Homosexuality Is NOT A Sin: What Christ Said And More

[In Medias Res III]

surprised What if I follow kashrut, tzniut, shabbos laws and everything else and still deem Leviticus 18:22 to be a valid toevah?

[Shakespearean Squirrel]

Quote:

And your point is... what? That if Christians thought it for a long time, it must be right? Like Lucifer = Satan is "correct"?

vanjan1

Um, Lucifer= Satan, I would say that is correct.

Hmm. The tricky bit:

Isaiah 14:12 (KJV): "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"
Isaiah 14:12 (NIV): "How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!"

Lucifer is the Latin name given to Venus, the "morning star", which, in a literal sense, "brings light"--appears before and heralds the dawn. These words, though, are in reference to the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14:3 and do not refer to Satan....

My knowledge is a bit wanting, but I don't believe those responsible for the KJV used the original Hebrew texts, but rather a Latin translation of them. I do think, though, that if one were to look at the verse in Hebrew, the expression used to refer to the Babylonian king would be something along the lines of what is written in the NIV--a reference to a morning star or something similar, something bright, accounting for the Latin translation "Lucifer" and acting as a fitting image and "taunt" (14:3) for one who thought himself powerful (Venus is quite bright in comparison to other stars), but found himself wanting against the power of the Lord (just as all stars in the sky are outshone by the sun).

A king fallen, an angel fallen--somewhere along the lines the verses were assigned to Satan. Odd, I think, considering that the term "morning star" is used in reference to Jesus in several other verses ( perhaps most notably in Revelation 22:16--"'I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.'" ).

Not quite on topic, but it does, I think, serve as an example of how meaning can be lost or twisted in translation--an issue that comes up often with the discussion at hand.

[In Medias Res III]

Loki, you maybe need a Jewish perspective JUUUST in case after 4000 pages it still isn't sinking in.

Let's pretend for a minute that Leviticus is VALID for Christians (As it is under Noachide Laws), let's look at the toevah.


Leviticus 18:22 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination"

Note the word abomination. Where did this come from? "toevah hee".

What is a toevah?

A toevah as an "impure ritual" ie, unclean for a Jew to perform. Under this category we have, as previously mentioned; shellfish, ham, mixing of dairy and meat, tzit tzit, cutting of hair, et cetera...

Does G-d condemn a Jew who eats pork? No, he's just being a glutton. Is he sinning? No, he's just breaking the law. Is this punished? Well, no, not really. It's just not kosher.

Thus, it means that this is a separation between pagans and Jews.
Lev 18 is to distinguish the Jews from the pagans among whom they had been living, or would live. The prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows immediately upon a prohibition of idolatrous sexuality (the female temple prostitutes worshipping the pagan fertility gods) (often mistranslated fornication but a obvious mistranslation in the proper context).
(http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/leviticus.html)

Kosher? Anyone wanna argue?

So folks, if you're a Christian and you believe that Leviticus is for you, then fine, that's okay, but I don't understand how something that is ritually impure for a Jew is for you. If you STILL think it's yours because Christians are "completed Jews" or whatever, you're not going to be condemned for gay sex any more so than you will be condemned for eating pork.

[linaloki]

In Medias Res III

Loki, you maybe need a Jewish perspective JUUUST in case after 4000 pages it still isn't sinking in.

Let's pretend for a minute that Leviticus is VALID for Christians (As it is under Noachide Laws), let's look at the toevah.


Leviticus 18:22 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination"

Note the word abomination. Where did this come from? "toevah hee".

What is a toevah?

A toevah as an "impure ritual" ie, unclean for a Jew to perform. Under this category we have, as previously mentioned; shellfish, ham, mixing of dairy and meat, tzit tzit, cutting of hair, et cetera...

Does G-d condemn a Jew who eats pork? No, he's just being a glutton. Is he sinning? No, he's just breaking the law. Is this punished? Well, no, not really. It's just not kosher.

Thus, it means that this is a separation between pagans and Jews.
Lev 18 is to distinguish the Jews from the pagans among whom they had been living, or would live. The prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows immediately upon a prohibition of idolatrous sexuality (the female temple prostitutes worshipping the pagan fertility gods) (often mistranslated fornication but a obvious mistranslation in the proper context).
(http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/leviticus.html)

Kosher? Anyone wanna argue?

