• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Bible and Homosexuality

Pah

Uber all member
LCMS Sprecher said:
Sorry had to make some corrections. I meant to say that "Christians do not accept the gay lifestyle [not] on the basis of hate." [Not] was left out.

My comment stands - who said they did?

It is unconstitutional for the government to endorse another religion's values over another's.

Wrong!, it is unconstitutional to accept any religious value.

However, it is trying to force gay marriage down the throat of Americans.

If you don't like it, don't divorce your wife and marry a man. Otherwise you have no personal stake, you suffer no personal harm from gay marriage. I will not recognize that you have a mandate to make society in your image- an image not shared by all Christians.

I would like to note though that not all government officials are trying to pass gay marriage legislation. In fact, many oppose it. A small minority of activist judges are changing the rules of the country, taking leadership and decision-making power out of everyday American's hands (over 60% of whom are openly against gay marriage). Now, I don't see how that isn't unconstitutional.

I imagine you would not see the constitutionality of the process. Those judges are charged to evaluatue, in appeal, all cases. When a constitutional question arises, they are duty bound to rule on the case using precedent. The precedent exists, from Supreme Court cases (Maybury v Madison, etc), that mandates that action of all appeal judges.
Your activism is only traditionalism.
 

Pah

Uber all member
When Marriage Between Gays Was a Rite

As the churches struggle with the issue of homosexuality, a long tradition of gay marriage indicates that the Christian attitude towards same sex unions may not always have been as "straight" as is now suggested, writes Jim Duffy.

Opinion: Rite and Reason
by Jim Duffy

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.

Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus.

In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their "marriage".

The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as a ritual.

Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th / early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.

Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union", having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these Thy servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that antihomosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578 a many as 13 couples were "married" at Mass with the apparent cooperation of the local clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together", according to a contemporary report.

Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been made by some recent writers in this newspaper.

Boswell's academic study however is so well researched and sourced as to pose fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. The evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.

It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ.
 

KBC1963

Active Member
It is apparent Maize that you will not offer a real arguement for the sarcastic post that I made after reading "The Six Bible Passages Used To Condemn Homosexuals" because of the sarcasm so I will put this in a bit easier to understand debate setup.

you state:

Author's Note: Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship.

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."


which is an inference that all that was spoken about by GOD in those passages was directly related to baal worship. It appears that this assumtion is possibly based on the following passage written previous to Leviticus 18:22:

Le 18:3
After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

But no matter what the passages used to infer that those 2 verses should be looked at in that manner, I should then be able to use the same reasoning to apply to all the other verses which appear just before or just after them. Here are the verses that appear with the first verse cited;

Le 18:20
Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.
Le 18:21
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
Le 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Le 18:23
Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

so by inference if 18:22 doesn't mean homosexuals because it is infered that it only applied to heterosexuals that apparently felt like being a homosexual during a baal ritual then as long as I don't lie carnally with my neighbors wife during a baal ritual then it should be ok right?
and for those freaks that like to have intercourse with animals i'm sure that they could use the same reasoning to make it ok for them to do as they wish since 18:23 is logically included right?

It is a grave error to say that each of the sections that include those 2 verses should be interpreted with a view that it only dealt with worship rituals of other religions. It should also be noted that many hundreds of years later timothy inspired by the holy spirit had this to say about the old testament;

2Ti 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

And I can assume that all scripture is intended for all time because just before the above verse he had this to say about these last days;


2Ti 3:1
¶ This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2Ti 3:2
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
2Ti 3:3
Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
2Ti 3:4
Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
2Ti 3:5
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
2Ti 3:6
For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
2Ti 3:7
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

I would like to see an arguement that could be brought to the table that in any way shape or form that could make Leviticus 18:22 & Leviticus 20:13 somehow mean anything other than homosexuality without changing the meaning of the verses that surround each of them into something even more disgusting than homosexuality itself.
 

Pah

Uber all member
KBC1963 said:
Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death.

...

I would like to see an arguement that could be brought to the table that in any way shape or form that could make Leviticus 18:22 & Leviticus 20:13 somehow mean anything other than homosexuality without changing the meaning of the verses that surround each of them into something even more disgusting than homosexuality itself.

