Welcome to Gaia! ::

Debate/Discuss Religion

Back to Guilds

A guild devoted to discussing and debating different aspects of various world religions 

Tags: religion, faith, tolerance, discuss, debate 

Reply Religious Debate
Homosexuality Goto Page: [] [<<] [<] 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 45 46 47 48 [>] [>>] [»|]

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

In Medias Res IV

PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:19 pm


Vasilius Konstantinos
Odd. I thought you said you were Orthodox in another thread, or mad the claim to it hence why I brought this up in the first place as going against the Orthodox view.


Nope. I'm not even Jewish.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:57 pm


In Medias Res IV
Vasilius Konstantinos
Odd. I thought you said you were Orthodox in another thread, or mad the claim to it hence why I brought this up in the first place as going against the Orthodox view.


Nope. I'm not even Jewish.


So exactly how does the Torah support homosexuality? I'm curious to see this...

Nebulance

Tipsy Reveler


In Medias Res IV

PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:18 pm


Nebulance
In Medias Res IV
Vasilius Konstantinos
Odd. I thought you said you were Orthodox in another thread, or mad the claim to it hence why I brought this up in the first place as going against the Orthodox view.


Nope. I'm not even Jewish.


So exactly how does the Torah support homosexuality? I'm curious to see this...


It's not that the Torah SUPPORTS homosexuality, it's that the Torah never explicitly mentions anything about homosexuality being a sin. Leviticus 18:22 has already been refuted, it starts with a "toeyvah hee" not meaning "abomination" and ends with that term being used in the context of idolatry. The verse is about unclean rituals for Jews, mostly likely Canaanite temple prostitution.

Furthermore, there are relationships in the Tanakh that may have been homosexual relationships.

Ruth and Naomi
David and Jonathan
Daniel and Ashpenaz
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:05 am


In Medias Res IV
Nebulance
In Medias Res IV
Vasilius Konstantinos
Odd. I thought you said you were Orthodox in another thread, or mad the claim to it hence why I brought this up in the first place as going against the Orthodox view.


Nope. I'm not even Jewish.


So exactly how does the Torah support homosexuality? I'm curious to see this...


It's not that the Torah SUPPORTS homosexuality, it's that the Torah never explicitly mentions anything about homosexuality being a sin. Leviticus 18:22 has already been refuted, it starts with a "toeyvah hee" not meaning "abomination" and ends with that term being used in the context of idolatry. The verse is about unclean rituals for Jews, mostly likely Canaanite temple prostitution.

Furthermore, there are relationships in the Tanakh that may have been homosexual relationships.

Ruth and Naomi
David and Jonathan
Daniel and Ashpenaz


Even though I don't need Leviticus to argue against homosexuality for Christians, I guess I'll make an examination of it (as it applies to Jews, or anyone trying to keep the Law).

I'm not so sure that Leviticus 18:22 is so easily refuted... it's right in the middle of prohibitions against incest, bestiality, and child sacrifice (not the instructions to refrain from eating shellfish and pork). Yes, the word 'abomination' can mean 'ceremonially unclean,' but that doesn't mean it isn't also as wrong as incest, bestiality, or child sacrifice.

There is also no direct evidence to support the claim that it is referring to temple prostitution... I think if God meant these prohibitions to be limited to temple rituals, He would have said so. But He didn't.

Note that there is one verse that specifically refers to a Canaanite ceremony-- Lev 18:21 And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through [the fire] to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I [am] the LORD.

Molech being a Canaanite god. So when God was referring to a specific temple ceremony (as opposed to something that might be done in a variety of contexts, such as incest, bestiality, or homosexual intercourse), He made that clear. But He makes no such distinction with Leviticus 18:22.

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman."

Pretty clear. Twist it all you like. Sounds to me like God asked Himself, "How can I put this as clearly and bluntly as possible, so that there is no rational way for it to be misunderstood? Lets see:
'YOU SHALL NOT lie with a male as with a woman. Got that, guys? Good.'"

And yet people still deny it. Amazing.

Lev 18:29 For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit [them] shall be cut off from among their people.

It does NOT say, "For whoever commits any of these abominations in a Canaanite temple ceremony, the persons who commit [them] shall be cut off from among their people.

