The Bible and Homosexuality

[Curious George]

games games games

There you go. Games of logic. They are the games we play in order to test the validity of an argument.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

The thread is does the Bible say homosexuality is a sin, not whehter you agree with it.

Start another thread

My question is connected to the OP so don't try and avoid it. What I want to know is what you consider a sin. If homosexuality is a sin because of Leviticus then do you also consider all the other sins in Leviticus to be sinful as well. And if so, is homosexuality a sin of the same magnitude as eating shellfish or wearing clothes of mixed fibers? Why is the sin of homosexuality such a focus for you?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

What about gluttony and disrespectful children?

What about eating shell fish?

I always found that confusing too, Rick. I'd see people holding extremely strong views about sexual purity laws - specifically about homosexuality and ironically not about divorce and remarriage - and yet head out to McD's and order a Super-Sized meal, then out to get ice cream and get an extra large sundae with whipped cream and extra hot fudge. And then they relish in it and talk about how they deserve the treat after a long week of work, or that life is meant to be enjoyed, or that it's a family tradition once a week for fast food and ice cream, or any other justification for filling their bellies with a LOT of fattening, sodium and sugar laden food.

Gluttony never enters the picture for them. And that's just one on the list of sins their God commands them not to engage in.

Not to mention...

Wrath (uncontrolled anger and vigilantism in a lot of speech nowadays in movies, toward our leaders, toward our own families, etc.)

Greed (how much STUFF do we really need to get from Walmart? Excess crap is everywhere)

Envy (I don't hear a lot of sermons about the evils of "keeping up with the Joneses)

Sloth (where's the appreciation and the joy for hard work? Not that it's a chore, but that work elevates the spirit, and that inactivity opens the door to failing to act in defense of the defenseless)

And most of all....

Pride

(where do I begin with THIS? Specifically the sin of pride in assuming one's position with doctrine is THE RIGHT position and in line with God's position)

It's truly depressing, to be honest, watching so many good people fall into the trap of focusing all their intentions toward purity and righteousness by engaging in a battle against GLBTQs, when so much good can be made by channeling all that energy toward atonement, forgiveness, and service to our fellow human beings.

Here's the good news....there are Christian communities that put their focus on opening their doors to the needy, that celebrate life on our planet, and that funnel their resources toward service and generosity. I choose to walk with them.

 

[sojourner]

George said:

Still missing the point I see. Were they talking about promiscuous men screwing around on their wives?
Were they talking about shrine prostitution?
Were they referring to some form of idolatry?

What does the actual language say? How does the cultural context of the message change the message? What is homosexuality? all of these are relevant questions.

To which Allright replied:

games games games

This shows a gross lack of respect for the bible and lack of care for the interpretive process.

 

[fantome profane]

This shows a gross lack of respect for the bible and lack of care for the interpretive process.

Yes it does.

 

[BBTimeless]

George said:

To which Allright replied:

This shows a gross lack of respect for the bible and lack of care for the interpretive process.

I find this to be a common occurrence when an individual comes to the realization their argument is flawed.

 

[waitasec]

I never said that Leviticus was universally applied.

bingo!!!

these laws were for the general assembly of israel. period.
it's what set this group of people apart from the other tribes...their god and their god's laws.
leviticus also says this:

18:26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

29 “‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God. ’”

these laws are to be applied to those adhere to this particular god
the problem here is when these laws are implemented to those that DO NOT follow this particular god, or understand god differently, and those that infringe on the rights of others seem to justify their act of control as a god given right to control other peoples lives.

 

[sojourner]

bingo!!!

these laws were for the general assembly of israel. period.
it's what set this group of people apart from the other tribes...their god and their god's laws.
leviticus also says this:

18:26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

29 “‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God. ’”

these laws are to be applied to those adhere to this particular god
the problem here is when these laws are implemented to those that DO NOT follow this particular god, or understand god differently, and those that infringe on the rights of others seem to justify their act of control as a god given right to control other peoples lives.

Ultimately, I think that's the best, most concise argument against the application of a biblical injunction to American civil and Christian law.

