The Bible and Homosexuality

[anders]

I think that the only way for literalists to get out of this problem is to admit that these verses refer to an anatomical impossibility, and thus have no bearing on homosexuality.

pah, your interesting "The Bible mentions two - coitus interruptus and sterilization, both unacceptable." raises more questions for me. The only instance I know of where coitus interruptus is mentioned, is the case of Onan. But the terrible thing he did was not the method used, but the fact that he did not want to have a child with the widow of his brother. As to sterilization, I don't remember having seen this mentioned in the Bible, apart from the command to execute an abortion plus sterilization on a married woman who is pregnant by another man than her husband (Numbers, ch. 5). I know of no verse forbidding what is commanded here. Indirectly, castration of a man can be seen as a terrible thing, although I find no verse forbidding it, because of the rule in Deut. 23:1 that "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."

 

[Pah]

Anders,

Dueteronomy 23:1 was exactly the verse quoted by a Roman Catholic Q&A site. and of, course Onan.

 

[Pah]

Subject: In defense of Biblical marriage

The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray for
the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the
definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical
principles. With any forces insisting on variant definitions of
marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by
our government." This is true.

Any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by
action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals,
is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely
on biblical principles:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between
one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in
addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron
11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a
virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut
22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be
forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be
construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry
the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or
deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one
shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law.
(Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your
town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with
him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men
young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of
course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

Source: anonymous,

 

[KBC1963]

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.

My proof is this SIR you cannot take what was meant or done by one culture and apply it to another, especially when the original time of the writing of the Commandments was at a time when we have no real corresponding information on either culture.
Your arguement that homosexuality as understood by the greeks and romans, can be applied like a blanket of understanding of how it has always been, just doesnt apply SIR just as it doesnt apply to anything else we have ever studied, things change and evolve over time and can even become something totally different than what was begun, and as for proving that the original hebrew meant what I say it means is not as hard as you may think SIR seeing as how the jews are still as much with us as any other race and if you ask any knowledgeable jew what those verses mean they will tell you as I have, so I would easily base my meanings on an unbroken chain of jewish understanding as it was originally intended, SIR, so it is much more reasonable that this interpretation is correct since we can get understanding from a people that spent centuries living it.
I would also point out SIR that you will probably never answer my question;

[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? ]

because you know as well as I do SIR that to interpret all the verses near the 2 that we are looking at in the manner that you and Maize are attempting to do would then make it ok for people to have sex with animals or thier neighbors wives or to do all the things that the verses near those 2 tell you not to do so I would say that it is easier for me to prove my stand SIR than for you to prove yours and I don't even need to work at it.

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.

I say in answer to this that when GOD created man that sin was not present and it was not part of the genes, right? so had they not sinned then I can easily say that there never would have been any gay people in the garden of eden. I can however say much easier that just as all thing began to degrade once sin entered the world that that is when homosexuality entered as well, and as an analogy note that :

Ge 1:30
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Just as animals have changed from thier intent from when they were first made because of sin and have changed the natural way they were made to now eating flesh for many of them, so has man and mans genes changed and I assert SIR that even a minor genetic change can have far reaching effects just like a man taking female hormones can then grow breasts which is unnatural for the man so then can many of the desires of human beings become confused by possible degraded genes which just havent been identified yet.

Now just so you also understand GOD's intent for us in the new world, he will be setting everything back to the way it was in the begining, see for yourself:

Isa 11:6
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Isa 11:7
And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox
Isa 11:8
And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
Isa 11:9
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

It will be just like it was at the beginning for all the created beasts once again and so will our bodies be changed from our current sinfull bodies into perfect ones similar to those intended for us to begin with.

(You, I'm afraid, did not answer my question regarding God's law.)

oops I'm sorry did I miss an answer, well then don't let me fail to answer this one again, IF GOD TOLD US TO DO SOMETHING THEN WE SHOULD DO IT, IF HE SAID NOT TO THEN SHOULDN'T for it is written:

Mt 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.


De 8:3
And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

so in answer to your question yes we are obligated to live by GOD's rules and it matters not whether we are jews or not because when you accept CHRIST then you are asking to be grafted into the jewish line on a spitual level and remember CHRIST is a jew and we are supposed to be his brothers and sisters;

Mt 12:50
For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Know also that our judges shall be jews as well.