That's really easy!!!!

The prohibition is against particular homosexual acts not against homosexuality per se and not against the act of homosexuality as performed by the Greeks and Romans of the time. (you have to know the customs of the times to understand these verses) The clue is "abomination" which means "unclean". There are two acts between males that are considered unclean in that they involve penetration. The standard of a homosexual act in Greece and Rome was intercrucal which involved no penetration but was simular to "frontage"(sp?) [details provided by PM, if asked]. Thus there was no prohibitation of the common act of homesexuality for the times.

But I am curious as to why some the laws are touted today against homosexuality when so many of the other laws are ignored. Do you really think you can pick and choose?
 

anders

Well-Known Member
Thank you, pah!

I have been thinking along your lines for some time, but realised that I wasn't able to write a post as balanced as yours.

It is amazing how many people only think of sexual acts when dicussing homosexuality. It is, after all, a question of love.

You write "But I am curious as to why some the laws are touted today against homosexuality when so many of the other laws are ignored. Do you really think you can pick and choose?"

That is a question I too would like to see answered.
 

KBC1963

Active Member
Pah,
How can you prove "The prohibition is against particular homosexual acts not against homosexuality per se" what evidence do you have that this can be the only way to look at those verses. I have studied much of the histories of the jews and of the cultures of those times and most of what I read was ussumtive reasoning or the "based on" mentality, and my question still stands as to the other verses that are found alongside the 2 that are in question, is it now ok to sleep with an animal as long as you keep it clean and don't involve any god worship with it?
again is it ok for me to sleep with anothers spouse as long as we keep it clean and don't involve any god worship? (such as those that do the wife swapping thing).
You give an unproveable answer and fail to show how that reasoning affects the other verses that surround the ones in question.
You know what would have been a great proof for you is if when GOD told Noah to fill the ark with the clean and dirty animals he could have included a pair of gay males and a pair of gay females.
So It is still my assertion that if homosexuality was intended then he would have made them male and male or female and female and he would have made sure that they made it onto the ark but as usual the bible centers on the union of male and female and in any place that it appears on its face to say any bad about any of those things that that could be considered homosexual we can find a hundred reasons why its not so, mostly from those who want it to be the way they want it, but we will always run into the same problem "the proving".

How many homosexuals were in the garden of eden?
you should note that homosexuals didn't appear till after sin arrived and all life began to degrade.
ever see a program begin to degrade? I have seen my robots with AI programs begin to do really weird stuff once we start to get bad sectors on the hard drive and I say to myself, "self you didn't program that into it, thats not what I intended it to do" but then once you realize that it is actually a loss of part of the code that made it what it was you realize that what you made and intended is no longer fully there, so you have to start over and hope this one doesn't break down as well.
 

Pah

Uber all member
KBC1963 said:
Pah,
How can you prove "The prohibition is against particular homosexual acts not against homosexuality per se" what evidence do you have that this can be the only way to look at those verses.

Why should I have to prove anything? Before you even consider asking me again for something like this you will have to prove that you, sir, are right about whatever meaning you get from the Bible.

But that wasn't the challange you issued. You wanted to see an arguement that shows homoseuality was not the topic of the verses. I did that using the literal translated words and combined them with the known history of Greece and Rome. I actually provided a far more likely meaning within the context of "purity" than you did. You, sir, will have to prove me wrong by showing that I am in error about the practises of homosexuality in those times - that the practise was still unclean.. Then you will have to show that the original Hebrew can not possibly be taken as my meaning.

I have studied much of the histories of the jews and of the cultures of those times and most of what I read was ussumtive reasoning or the "based on" mentality,

The question is why you have not studied the Greek and Roman culture where homosexuality occurred on a wide, approved, and expected social practise. The was very litlle homosexuality amongst the Jews but they were aware of what happened "next door". The lack of this knowledge can lead you to the wrong conclusion.

and my question still stands as to the other verses that are found alongside the 2 that are in question, is it now ok to sleep with an animal as long as you keep it clean and don't involve any god worship with it?