So folks, if you're a Christian and you believe that Leviticus is for you, then fine, that's okay, but I don't understand how something that is ritually impure for a Jew is for you. If you STILL think it's yours because Christians are "completed Jews" or whatever, you're not going to be condemned for gay sex any more so than you will be condemned for eating pork.

Danke. heart

I've also had to go the route that it isn't condemning anything but male homosexual sex, and even then, not necessarily male homosexual sex in general, but more specific.

[zebppir]

3arth 5hattering 0rgasm

I think God will judge on how much pain you've brought into the world versus how much joy you're brought to the world.
Being gay doesn't bring people any specific pain, in before "Gay people cause stress to fundamentalists" I think only valid and rational pain will count.

rofl heart * I salute you* 3nodding



fundmentalists will be after you faster than locusts on a vetable garden razz

[ty_ping]

Yoru Kurosawa

ty_ping

John Calvin

Queen Kelley1

The bible is the history book of the universe. It tells the about the past, present, and future. talk2hand so don't go there girlfriend.

Never call me "girlfriend." I am not a female. The Bible is not a history book of the universe. Even Rabbi Shlomo, son of Isaac, did not consider Genesis to be even talking about the creation of the universe, or else the Hebrew would have been barishonah, "At first."

Queen Kelley1

And besides, I'm sure your scientist had gotten his ideas from the bible. rolleyes

My scientist? I own a scientist?

Can I borrow your scientist for a moment, I want to make a death ray to carve my name into the moon.

So kiss me softly... deadly...
I'll give you everything you ever wanted, baby...

Ty, will you marry me for a day? I think I love you for that comment right there...

So kiss me softly, it could be deadly
And give me everything I've always wanted, baby...

Tee Hee. heart

[Jarod-Is-Legend]

Wow. So much stuff.

[Anakha the Silver]

ty_ping

Yoru Kurosawa

ty_ping

John Calvin

Queen Kelley1

The bible is the history book of the universe. It tells the about the past, present, and future. talk2hand so don't go there girlfriend.

Never call me "girlfriend." I am not a female. The Bible is not a history book of the universe. Even Rabbi Shlomo, son of Isaac, did not consider Genesis to be even talking about the creation of the universe, or else the Hebrew would have been barishonah, "At first."

Queen Kelley1

And besides, I'm sure your scientist had gotten his ideas from the bible. rolleyes

My scientist? I own a scientist?

Can I borrow your scientist for a moment, I want to make a death ray to carve my name into the moon.

So kiss me softly... deadly...
I'll give you everything you ever wanted, baby...

Ty, will you marry me for a day? I think I love you for that comment right there...

So kiss me softly, it could be deadly
And give me everything I've always wanted, baby...

Tee Hee. heart

Can I be the mistress, then? ninja

[ty_ping]

In Medias Res III

surprised What if I follow kashrut, tzniut, shabbos laws and everything else and still deem Leviticus 18:22 to be a valid toevah?

Well first, if you do that then you're not a Christian so Lev 18:22 is still not a sin (As Judaism does not have sin, simply unclean acts or "Negative and Positive taryag mitzvot" wink

Second, based on your avatar you're not a boy, so Lev 18:22 still doesn't apply to you. (However your mitzvot then is to obey your father so unless he is okay with you being a lesbian and your girlfriends father is okay with you two being together then you're hooped to marry whomever your Dad wants you to. Unless he decides to sell you into slavery instead.)

Third, assuming you're a Jew and a Boy you may not be a זכר Zakar which then debatably Lev 18:22 does not apply to you however there are other taryag mitzvot that are required of you that generally would prevent you from entering a loving homosexual union. (But if you decided to ignore them it would only hamper your closeness to God in the afterlife, not damn you to eternity. So you might spend eternaty chilling with Abraham as opposed to being directly in God's presence.)
Granted these mitzvot are not all a toeb'eh (or toevah) that require a blood sacrifice (which since the destruction of the temple no sacrifices can be offered up to the Jewish God any longer leaving everyone in a bit of a pickle regarding some of the laws)

And I was going to write some more here but my internet is being a pain in the a** and while I was looking it up it quit on me so now I can't remember what I was going to write.