1Co 6:2
Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

so what laws should we obey?

 

[Pah]

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.

My proof is this SIR you cannot take what was meant or done by one culture and apply it to another, especially when the original time of the writing of the Commandments was at a time when we have no real corresponding information on either culture.

This wasn’t Genesis, this was Leviticus which was later than the Commandments. God’s law was written after the Commandments and closer to the writings of Plato. The evidence of what sex practices existed in 6000 BCE is contained in the pottery depictions of it. It looks very much like the knowledge of homosexuality existed prior to Leviticus.

I did not lay the customs of Greece and Roman on the Hebrews. I said that the knowledge of Greek and Roman customs were know by the writers of Leviticus

Your arguement that homosexuality as understood by the greeks and romans, can be applied like a blanket of understanding of how it has always been, just doesnt apply SIR just as it doesnt apply to anything else we have ever studied,

Nope! Didn’t say that! It applies to the writers of Leviticus. The were the ones writing the law of the times.

things change and evolve over time and can even become something totally different than what was begun, and as for proving that the original hebrew meant what I say it means is not as hard as you may think SIR seeing as how the jews are still as much with us as any other race and if you ask any knowledgeable jew what those verses mean they will tell you as I have,

You miss the point. You have to show that the Hebrew was translated correctly into English. That has nothing to do with the opinion of the current Hebrews.

You continue to make assertions without providing a source for you opinion. Prove that what you say is the same as what today’s Hebrews would say and that Leviticus is accurately translated. You clipped (and ignored) the other condition that was set. Prove that my history is in error. Prove that the research of K. J. Dover in Greek Homosexuality is wrong for that is my secondary source.

so I would easily base my meanings on an unbroken chain of jewish understanding as it was originally intended, SIR, so it is much more reasonable that this interpretation is correct since we can get understanding from a people that spent centuries living it.

You commit the fallacy of custom and tradition which does not go to proof. (See epistemology and logic)

I would also point out SIR that you will probably never answer my question;


[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?

because you know as well as I do SIR that to interpret all the verses near the 2 that we are looking at in the manner that you and Maize are attempting to do would then make it ok for people to have sex with animals or thier neighbors wives or to do all the things that the verses near those 2 tell you not to do so I would say that it is easier for me to prove my stand SIR than for you to prove yours and I don't even need to work at it.

As I said - it doesn’t interest me. But I will point out that God’s law, written in Leviticus is not found in three verses but in 3 or 4 chapters of Leviticus. I’m sure that you are in transgression of many of them, i.e., cutting your hair, cutting your sideburns, wearing clothes of two fabrics, not stoning your child when he or she is disobedient, worshiping on Sunday). What in God’s law gives you the right to pick homosexuality to follow and impose on others and not these other laws?

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.

I say in answer to this that when GOD created man that sin was not present and it was not part of the genes, right? so had they not sinned then I can easily say that there never would have been any gay people in the garden of eden. I can however say much easier that just as all thing began to degrade once sin entered the world that that is when homosexuality entered as well, and as an analogy

Certainly Adam had the capacity to sin for he did just that didn’t he. It was already part of him. So too, with animals only they don’t “sin” when they manifest homosexuality.

note that :

Ge 1:30
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Just as animals have changed from thier intent from when they were first made because of sin and have changed the natural way they were made to now eating flesh for many of them, so has man and mans genes changed and I assert SIR that even a minor genetic change can have far reaching effects just like a man taking female hormones can then grow breasts which is unnatural for the man so then can many of the desires of human beings become confused by possible degraded genes which just havent been identified yet.

Now just so you also understand GOD's intent for us in the new world, he will be setting everything back to the way it was in the begining, see for yourself:

Isa 11:6
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Isa 11:7
And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox
Isa 11:8
And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
Isa 11:9
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

It will be just like it was at the beginning for all the created beasts once again and so will our bodies be changed from our current sinfull bodies into perfect ones similar to those intended for us to begin with

A prophesy from Isaiah for the return of those in Zion? Did that ever happen? And what has that to do with the biological creation of God’s animals - do the lions teeth change so it may eat straw or flesh because he is with or without sin? The only biological change I know of it that women will suffer pain in childbirth after the "fall". Where is it written in Genesis that the lion and other predators changed as well?

