Leviticus and Homosexuality

[Sonofason]

Where do you come by that belief? Can you point to a credible source for such a belief?

I am not prepared to give an answer here as I am not very certain that my position is correct. I am inclined to believe what I believe. I don't know the source of this inclination. Perhaps it comes from observing nature, I don't know.

 

[Sonofason]

Boy. You do a good job of making your religion look nasty.

God tweaks our DNA to make us worse? No going back? I don't understand how anybody could prefer to believe in this sort of thing. I certainly can't. It is just not possible for me.

Tom

The potter forms the clay for His own purposes.
If it be that you are not satisfied with this answer, then by all means, repent.

 

[Sonofason]

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.

Homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament as well. So, it is clear to me at least with regard to this particular subject that God's laws remains in tact.

You suggest that the Bible is true in some places, but not in others. I disagree. I believe the Bible is ALL True, and the Law is intact.

 

[Sonofason]

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.

It is as if you are saying that because Jesus lived, everyone will be saved. I do not believe that is the case. Jesus isn't saving everyone. He has given everyone a means of salvation. Everyone who believes in Him and abides in Him shall be saved. Who else will be saved, law breakers who have not Christ? I don't think so.

 

[Sonofason]

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

The grace of God is in Christ. Without Christ it is black and white.

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

Well, I read my Bible of course, and I believe it.

 

[Sonofason]

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.

Lives are often destroyed by persons who only "party once in a while". Considering white as being the color associated with being in perfect harmony with God, and black as being completely and utterly disassociated with God, why would you desire to allow for shades of grey?

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.

Homosexual desires are sinful. Homosexual acts are sin. And so I cannot condone either for the sake of greater "connectedness" with the world around me. Such connectedness serves me no purpose.

 

[Sonofason]

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

Shades of gray

 

[Sonofason]

False. The guy who wrote Leviticus condemned the acts -- and that's OK, provided that we all understand that this is no longer ancient Israel, the culture climate is completely different, and we know a lot more about the human psyche than the writer did.

On what basis do you believe you have greater knowledge about the human psyche than the writer of Leviticus, or even perhaps God?

 

[Sonofason]

My point, Beloved, is that our concept of God has changed, which puts us, theologically, in different positions in relationship to God, as those concepts have evolved. That evolution is largely due to cultural shifts and progress in scientific knowledge. IOW, we view God differently as our cultural perspective shifts. That indicates that what we perceive as God's messages to us, and God's directives to us, change as we change. Therefore, we now discount the directives for slaves to be "good slaves," because we no longer perceive that God tolerates slavery, as we once did. We also have discounted Jesus' assertion that he came "only for Israel," as the Church has become almost entirely Gentile. We have also discounted the literal 6-day creation myth as a viable, scientific explanation for the creation of the world, now that we know more about the age of the earth, the development of species, and the big bang.

Likewise, I think we can discount the injunctions agains homosexual behavior, now that we know homosexuality to be a normal, healthy, human sexual identity.

Perhaps your perspective of God has shifted, but mine has not. Perhaps you have changed your perspective towards God, because you'd like God to fit into your world view. But you cannot say that mine has shifted. You are assuming too much here.

I personally am not against the idea of slavery. I am of course against stealing people from their homelands and turning them in to slaves that ought to be beaten for lack of performance. But slavery is indeed a good means of relinquishing debt, so long as the principles of God are adhered to. But if you are to be a slave, then by all means, you should be a good slave.

Actually, it was not Israel that Jesus came for, it was the lost sheep of Israel that He came for.

I have certainly not discounted the truth that the heavens and the earth were created in six literal days. After all, by definition, a day literally means, "a time of light", not necessarily a 24 hour time period as you are supposing.

Can you tell me what the Big Bang emitted? Let me tell you, it was light.

God said, Let there be light. And by God, there was light.

 

[Sonofason]

One of the things I notice consistently in Christian groups is the ability to decide which parts of the Bible are the important ones. It isn't just you, the number of divorcees who claim my marriage is an abomination is enormous. Or Jesus brought a new covenant so Leviticus no longer applies to Christians, except for the gay parts.

It has convinced me that Christianity is whatever a Christian thinks it is, and has little to do with God.

Tom

Perhaps rather than listening to what people say the Bible says, you let the Bible speak for itself.

 

[Sonofason]

Unfortunately, when one holds the bible to a standard of inscrutability and a standard of absolute, objective truthfulness, that standard is based upon strongly-held personal (and subjective) notions. It removes the possibility of subjecting the texts to the type of critical scrutiny that take under consideration differences of language, and culture that simply do not make an easy translation from an ancient understanding to a post-modern understanding.
First of all, we need to understand that, even though the bible condemns homosexual acts, it does not condemn homosexuality. As I asserted before, the ancients did not understand the homosexual act as a natural expression of a natural orientation. They did not understand that there was such a thing as a homosexual orientation. They thought that all people were oriented toward the opposite sex, so, of course any homosexual act would be considered to be "unnatural." Today, our medical experts know differently. The bible cannot condemn what it does not know exists.

Second, you need to understand that, since God didn't write the texts, it's not really purely "God's standards" that we're dealing with here. We're dealing with God's standards as understood through the cultural. lingual, and educational filters of the writers. Therefore, those "standards" are highly-biased by what the writers think and understand.