Nebulance

Tipsy Reveler


Nebulance

Tipsy Reveler

PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:09 am


Can't wait to see you go crazy, tearing that apart... wink
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:18 am


The context of Leviticus 18:22:

This is a passage from the Mosaic Code that is often used to condemn all sexual behavior between two men. Although it obviously refers to male-male sex, it is sometimes also used to condemn lesbian activity.

The chapters before and after chapter 18 deal extensively with idolatry. We can therefore expect that much of chapter 18 will deal with the same topic.

Leviticus 18, verses 6 to 21, contain a whole series of forbidden forms of incest with one's:

Verse 6: relatives that are "near of kin."
Verse 7: father or mother.
Verse 8: father's wife.
Verse 9: sister or step sister.
Verse 10: granddaughter.
Verse 11: sister or step sister.
Verse 12: aunt on the father's side of the family.
Verse 13: aunt on the mother's side of the family.
Verse 14: uncle or aunt.
Verse 15: daughter-in-law.
Verse 16: sister-in-law.
Verse 17: female friend together with a close female relative of the friend.
Verse 18: wife's sister.
Verses 19 and 20 leave the topic of incest but continue the theme of forbidden sexual activity:

Verse 19 forbids sexual activity with a menstruating woman.
Verse 20 forbids adultery with a neighbor's wife.
At this point, there is a break in topic being discussed. The chapter switches to a condemnation of false forms of worship in general, and the worship of the Pagan god Molech in particular. Like many other Pagan temples, those dedicated to Molech had temple prostitutes. His followers believed that engaging in sexual activity with these prostitutes would please Molech and "... increase the fertility of themselves, their spouses, their livestock and their fields." 1

Verse 21 forbids ritual child sacrifice and names a Pagan god Molech to whom children were believed to have been sacrificed. The verse also forbids blasphemy against Yahweh.
Verse 22 is translated in the King James Version as: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

If the verse is considered in isolation -- as it is most often done -- then a logical interpretation is that the verse condemns all sexual activity between two males.
If Leviticus 18:22 is considered in the context of its surrounding chapters and previous verse, then one might expect that it refers to some forbidden idolatrous activity in a Pagan temple from which the ancient Israelites must separate themselves.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh4.htm

Where are the lesbians?

In Medias Res IV


Nebulance

Tipsy Reveler

PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:40 am


In Medias Res IV
The context of Leviticus 18:22:

This is a passage from the Mosaic Code that is often used to condemn all sexual behavior between two men. Although it obviously refers to male-male sex, it is sometimes also used to condemn lesbian activity.

The chapters before and after chapter 18 deal extensively with idolatry. We can therefore expect that much of chapter 18 will deal with the same topic.

Leviticus 18, verses 6 to 21, contain a whole series of forbidden forms of incest with one's:

Verse 6: relatives that are "near of kin."
Verse 7: father or mother.
Verse 8: father's wife.
Verse 9: sister or step sister.
Verse 10: granddaughter.
Verse 11: sister or step sister.
Verse 12: aunt on the father's side of the family.
Verse 13: aunt on the mother's side of the family.
Verse 14: uncle or aunt.
Verse 15: daughter-in-law.
Verse 16: sister-in-law.
Verse 17: female friend together with a close female relative of the friend.
Verse 18: wife's sister.
Verses 19 and 20 leave the topic of incest but continue the theme of forbidden sexual activity:

Verse 19 forbids sexual activity with a menstruating woman.
Verse 20 forbids adultery with a neighbor's wife.
At this point, there is a break in topic being discussed. The chapter switches to a condemnation of false forms of worship in general, and the worship of the Pagan god Molech in particular. Like many other Pagan temples, those dedicated to Molech had temple prostitutes. His followers believed that engaging in sexual activity with these prostitutes would please Molech and "... increase the fertility of themselves, their spouses, their livestock and their fields." 1

Verse 21 forbids ritual child sacrifice and names a Pagan god Molech to whom children were believed to have been sacrificed. The verse also forbids blasphemy against Yahweh.
Verse 22 is translated in the King James Version as: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

If the verse is considered in isolation -- as it is most often done -- then a logical interpretation is that the verse condemns all sexual activity between two males.
If Leviticus 18:22 is considered in the context of its surrounding chapters and previous verse, then one might expect that it refers to some forbidden idolatrous activity in a Pagan temple from which the ancient Israelites must separate themselves.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh4.htm

Where are the lesbians?