 

[oldbadger]

To Waitasec....... I absolutely loved your earlier inputs, (and all the rest of them!) and not only fell about laughing, but will remember forever. But....... Hell..... there have been times when I would dearly have loved to sell my daughter to some poor unsuspecting buyer! Your input was so valuable for me. All the best, oldbadger.

 

[waitasec]

Is what a double standard? I said being fruitful and multiplying is only ONE of many reasons for marriage. What are you referring to?

Or, are you referring to the fact that guys have the commandment and women don't? If that's the case... There are many commandments that are incumbent on one or the other sex, or other segments of society.

Women aren't commanded to have children because women can die in childbirth or complications with pregnancy. God commanded us "to live by them", i.e. the commandments. So, God didn't command women specifically with a commandment that could potentially kill them.

However, for a guy to try to have children... The process for a guy is not nearly as arduous as pregnancy is. As such, guys have the commandment to be fruitful and multiply.

While women don't have this commandment, it behooves a wife to help her husband fulfill this commandment.

i'm sorry Harmonious, i didn't see this before.

i should have been more clear...this is what i was referring to

is one inescapable factor that guys - and particularly guys, as women don't have the obligation, but it is impossible to fulfill this command without women) - will miss if they insist on a same sex union.

how can both sets be divided. both sets have the inclination of rearing children...both sets can adopt...
it seems as though because men do not have wombs, 2 men shouldn't be given the right to adopt for the same reason barren couples can
especially in this day and age where over population is an issue...this older idea may have had some sort of merit based upon practicality in terms of unifying a group of people...but i don't see how this old idea has any merit for today

 

[Harmonious]

i'm sorry Harmonious, i didn't see this before.

i should have been more clear...this is what i was referring to



how can both sets be divided. both sets have the inclination of rearing children...both sets can adopt...

Yes, both sets CAN adopt. I agree with you.

it seems as though because men do not have wombs, 2 men shouldn't be given the right to adopt for the same reason barren couples can especially in this day and age where over population is an issue...

I said nothing about who may adopt children. I merely pointed out that a couple who can't bear children have the option of adoption.

Where the difficulty is, is that I didn't make clear. Yes, homosexual couples can adopt. That isn't the question. However, they cannot attempt to biologically "be fruitful and multiply." That is one major commandment to attempt. If it was tried and failed, that is one thing. But if it wasn't tried, a guy has not fulfilled his commandment.

Anyone who adopts children into a loving family is meritorious (even though they can't share their tribe with said child). There is all kinds of merit given for teaching children, and raising children. But HAVING children... The commandment to TRY to have children is incumbent on men. If they don't, it is a sin of omission.

That doesn't take away from the merit of adopting children. There is just a different law in play.

 

[Harmonious]

I don't want to dogpile you here, but I have a question.

Wouldn't this law about spilling seed have more to do culturally than morally? What I mean is, when usurpers back then were trying to breed the Jew out, of course it makes sense to inseminate Jewish women with Jewish seed. But what about today, when no such danger exists?

Isn't the law about men lying with men more about the cultural position of shame/honor embodied in the sexes than it is about sexual immorality? And since we harbor no notion here, today, wouldn't the law would be moot?

The problem with your questions is that you seem to be under the assumption that we were given the reasons for the commandments of spilling seed and men not laying with men.

We can guess the reasons. If your reasons were THE reasons, then your reasons for dismissing the commandments make sense.

However, the case is that we DON'T know the reasons. We DO know that Onan, the son of Judah son of Jacob, was killed by God, and the reason given is that Onan spilled his seed.

WHY was this so important, and so egregious in the eyes of the Almighty? I don't know. I DO know that this is one of the reasons the rules of modesty is so very stringent in the Orthodox Jewish community. Do we fear death? No. But God made quite clear that spilling seed outside the vaginal canal of a man's wife is on the serious "Do Not Do This" list.

Why is it so important for a man to not lay with a man as he would lay with a woman? If it were merely cultural, I imagine your reasoning might be correct. However, in Leviticus, it says that if a man would do so, it is an abomination, and if convicted, such a sin is punishable by death in this world, and being Cut Off in the next world.

