus and Homosexuality

[firedragon]

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..."

Some believe the bible is Gods word. Some believe 40 authors wrote the bible. Some believe 40 authors wrote the bible but were all divinely inspired. Some believe the bible has more than 40 authors with more recently studies. Some believe that the bible was not inspired by God at all.

Whatever you believe you can take it as such. My stance is on the bible. Authorship and other could be discussed if you want but thats upto you.

I could see that you believe some parts of the bible to be human made and they wrote according to their understanding, primitive or superior, while other parts were written under Gods instructions or inspiration. I dont know thats what it seems like. But thats your wish and you have a right to it. A discussion on that is vast and maybe in a new thread.

Peace.

 

[sojourner]

Whatever you believe you can take it as such.

No, you can't, and remain in the realm of reality. The bible has to be taken for what it is -- not for what it is "believed to be."

The bible isn't an entity with its own thoughts, motives, morals. It's a written collection of the thoughts, motives and morals of human beings, with a theological imagination. Therefore, "The Bible" doesn't say anything of its own accord. It only says what the writer intended it to say, and in this particular case, the writer is correct for his own particular cultural context, but not for ours. When you use the term "the bible says," you negate the possibility that different contexts call for different perspectives.

 

[firedragon]

No, you can't, and remain in the realm of reality. The bible has to be taken for what it is -- not for what it is "believed to be."

The bible isn't an entity with its own thoughts, motives, morals. It's a written collection of the thoughts, motives and morals of human beings, with a theological imagination. Therefore, "The Bible" doesn't say anything of its own accord. It only says what the writer intended it to say, and in this particular case, the writer is correct for his own particular cultural context, but not for ours. When you use the term "the bible says," you negate the possibility that different contexts call for different perspectives.

By writer, who do you mean? Do you mean that God never inspired it? Do you mean A prophet wrote it? e.g. Moses supposed to have written Leviticus? or another scribe wrote it but attributed it to the author that is attributed?

 

[sojourner]

By writer, who do you mean? Do you mean that God never inspired it? Do you mean A prophet wrote it? e.g. Moses supposed to have written Leviticus? or another scribe wrote it but attributed it to the author that is attributed?

I mean a human writer -- "inspired" or not. Because even "divine inspiration" is subject to cultural relevancy.

 

[firedragon]

I mean a human writer -- "inspired" or not. Because even "divine inspiration" is subject to cultural relevancy.

Alright, if it was inspired, God was consistent throughout the OT spanning the NT. And then without him inspiring us we decide that it was only for that time?

 

[McBell]

Alright, if it was inspired, God was consistent throughout the OT spanning the NT. And then without him inspiring us we decide that it was only for that time?

What inspiration did the those who compiled the books to be included in the Bible have?
Not to mention those who translated it.
And then those who translated the translations...

 

[firedragon]

What inspiration did the those who compiled the books to be included in the Bible have?
Not to mention those who translated it.
And then those who translated the translations...

I dont know if you are asking me or making a statement.

Anyway, as we all know the "BIBLE" that we currently use (Disputes exist within denominations) was brought together at the council of Nicea in Turkey.

Also as we all know there are no Aramaic books written about Jesus that has been canonised thus we only have the books written Koine Greek. Old Testament has definitely been translated from the hebrew books but the oldest complete manuscripts are in Greek. We dont know who translated from hebrew but we know who translated the translations.

I am only stating these knowing you already know this but since you put that in a question form.

 

[sojourner]

Alright, if it was inspired, God was consistent throughout the OT spanning the NT. And then without him inspiring us we decide that it was only for that time?

Not particularly true. There are several misperceptions in play here, I think. First of all, we're dealing with several cultures over several centuries of time -- biblical writers included. Second, we're dealing with a sort of inspiration that is much less like "word-for-word dictation" and a whole lot more a case of God speaking through the hopes, desires, social morays, and expectations of a given human being in a given context. Third, God also inspires the hearer/reader through the individual's hopes, desires, social morays, and expectations in a given context. Fourth, we have to remember that the texts were not originally texts -- they were oral accounts. Fifth, the bible was not intended to be a cohesive, single account. It was intended to be a written repository of the compendium of oral lore. Sixth (and a corollary to #4), in an oral culture, there is a lot more fluidity in the accounting, and details don't matter as much. As soon, however, as something is written down, it becomes unchangeable. These social injunctions against homosexual behavior were never meant to be intractable.

 

[McBell]

I dont know if you are asking me or making a statement.

Anyway, as we all know the "BIBLE" that we currently use (Disputes exist within denominations) was brought together at the council of Nicea in Turkey.

Also as we all know there are no Aramaic books written about Jesus that has been canonised thus we only have the books written Koine Greek. Old Testament has definitely been translated from the hebrew books but the oldest complete manuscripts are in Greek. We dont know who translated from hebrew but we know who translated the translations.

I am only stating these knowing you already know this but since you put that in a question form.

You forgot to address the meat of my post: Inspiration...

 

[firedragon]

Not particularly true. There are several misperceptions in play here, I think. First of all, we're dealing with several cultures over several centuries of time -- biblical writers included. Second, we're dealing with a sort of inspiration that is much less like "word-for-word dictation" and a whole lot more a case of God speaking through the hopes, desires, social morays, and expectations of a given human being in a given context. Third, God also inspires the hearer/reader through the individual's hopes, desires, social morays, and expectations in a given context. Fourth, we have to remember that the texts were not originally texts -- they were oral accounts. Fifth, the bible was not intended to be a cohesive, single account. It was intended to be a written repository of the compendium of oral lore. Sixth (and a corollary to #4), in an oral culture, there is a lot more fluidity in the accounting, and details don't matter as much. As soon, however, as something is written down, it becomes unchangeable. These social injunctions against homosexual behavior were never meant to be intractable.