(You, I'm afraid, did not answer my question regarding God's law.)

oops I'm sorry did I miss an answer, well then don't let me fail to answer this one again, IF GOD TOLD US TO DO SOMETHING THEN WE SHOULD DO IT, IF HE SAID NOT TO THEN SHOULDN'T for it is written:

so what laws should we obey?

All of them or none of them depending on whether you ascribe to the Old or New Testament. But you want to pick and choose - there is no health in that.

And you still have answered the question of why you pick and choose what laws to uphold.

 

[KBC1963]

Satan has influenced you well, you have set your own rules for argument and avoid the real unanswerable questions apparently this forum is meant more as a place to indoctrinate people into acceptance of unnatural unions but I won't worry because GOD is just and all that teach against his laws will pay for it, so I will leave this forum to the filth that lingers and lays wait to decieve.

 

[Pah]

Satan has influenced you well, you have set your own rules for argument and avoid the real unanswerable questions apparently this forum is meant more as a place to indoctrinate people into acceptance of unnatural unions but I won't worry because GOD is just and all that teach against his laws will pay for it, so I will leave this forum to the filth that lingers and lays wait to decieve.

I am sorry that my questions are hard and you must take refuge from them by name calling.

 

[Rex]

Satan has influenced you well, you have set your own rules for argument and avoid the real unanswerable questions apparently this forum is meant more as a place to indoctrinate people into acceptance of unnatural unions but I won't worry because GOD is just and all that teach against his laws will pay for it, so I will leave this forum to the filth that lingers and lays wait to decieve.

You do realize you joined a Forum called Religious Forums. It seem ignorant to me that you will call people names and have no open mind to others that do not share your same beliefs.

There is a whole world out there, which have beliefs that are different from you, from me, and others. The only way to understand is to listen rather than bickering like this.

This will be your only warning from me. Otherwise I will not tolerate actions like this.

 

[Runt]

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?

My, so much arguement has come up over such a small little quote! Here's what I think:

There are 2 basic interpretations of the Bible: strict and liberal. Strict says that you must read the thing literally, not adding any outside meaning at all. Liberal means that you can interpret it all you want because it is probably all metaphor anyway.

If we were to look at the passage literally, we could NOT translate "sleep" as "sex"... because you cannot take the IMPLIED meaning of the word (which, in my opinion, may very well be a MODERN term for sex and not one used when the Bible was first translated into English), but can only take the literal meaning of the word. Therefore, from a literal point of view, the passage only instructs men not to sleep together. It says nothing of them having sex and then NOT sleeping together...

However, I think MOST Christians would agree that the Bible CANNOT be taken literally, because that opens it up to various inconsistencies (both within itself and with scientific knowledge). Therefore, one can interpret it any way they want...

However... consider:

-Most Christians believe that "by the grace of God" the Bible is completely true.

-Most Christians also believe that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally.

-Most people know that something that is open to interpretation is therefore open to MANY interpretations.

-If "by the grace of God" the Bible is completely true despite its many interpretations, then each seperate interpretation is equally true.

-Therefore, any passage in the Bible can have infinite interpretations, and each interpretation is equally correct.

-Therefore, interpret it however you want and live by it, and allow others to interpret it any way THEY want and live by it... and you will both be obeying God's law and will go to heaven!

Ta Da!

 

[dan]

Well, in the Bible only preophets had the right to interpret scripture, so we'll just go talk to the prophet...Yeah, he said it means sex. Sorry, guys.

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

"Most Christians also believe that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally"- Runt

Interesting, my whole denomination (LCMS) of 2.5 million people accept the Bible as literal. There are other denominations that accept it's clearness and literal aspect as we do. Those that don't take the Bible literally do so for one reason- they don't like what it says. That's what it comes down to. If you don't like the what the Bible says literally then you interpret it a different way.

 

[dan]

What version of the Bible do you use, Sprecher?