God didn't explain WHY this is. We just know THAT it is. There are many laws and customs that involve not putting men together in the same bed, even if they are just sleeping, while there is NO restriction on how many women can be in the same bed.

As a matter of fact, there is case law built around the idea of trying to figure out how, when women were sleeping in the same bed, and the women woke up the next morning with bloody sheets, to determine which one was menstrual. (There is obviously more to this case than that, or one could just figure it out when they used the loo and checked for blood.)

Short answer: you are looking for "whys". I can't give you the answers you seek. I can just give you the "what is the law".

 

[InfidelRiot]

it is impossible to fulfill this command without women) - will miss if they insist on a same sex union.

Not necessarily if adoption for homosexual men or invetro for lesbians becomes part of the child-rearing process, especially considering how many unwanted children are already in the system and unable to experience the love of family.

 

[InfidelRiot]

I find this to be a common occurrence when an individual comes to the realization their argument is flawed.

When a religious individual finds it difficult to properly debate in support of his beliefs, that person will usually resort to statements such as "you don't know god or the bible because you're not a believer". It validates the individual's flawed reasoning that s/he is correct and everyone else is wrong.

 

[sojourner]

in Leviticus, it says that if a man would do so, it is an abomination

It's my understanding that the word "abomination" is usually used in conjunction with cultural taboo and not moral terpitude. Is that correct? If so, it would certainly bolster my position.

 

[Harmonious]

Not necessarily if adoption for homosexual men or invetro for lesbians becomes part of the child-rearing process, especially considering how many unwanted children are already in the system and unable to experience the love of family.

HAVING the children and RAISING the children are two different commandments.

Both are commandments.

I imagine that sperm donation and artificial insemination might fill the commandment of being fruitful and multiplying, but it is obvious that same sex couples can't fulfill that commandment with each other.

 

[Harmonious]

It's my understanding that the word "abomination" is usually used in conjunction with cultural taboo and not moral terpitude. Is that correct? If so, it would certainly bolster my position.

It is hard to say.

An "abomination" coupled with a death sentence for transgression is rather more intense than an "abomination" not to eat and touch something, that can be dealt with using time and washing in a ritual bath.

It suggests to me that the one that carries the death sentence involves issues of moral turpitude, while the one that carries a slap on the wrist is a cultural taboo. Both are commandments, and Jews who care about such things will pay attention to avoid both kinds of said "abominations".

And... It has been brought to my attention that "abomination" isn't the correct translation, although the fellow who told me so never told me what the accurate translation IS.

 

[sojourner]

It is hard to say.

An "abomination" coupled with a death sentence for transgression is rather more intense than an "abomination" not to eat and touch something, that can be dealt with using time and washing in a ritual bath.

It suggests to me that the one that carries the death sentence involves issues of moral turpitude, while the one that carries a slap on the wrist is a cultural taboo. Both are commandments, and Jews who care about such things will pay attention to avoid both kinds of said "abominations".

And... It has been brought to my attention that "abomination" isn't the correct translation, although the fellow who told me so never told me what the accurate translation IS.

Thanks for the info. There may jolly well not be a direct translation, as is the case with so much of ancient Hebrew. We end up having to "approximate."

 

[waitasec]

The commandment to TRY to have children is incumbent on men. If they don't, it is a sin of omission.

even for this day and age?

you realize only 1/3 of this planet is inhabitable for humans. this is a fact..a fact i don't think people realized when this commandment was given

 

[Harmonious]

even for this day and age?

Yes.

you realize only 1/3 of this planet is inhabitable for humans. this is a fact..a fact i don't think people realized when this commandment was given

God created the world, and God provides sustenance for all living beings. The fact that said sustenance isn't distributed in a way to serve all living things, particularly PEOPLE, is a human failing.

I also have no problem believing that God can create as much space as is needed for all people. Waters recede, a volcano throws up a new island, people find new and more interesting ways to use space more efficiently...

I've never been a fan of Thomas Malthus. I DO believe in miracles, and if God told us to do something, I intend to make it my business to try to do it, if I am able.