Third, when we hold the standards of the bible in stasis, not making allowances for scientific understanding or cultural differences, the texts very quickly become irrelevant -- and even harmful! Case in point, people of the 18th and 19th (and even 20th) centuries used the biblical texts to justify slavery and discrimination against blacks. You see, it's not simply a matter of "what the bible says." It's a matter of "what the bible says in light of what we understand as reasonable."

With regard to your last 3 sentences, I find it admirable that you find hate deplorable, but you need to understand that "disagreeing with homosexuality" is fine, so long as a judgment -- especially a judgment made upon rather arbitrary biblical standards" -- does not enter the picture, since, as i've shown, the texts are not nearly as absolute on the subject as many of us have been taught to think. Holding people to arbitrary standards based upon ancient scientific and cultural understanding is an opinion -- and it's ultimately a hateful one, because it does not allow for the validity of the other person's values, assuming that yours are superior.

Again, before you begin teaching and preaching, IMO, you (and the rest of us) would benefit from your further education in this area.

Honestly, I wish you would use your pronouns properly. Please stop including me in your conclusions about what you have concluded.

 

[Sonofason]

Human beings wrote the bible. Who else could have? We're the only species that reads and writes. To assume that God wrote the texts is patently absurd.

But to believe that God inspired every word of the text is not patently absurd.

 

[serp777]

Maybe it's just that the bible was written by ignorant peasants in bronze age palestine, and all those authors had biases, which were reflected in their writing. It's good evidence that the bible is not anything remotely close to the word of God.

 

[Sonofason]

Maybe it's just that the bible was written by ignorant peasants in bronze age palestine, and all those authors had biases, which were reflected in their writing. It's good evidence that the bible is not anything remotely close to the word of God.

Ignorance is nothing new to the human race. It is highly doubtful that people alive during the Bronze age were any more ignorant than most people today.

Ignorance is a human quality. It changes very little over time. There is nothing new under the sun, human ignorance included.

 

[serp777]

Ignorance is nothing new to the human race. It is highly doubtful that people alive during the Bronze age were any more ignorant than most people today.

Ignorance is a human quality. It changes very little over time. There is nothing new under the sun, human ignorance included.

Well i'm inclined to agree on average, which is why we still have religion.

LOL, sorry just needed to throw that quip in there.

But seriously, at least today we know that the earth orbits the sun, evolution lead to the diversity of species, natural disasters are not a result of vengeance from an angry God, homosexuality is common in mammalian species, etc.

There are many things bronze age peasants obviously did not know that we now know. To say that humans haven't made any progress on ignorance is a pretty big assertion.

 

[Sonofason]

Well i'm inclined to agree on average, which is why we still have religion.

LOL, sorry just needed to throw that quip in there.

But seriously, at least today we know that the earth orbits the sun, evolution lead to the diversity of species, natural disasters are not a result of vengeance from an angry God, homosexuality is common in mammalian species, etc.

There are many things bronze age peasants obviously did not know that we now know. To say that humans haven't made any progress on ignorance is a pretty big assertion.

Yeah, to me it's ignorance to think that any of this stuff you mention even matters at all.

 

[serp777]

Yeah, to me it's ignorance to think that any of this stuff you mention even matters at all.

Then that would reflect your flawed definition of ignorance as well as your conception of what matters and what does not. It matters because knowing more stuff is the criteria from which we judge relative ignorance. If you would like me to grab the definition for you I can do that.

For example, we know that previous religious nonsense, such as those beliefs against homosexuality, are purely out of ignorance for the natural world because all mammalian species participate in homosexual behavior.

Surely, if God did not like homosexuality, as opposed to being indifferent, he wouldn't have made all mammals homosexual.

 

[columbus]

Perhaps rather than listening to what people say the Bible says, you let the Bible speak for itself.

Maybe I need a sig line stating "I have read the Bible. That's why I believe it is mostly fiction"

You believe what you think it says, Sojourner believes something else, St Frank believes something else again, etc etc.

But I have read it for myself and what God told me while I read It was "Don't take religionists too seriously. They don't know anything you don't know."

Tom

 

[sojourner]

I asked who! Not if it was God or humans bro.

With the exception of some of the electors attributed to Paul, the texts are anonymous.

 

[sojourner]

Let me bring your attention to John 3:18-21
"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."

But instead of admitting that homosexuality is sin, as the Word of God proclaims, homosexuals tickle their ears with the notion that they were born to be homosexual, that it must have been God's will, which it is not necessarily the case. Instead, they deny the truth of God, and replace it with a lie, bringing condemnation upon their own heads.

You don't need to "bring my attention" to any biblical texts. I've spent the last few years studying them professionally.

Homosexuality need not be "admitted" as a sin, since it isn't a sin. The texts don't mention homosexuality At. All. These people simply believe the data provided by our psychiatric experts, who assert that homosexuality is a normal and healthy sexual orientation.

If it be true that God causes men to be homosexual, then that should frighten all of us. For if God preordains a man to be homosexual, then it is as if God creates this for the purpose of inevitable destruction, which is not an absurd idea.

I don't think "God causes" people to be homosexual. I simply think that's the way human nature is.