Oh, now I remember,

Plus this all depends on whether you find Rabbinic gezeirah, takkanah, and minhag worth following and which sect you are a part of.

[ty_ping]

In Medias Res III, and then there's what you pointed out yourself. A toeb'eh תֹּועֵבָ֖ה, ((Man my Hebrew characters are messed up when trying to mix them with English)) isn't some abomination or detestable sin like Christians tend to translate that verse to. But a ritual uncleanliness (which while being an abhorrent practice to God, is NOT a disgraceful act due to the act itself) And there are a lot of things in the Torah that apply to it. If Christians feel that parts of the Torah should be used in their daily lives they can't pick and choose which parts. If they say all toeb'eh are to be obeyed then damn it, ALL TOEB'EH are to be obeyed, which means Dietary laws must be obeyed, It means all their money and jewelry must be accounted for (As anything that was once an idol to another God is not permitted in their household) Clothing laws and many others. If they're picking and choosing which laws to follow it makes them hypocrites, not Christians and certainly not Jews.

[linaloki]

ty_ping

In Medias Res III, and then there's what you pointed out yourself. A toeb'eh תֹּועֵבָ֖ה, ((Man my Hebrew characters are messed up when trying to mix them with English)) isn't some abomination or detestable sin like Christians tend to translate that verse to. But a ritual uncleanliness (which while being an abhorrent practice to God, is NOT a disgraceful act due to the act itself) And there are a lot of things in the Torah that apply to it. If Christians feel that parts of the Torah should be used in their daily lives they can't pick and choose which parts. If they say all toeb'eh are to be obeyed then damn it, ALL TOEB'EH are to be obeyed, which means Dietary laws must be obeyed, It means all their money and jewelry must be accounted for (As anything that was once an idol to another God is not permitted in their household) Clothing laws and many others. If they're picking and choosing which laws to follow it makes them hypocrites, not Christians and certainly not Jews.

Yarp. In Medias gets a tad annoyed when we Christians step all over her Torah and cherry pick our favorite bits.

[linaloki]

Okay. I just recently found a "Questions about Christianity answered here!" thread in M&R. Which, really, is what this is supposed to be, just with a preemptive strike on the big'uns.

Someone in there asked about Christians dating atheists. Someone else responded with this verse:

2 Corinthians 6:14, NIV

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?

I'm officially annoyed at how often this verse gets yanked out of context and misused. This verse does NOT deal with dating or marriage. If one reads the entire passage, one notes that there is a severely large amount of references to temples and gods. This verse talks about not mixing pagan rituals with Christianity, which the Corinthians were almost certainly doing. Now, some will say that it lends itself the other way. To defend this point, I direct you here:

1 Corinthians 7:12-14, NIV

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Through Christ, we can bring a non-believer we are wed to, or even dating, to him. Clearly, there isn't a ban on dating non-believers, so long as we are strong enough to not pull a Solomon.

*puts this rant in OP*

[ty_ping]

linaloki

Okay. I just recently found a "Questions about Christianity answered here!" thread in M&R. Which, really, is what this is supposed to be, just with a preemptive strike on the big'uns.

Someone in there asked about Christians dating atheists. Someone else responded with this verse:

2 Corinthians 6:14, NIV

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?

I'm officially annoyed at how often this verse gets yanked out of context and misused. This verse does NOT deal with dating or marriage. If one reads the entire passage, one notes that there is a severely large amount of references to temples and gods. This verse talks about not mixing pagan rituals with Christianity, which the Corinthians were almost certainly doing. Now, some will say that it lends itself the other way. To defend this point, I direct you here:

1 Corinthians 7:12-14, NIV

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Through Christ, we can bring a non-believer we are wed to, or even dating, to him. Clearly, there isn't a ban on dating non-believers, so long as we are strong enough to not pull a Solomon.

*puts this rant in OP*

So basically Paul says "If you believe, don't worry about it, either your belief with convert them or it wont. You shouldn't force it, nor should you jepordize the relationship because of it. If your belief is weak and you think they'll make you do bad things as a Christian in the name of their belief than maybe you shouldn't be with them, but that's them forcing their beliefs on you. So long as you stay out of eachothers religion you two should be happy and loving."

To modernize it and paraphrase.