See, from my point of view I agree. And I may add that there are more issues or rather buffers between God and the scripture than you have put in the very good summary above.

Anyway I understand your stand point. I dont agree with it either. But if someone says that the bible does not condemn Homosexuality, that is false. The bible does, but we dont take it as law because it was written by people during a different time when cultures were very different. That was your point.

Hope you understand. The bible condemns it. I didnt say that has to be taken literally, but there are those who said that the bible doesnt.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

You forgot to address the meat of my post: Inspiration...

Yes your highness, I shall answer that too.

To me, the bible as a whole was not inspired at all. All 75 books were written by different authors at different times from a third party point of view. It was through orally transmitted information and third party reference.

Peace.

 

[sojourner]

See, from my point of view I agree. And I may add that there are more issues or rather buffers between God and the scripture than you have put in the very good summary above.

Anyway I understand your stand point. I dont agree with it either. But if someone says that the bible does not condemn Homosexuality, that is false. The bible does, but we dont take it as law because it was written by people during a different time when cultures were very different. That was your point.

Hope you understand. The bible condemns it. I didnt say that has to be taken literally, but there are those who said that the bible doesnt.

Peace.

Incorrect. What is condemned is not homosexuality. What is condemned are homosexual acts. For the writer of Leviticus, there is no such notion as "homosexuality." One cannot condemn what does not exist.

 

[firedragon]

Incorrect. What is condemned is not homosexuality. What is condemned are homosexual acts. For the writer of Leviticus, there is no such notion as "homosexuality." One cannot condemn what does not exist.

Alright then. Homosexual acts it is. Still its condemned in the bible.

 

[McBell]

Incorrect. What is condemned is not homosexuality. What is condemned are homosexual acts. For the writer of Leviticus, there is no such notion as "homosexuality." One cannot condemn what does not exist.

What did they call men who preferred men back then?

 

[sojourner]

Alright then. Homosexual acts it is. Still its condemned in the bible.

Yes, they are. Therefore, in light of what we now know about sexual orientation and its healthy expression within human relationships, when we make those sorts of statements, we are compelled to ask, "Why are these acts condemned?"

Most folks do not (or will not) go so far as to investigate. But it presents us with a seeming contradiction that begs investigation. Since human beings cannot be other than we are, and since we know that the texts are not infallible, there must be some explanation that satisfies the integrity of the texts for what they are, and satisfies the integrity of human sexual expression.

That's what we need to explore, rather than contorting our theological sensibilities to utterly condemn a group of fellow human beings for being what God made them to be.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, they are. Therefore, in light of what we now know about sexual orientation and its healthy expression within human relationships, when we make those sorts of statements, we are compelled to ask, "Why are these acts condemned?"

Most folks do not (or will not) go so far as to investigate. But it presents us with a seeming contradiction that begs investigation. Since human beings cannot be other than we are, and since we know that the texts are not infallible, there must be some explanation that satisfies the integrity of the texts for what they are, and satisfies the integrity of human sexual expression.

That's what we need to explore, rather than contorting our theological sensibilities to utterly condemn a group of fellow human beings for being what God made them to be.

Alright. By the way, again I say that I did not condemn any group.

Peace.

 

[CMike]

Some believe the bible is Gods word. Some believe 40 authors wrote the bible. Some believe 40 authors wrote the bible but were all divinely inspired. Some believe the bible has more than 40 authors with more recently studies. Some believe that the bible was not inspired by God at all.

Whatever you believe you can take it as such. My stance is on the bible. Authorship and other could be discussed if you want but thats upto you.

I could see that you believe some parts of the bible to be human made and they wrote according to their understanding, primitive or superior, while other parts were written under Gods instructions or inspiration. I dont know thats what it seems like. But thats your wish and you have a right to it. A discussion on that is vast and maybe in a new thread.

Peace.

Well said.

 

[CMike]

Yes, they are. Therefore, in light of what we now know about sexual orientation and its healthy expression within human relationships, when we make those sorts of statements, we are compelled to ask, "Why are these acts condemned?"

Most folks do not (or will not) go so far as to investigate. But it presents us with a seeming contradiction that begs investigation. Since human beings cannot be other than we are, and since we know that the texts are not infallible, there must be some explanation that satisfies the integrity of the texts for what they are, and satisfies the integrity of human sexual expression.

That's what we need to explore, rather than contorting our theological sensibilities to utterly condemn a group of fellow human beings for being what God made them to be.

I don't accept your premise, that it's healthy.

The acts are condemned because G-D said it was an abomination.

Those were political decisions not medical ones.

 

[sojourner]

I don't accept your premise, that it's healthy.

The acts are condemned because G-D said it was an abomination.

Those were political decisions not medical ones.

Fine, but you don't get to condemn a whole bunch healthy people just because you're biased.

No, the guy who wrote Leviticus says that. And in this culture, it's not.

No, they were medical decisions.

But feel free to keep your head in the sand...

 

[CMike]

Fine, but you don't get to condemn a whole bunch healthy people just because you're biased.

No, the guy who wrote Leviticus says that. And in this culture, it's not.

No, they were medical decisions.

But feel free to keep your head in the sand...

I didn't condemn anyone, G-D condemned the acts.