Context: the vast majority of this chapter is actually dealing with forms of sexual immorality, not temple rituals-- incest of various types, adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality. Verse 21 (child sacrifice by fire to Molech) is the only verse which explicitly refers to a temple ritual. And yet, would you argue that child sacrifice is okay, so long as it isn't done in a temple ritual?

And yes, it doesn't mention lesbians. I'll admit I have nothing for you there in Leviticus; I'd have to fall back to the more difficult argument of 'God created them man and woman, husband and wife.'
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:45 am


And so long as we're allowing copy-paste, here's a well-put piece of commentary I found while researching this passage. It sums up some of the arguments I've been making:

Leviticus 18 Commentary

It is an abomination: This command is commonly objected to on the grounds that one was born - or created - with homosexual desires. “I was born this way; God made me a homosexual. It is my nature to be homosexual; it would be against my nature to be heterosexual.”

i. The problem is that the Bible says we are all sinners by nature; not a single person is born without an attraction to sin in some way or another. We should not say that God made the homosexual; we could say that Adam did, when he passed on the effects of his rebellion to the entire human race.

ii. Our inborn attraction to sin justifies nothing. The one who practices homosexuality can no more justify himself by saying “I was born this way” than can the person who hates homosexuals justify their ungodly hatred by saying “I was born this way.”

iii. Many justify homosexual practice on the basis of love. They might say, “How can it be wrong to love someone of my own sex? How can love be wrong?” Yet if someone loves their children, it does not justify sexual conduct with them. The issue isn’t love; the issue is of sexual conduct. Of course, the Bible in no way condemns love between people of the same sex, but it does say that sexual conduct between those people is sin.

Nebulance

Tipsy Reveler


In Medias Res IV

PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:47 am


Nebulance
In Medias Res IV
The context of Leviticus 18:22:

This is a passage from the Mosaic Code that is often used to condemn all sexual behavior between two men. Although it obviously refers to male-male sex, it is sometimes also used to condemn lesbian activity.

The chapters before and after chapter 18 deal extensively with idolatry. We can therefore expect that much of chapter 18 will deal with the same topic.

Leviticus 18, verses 6 to 21, contain a whole series of forbidden forms of incest with one's:

Verse 6: relatives that are "near of kin."
Verse 7: father or mother.
Verse 8: father's wife.
Verse 9: sister or step sister.
Verse 10: granddaughter.
Verse 11: sister or step sister.
Verse 12: aunt on the father's side of the family.
Verse 13: aunt on the mother's side of the family.
Verse 14: uncle or aunt.
Verse 15: daughter-in-law.
Verse 16: sister-in-law.
Verse 17: female friend together with a close female relative of the friend.
Verse 18: wife's sister.
Verses 19 and 20 leave the topic of incest but continue the theme of forbidden sexual activity:

Verse 19 forbids sexual activity with a menstruating woman.
Verse 20 forbids adultery with a neighbor's wife.
At this point, there is a break in topic being discussed. The chapter switches to a condemnation of false forms of worship in general, and the worship of the Pagan god Molech in particular. Like many other Pagan temples, those dedicated to Molech had temple prostitutes. His followers believed that engaging in sexual activity with these prostitutes would please Molech and "... increase the fertility of themselves, their spouses, their livestock and their fields." 1

Verse 21 forbids ritual child sacrifice and names a Pagan god Molech to whom children were believed to have been sacrificed. The verse also forbids blasphemy against Yahweh.
Verse 22 is translated in the King James Version as: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

If the verse is considered in isolation -- as it is most often done -- then a logical interpretation is that the verse condemns all sexual activity between two males.
If Leviticus 18:22 is considered in the context of its surrounding chapters and previous verse, then one might expect that it refers to some forbidden idolatrous activity in a Pagan temple from which the ancient Israelites must separate themselves.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh4.htm

Where are the lesbians?


Context: the vast majority of this chapter is actually dealing with forms of sexual immorality, not temple rituals-- incest of various types, adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality. Verse 21 (child sacrifice by fire to Molech) is the only verse which explicitly refers to a temple ritual. And yet, would you argue that child sacrifice is okay, so long as it isn't done in a temple ritual?

And yes, it doesn't mention lesbians. I'll admit I have nothing for you there in Leviticus; I'd have to fall back to the more difficult argument of 'God created them man and woman, husband and wife.'