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

NIV usually, I have a few other versions sitting around in my house. As far as interpretation wise, I believe that God doesn't need special interpretation for what He means in scripture (i.e. the liberial interpretation). I believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

[anders]

LCMS Sprecher,

If you believe in the literal text of the Bible, how can you use translations? They are bound to be wrong, especially as it is impossible to make a "literal" translation between so different languages (and cultures) as OT Hebrew and English. It is difficult enough from Greek.

 

[dan]

I especially like the NIV (Not Inspired Version). I'm almost positive the words "dude," "far out" and "homie" are in there somewhere. Every translation of the Bible is another effort to bring the Bible down to the level of the lowest common denominator. How can you interpret literally a text like that? It is as far removed from revealed truth as the ground is from the sky.

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

That is true, the NIV is notorious for it's errors in translation. However, it (NIV) is true to the other translations in the context.

 

[dan]

So, how do you decide whether or not to trust a passage enough to interpret it literally. If it has one mistake it could have billions. Christ said that he who is unjust in little is unjust in much.

 

[Pah]

"Most Christians also believe that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally"- Runt

Interesting, my whole denomination (LCMS) of 2.5 million people accept the Bible as literal. There are other denominations that accept it's clearness and literal aspect as we do. Those that don't take the Bible literally do so for one reason- they don't like what it says. That's what it comes down to. If you don't like the what the Bible says literally then you interpret it a different way.

If you take the Bible literally then you are struck with "error". If you have to expain why there is more than one creation story (two in Gen and I forget where the other is) then you are not truely literal. The first two, one right after the other contain a different sequence of creation. One has to be wrong in a literal sense.

 

[Runt]

Well, in the Bible only preophets had the right to interpret scripture, so we'll just go talk to the prophet...Yeah, he said it means sex. Sorry, guys.

Jesus never condemned anybody. I think he has greater authority than any of the writers of the Bible... they were merely prophets, while he, according to YOUR religion, was the Son of God! I think if Jesus supposedly refused to condemn a whore, he would not condemn a homosexual.

And how do you know what that the prophet said that "sleep" meant "sex"? Talk to him recently?

Interesting, my whole denomination (LCMS) of 2.5 million people accept the Bible as literal.

Well then, you must belong to one of those denominations that ignores all the blatant inconsistencies (not to mention moral issues) that are derived from a literal translation! Here's one for you: if you are a literal translator, then you should stop referring to God as "Him" or "The Father". The Hebrew word which was translated as "Lord" (masculine) was "Elohim" and was a plural masculine pronoun with a feminine ending used to refer to the neutral gender of mixed males and females. Which means that your "God" is really "Gods", and "He" is not only "The Father" but probably "The Mother", "The Daughter", "The Son", "The Holy Ghost", and a variety of other personifications of one deity.

Yet I suspect that you don't like this, because it goes against everything you have been taught. So you will ignore what the Bible REALLY said and focus only on what you WANT it to say... meaning you do NOT take the Bible literally but interpret it... just like every other Christian.

Those that don't take the Bible literally do so for one reason- they don't like what it says. That's what it comes down to. If you don't like the what the Bible says literally then you interpret it a different way.

No, those that don't take the Bible literally do so for one reason--it makes no SENSE when taken literally! However, I agree with you-- people who reinterpret the Bible are just as bad as those who insist on taking it literally. Every time science or logic proves something in the Bible wrong, the liberal translators insist that the Bible was talking about science all along, only nobody ever knew it until science proved "what the Bible was REALLY saying" to be a fact, whereas the literal translators (and this is even funnier) insist that it is STILL CORRECT despite all evidence to the contrary!

As far as interpretation wise, I believe that God doesn't need special interpretation for what He means in scripture (i.e. the liberial interpretation). I believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible.

If God didn't intend for interpretation of his Holy Word, don't you think "by the grace of God" there would be ONE version of each story in the Bible, and the meaning of each word would be so clear that there would NOT be any talk about semantics because people can't decide, for example, if the word "elohim" refered to one male God or a multitude of male AND female GODS?

If you believe in the literal text of the Bible, how can you use translations? They are bound to be wrong, especially as it is impossible to make a "literal" translation between so different languages (and cultures) as OT Hebrew and English. It is difficult enough from Greek..

Fun little example of how translation can go awry:

In Spanish the phrase "pasar la aspiradora solamente a martes" is translated literally as "pass the vacuum cleaner only on Tuesday", which can be interpreted to mean "vacuum only on Tuesday".