I could not care less about your other questions - I answered your challange about homosexuality.

...
You give an unproveable answer and fail to show how that reasoning affects the other verses that surround the ones in question.

Nobody, nobody, can prove anything they think the Bible says regarding morality and very little else of the main themes of the OT. There is no "ruins" of Eden and nobody has seen the two guards placed at the enterance. There is no evidence of a global flood.

You know what would have been a great proof for you is if when GOD told Noah to fill the ark with the clean and dirty animals he could have included a pair of gay males and a pair of gay females.

YEC believes all the diversity of nature occurred following the landing of the ark. It that is so, and some believe it to be "truth", then homosexuality was already present in the animals chosen. Nature is chock-full of homosexual, bisexual species. There would not be a need to to select a "special" pair. (see my thread, Natural Homosexuality)


So It is still my assertion that if homosexuality was intended then he would have made them male and male or female and female and he would have made sure that they made it onto the ark but as usual the bible centers on the union of male and female and in any place that it appears on its face to say any bad about any of those things that that could be considered homosexual we can find a hundred reasons why its not so, mostly from those who want it to be the way they want it, but we will always run into the same problem "the proving".

You don't know that all the aminals were "straight". If you are making that assertion, I would ask you for proof.

How many homosexuals were in the garden of eden?
you should note that homosexuals didn't appear till after sin arrived and all life began to degrade.

The seeds of homosexuality was present in Adam and Eve for there is genetic component to homosexuality. All the animals were present and they too expressed homosexiality later. The "fall" had nothing to do with a genetic alteration except for the pain of childbirth. And that is what is written.

ever see a program begin to degrade? I have seen my robots with AI programs begin to do really weird stuff once we start to get bad sectors on the hard drive and I say to myself, "self you didn't program that into it, thats not what I intended it to do" but then once you realize that it is actually a loss of part of the code that made it what it was you realize that what you made and intended is no longer fully there, so you have to start over and hope this one doesn't break down as well.

I think it a bit misplaced to assume you are right and that I am wrong. The analogy you offer is tenuous at best and fails on many points.

You, I'm afraid, did not answer my question regarding God's law. Do you cut your hair? - or shave? Do you wear clothes of different fabic at the same time? Do you keep the Sabbath or do you have a Sunday service? If the answer to these or mydriad other prohibitions is "yes, I do it", then what gives you the idea that you can pick to honor the "homosexual" prohibition and choose not to follow the laws you disobey. Christ said that only those without sin can judge and cast a stone and I know you believe in a "fallen nature" Judging another is usurping God's perogative..
 

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
arabian_knight1 said:
Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve


very simply but ....... it's the way God created us

why Adam and Eve Not Adam and Steve :) ??

Yeah, well look at the trouble them got themselves into! If we are to believe the Biblical story of creation at face value and as not a myth, are you saying that heterosexuals are responsible for the fall of humankind?

God did INDEED make Adam and Steve, and Raymond and Gertrude and Hildegard and Fred and Nancy and Drew and Billy and.......

And you know what? He made you and he made me too!

 
arabian...

the whole adam and st/eve thing... the whole creation story probably isnt true. I'm not blaspheming, but thats the honest to goodness reality of it. God created people to love each other. Thats all that happens between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Fulfilling the role god meant for them.
 
To renounce the creation story is to renounce Christianity. It is not possible. I would also like to bring out the fact that this a thread on homosexuality in scripture (a place where it is condemned).
 

anders

Well-Known Member
I want to pose a question, which has been irritating to me for at least 40 years. I hope it will attract answers from those of you who believe in the infallibility of the literal words of the Bible:

Considering the differences in anatomy between men and women, how do you interpret Lev 18:22 "Thou shalt not sleep with mankind, as with womankind" and the corresponding Lev 20:13?
 

dan

Well-Known Member
The commandment you mentioned is directed at men. You are not to have sex with men (as you do with women). An interesting thing to note is that the Torah and all subsequent scripture in Jewish law fails to condemen lebianism; it is never addressed. This only goes to show that the Bible in all its glory is not complete or perfect. The canon is not closed.
 

Pah

Uber all member
dan said:
The commandment you mentioned is directed at men. You are not to have sex with men (as you do with women). An interesting thing to note is that the Torah and all subsequent scripture in Jewish law fails to condemen lebianism; it is never addressed. This only goes to show that the Bible in all its glory is not complete or perfect. The canon is not closed.

I don't think you understood the question. How is it antatomically possible for a man to have sex with a man as he would with a woman? The gentalia of a man is not the same as that of a woman (duh!) so how can the sex be the same?

It there something beyond the literal we should be looking at?
 

dan

Well-Known Member
Geez, arguing semantics like there's no tomorrow. OK, if you want to be literal about it then you can lie with a man just like you can lie with a woman. It's all about lying down, anyway. Now are you happy? No? OK, let's define sex, if that's what "lie" means (between the lines, non-literal like). Oral sex is sex, as is anal. I believe this is possible between two men, but you may disagree. Now are you happy? No, still not happy? OK, accept that you may be wrong about some things; it's incredibly liberating.
 

Pah

Uber all member
dan said:
Geez, arguing semantics like there's no tomorrow. OK, if you want to be literal about it then you can lie with a man just like you can lie with a woman. It's all about lying down, anyway. Now are you happy? No? OK, let's define sex, if that's what "lie" means (between the lines, non-literal like). Oral sex is sex, as is anal. I believe this is possible between two men, but you may disagree. Now are you happy? No, still not happy? OK, accept that you may be wrong about some things; it's incredibly liberating.

I understand that sex between a man and a woman, in those days, was strickly proscribed. There was no anal (unclean, unclean, unclean!!!!) and no oral (more unclean). So that should not be a consideration. I understand that in sex the woman was partially clothed, ( just exposed enough to accomplish the act and face to face) - a rather "modest" activity compared to today's standards. Please don't confuse the Biblical writing with what we do today - it was written for the times.

So how was it anatomically possible for a man to have sex with another man the same way he would have sex with a woman?

Some Christians here on the board really go by the semantics and the literalness of the wording.
 

dan

Well-Known Member
You're still making inferences, and at the same time, it was perfectly understood. The sun does not rise and set on literal interpretations of the scriptures. Your imposing conditions and then asking someone to reconcile your condition with something else. Go find someone with no intelligence to argue with. By the way, can you tell me what were and what are the acceptable an inacceptable forms of birth control, in that you are such an expert on Jewish sex?
 

Pah

Uber all member
dan said:
You're still making inferences, and at the same time, it was perfectly understood.

What inferences am I making and what is perfectly understood?

The sun does not rise and set on literal interpretations of the scriptures.

I think quick and LCMS Sprecher will disagree with you. They would say it is not as mundane as the expression "a sun rising and setting" but the very Word of God that is expressed in the literal. (I would stand correction if I put words in their mouths not in their thoughts).


Your imposing conditions and then asking someone to reconcile your condition with something else. Go find someone with no intelligence to argue with.

The conditions were created by anders. Perhaps you should have bypassed the question? It was explicit in adressing those who believed in the literal words.

By the way, can you tell me what were and what are the acceptable an inacceptable forms of birth control, in that you are such an expert on Jewish sex?

Wool that absorbes sperm, poisons that fumegated the uterus, potions, condoms made from animal skin and organs (in some centuries) and other unnamed methods. The Bible mentions two - coitus interruptus and steriialization, both unacceptable.

I trust there is nothing new in that list for you.
 

dan

Well-Known Member
Nope, nothing new in that list. I do owe you an apology, though; I did not realize the original question was for those that literally interpreted the scriptures. That was my bad.

As for inferences, the idea that the Bible condemns vaginal sex between two men. That is an incredibly forced inference. It in no way is meant to be taken that literally. What was perfectly understood was that homosexuality was (and still is) abomination.

As far as what the other people on this post think, they're entitled to their own opinion as are you and I, but I'm used to having people disagree with me.
 
Top