Lets pretend the Bible was originally written in Spanish and in it the first commandment was "Pasar la aspiradora solamente a martes". A German, literal monk might look at "pass the vacuum cleaner" and decide that the translation instructed them to LITERALLY pass the vacuum cleaner only on Tuesday. So every Tuesday he walks past that vacuum.

At the same time the German monk's collegue, a French monk, agrees that the literal translation of "Pasar la aspiradora" is to "pass by the vacuum), but his Spanish is not as good as the German monk's, and he interprets "solamente a" not as "only on" but as "on every". So, when copying the Bible for the benefit of the French, he translates that phrase as "Pass by the vaccuum on every Tuesday".

The French people mistakenly think that "every Tuesday" means that it is okay to ALSO pass the vacuum any other day-- and being good Christians, they want to go out of their way to obey God, rather than just being "Tuesday Christians".

So, instead of the French population obeying the Lord's word and vacuuming only on Tuesday, they are now walking past their unused vacuum cleaner every day, and the floor is not being vacuumed at all.

 

[dan]

Talk to him recently?

Yeah.

I think if Jesus supposedly refused to condemn a whore, he would not condemn a homosexual.

Actually, there are only two sins worse than homosexuality: murder and the sin against the Holy Ghost; but the difference is that the woman was repentant. Homosexuals can be repentant and be forgiven as well, so your comparison is weak.

Well then, you must belong to one of those denominations that ignores all the blatant inconsistencies (not to mention moral issues) that are derived from a literal translation! Here's one for you: if you are a literal translator, then you should stop referring to God as "Him" or "The Father". The Hebrew word which was translated as "Lord" (masculine) was "Elohim" and was a plural masculine pronoun with a feminine ending used to refer to the neutral gender of mixed males and females. Which means that your "God" is really "Gods", and "He" is not only "The Father" but probably "The Mother", "The Daughter", "The Son", "The Holy Ghost", and a variety of other personifications of one deity.

Well, you can go tell whoever told you that that they're wrong. It's actually plural (some say it refers to the plurality of His majesties and powers, but that's not true) because it refers to the Godhead.

Yet I suspect that you don't like this, because it goes against everything you have been taught. So you will ignore what the Bible REALLY said and focus only on what you WANT it to say... meaning you do NOT take the Bible literally but interpret it... just like every other Christian.

I listen to what the Prophet says about scripture and then I pray to get an affirmation from the Spirit that it is true. It's worked 100% so far.

If God didn't intend for interpretation of his Holy Word, don't you think "by the grace of God" there would be ONE version of each story in the Bible, and the meaning of each word would be so clear that there would NOT be any talk about semantics because people can't decide, for example, if the word "elohim" refered to one male God or a multitude of male AND female GODS?

Did you find a little word in your research into Hebrew that translates "faith"? It's all about faith. We're here to learn to follow the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and that's not an easy thing to do. In our individualistic, low-context culture everyone wants proof, and they want it now, but that's not how God works. He's much smarter than you.

Lets pretend the Bible was originally written in Spanish and in it the first commandment was "Pasar la aspiradora solamente a martes". A German, literal monk might look at "pass the vacuum cleaner" and decide that the translation instructed them to LITERALLY pass the vacuum cleaner only on Tuesday. So every Tuesday he walks past that vacuum.

Bueno, supongo que si la persona entendia bastante bien la cultura de la idioma que estaba traduciendo no tendria esa problema. Por eso, yo soy experta en varias idiomas, no solamente mi idioma de origin. Tambien, el traductor sabria que no significaria "pass the vacuum cleaner" en el sentido de que el debe pasar por la aspiradora, porque la oracion falta la palabra "por." Asi que el sabria que no tiene que ver con eso. Pero bien hecho. Quizas la proxima vez puedes enganar a alguien.

If you take the Bible literally then you are struck with "error". If you have to expain why there is more than one creation story (two in Gen and I forget where the other is) then you are not truely literal. The first two, one right after the other contain a different sequence of creation. One has to be wrong in a literal sense.

Actually, one refers to a spiritual creation (because everything has a spirit) and the other to the physical creation.