What was the Sin of Sodom? – Scripture Study

Genesis 19:1-25
Some "televangelists" carelessly proclaim that God destroyed the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of "homosexuality." Although some theologians have equated the sin of Sodom with homosexuality, a careful look at Scripture corrects such ignorance.

Announcing judgment on these cities in Genesis 18, God sends two angels to Sodom, where Abraham's nephew, Lot, persuades them to stay in his home. Genesis 19 records that "all the people from every quarter" surround Lot's house demanding the release of his visitors so "we might know them." The Hebrew word for "know" in this case, yadha, usually means "have thorough knowledge of." It could also express intent to examine the visitors' credentials, or on rare occasions the term implies sexual intercourse. If the latter was the author's intended meaning, it would have been a clear case of attempted gang rape.

Horrified at this gross violation of ancient hospitality rules, Lot attempts to protect the visitors by offering his two daughters to the angry crowd, a morally outrageous act by today's standards. The people of Sodom refuse, so the angels render them blind. Lot and his family are then rescued by the angels as the cities are destroyed.

Several observations are important.
First, the judgment on these cities for their wickedness had been announced prior to the alleged homosexual incident.

Second, all of Sodom's people participated in the assault on Lot's house; in no culture has more than a small minority of the population been homosexual.

Third, Lot's offer to release his daughters suggests he knew his neighbors to have heterosexual interests.

Fourth, if the issue was sexual, why did God spare Lot, who immediately commits incest with his daughters? Most importantly, why do all the other passages of Scripture referring to this account fail to raise the issue of homosexuality?

Ezekiel 16:48-50
states it clearly. The people of Sodom, like many people today, had abundance of material goods. But they failed to meet the needs of the poor, and they worshipped idols. The sins of injustice and idolatry plague every generation. We stand under the same judgment if we create false gods or treat others with injustice.

The Holiness Code – Scripture Study

Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13
Christians today do not follow the rules and rituals described in Leviticus. But some ignore its definitions of their own "uncleanness" while quoting Leviticus to condemn "homosexuals." Such abuse of Scripture distorts the Old Testament meaning and denies a New Testament message. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." These words occur solely in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel's priests. Their meaning can only be fully appreciated in the historical and cultural context of the ancient Hebrew people. Israel, in a unique place as the chosen people of one God, was to avoid the practices of other peoples and gods.

Hebrew religion, characterized by the revelation of one God, stood in continuous tension with the religion of the surrounding Canaanites who worshipped the multiple gods of fertility cults. Canaanite idol worship, which featured female and male cult prostitution as noted in Deuteronomy 23:17, repeatedly compromised Israel's loyalty to God. The Hebrew word for a male cult prostitute, qadesh, is mistranslated "sodomite" in some versions of the Bible.

What is an "Abomination"?
An abomination is that which God found detestable because it was unclean, disloyal, or unjust. Several Hebrew words were so translated, and the one found in Leviticus, toevah, is usually associated with idolatry, as in Ezekiel, where it occurs numerous times. Given the strong association of toevah with idolatry and the canaanite religious practice of cult prostitution, the use of toevah regarding male same-sex acts in Leviticus calls into question any conclusion that such condemnation also applies to loving, responsible homosexual relationships.

Rituals and Rules
Rituals and Rules found in the Old Testament were given to preserve the distinctive characteristics of the religion and culture of Israel. But, as stated in Galatians 3:22-25, Christians are no longer bound by these Jewish laws. By faith we live in Jesus Christ, not in Leviticus. To be sure, ethical concerns apply to all cultures and peoples in every age. Such concerns were ultimately reflected by Jesus Christ, who said nothing about homosexuality, but a great deal about love, justice, mercy and faith.

The New Testament – Scripture Study

Romans 1:24-27
Most New Testament books, including the four Gospels, are silent on same-sex acts, and Paul is the only author who makes any reference to the subject. The most negative statement by Paul regarding same-sex acts occurs in Romans 1:24-27 where, in the context of a larger argument on the need of all people for the gospel of Jesus Christ, certain homosexual behavior is given as an example of the "uncleanness" of idolatrous Gentiles.

This raises the question: Does this passage refer to all homosexual acts, or to certain homosexual behavior known to Paul's readers? The book of Romans was written to Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome, who would have been familiar with the infamous sexual excesses of their contemporaries, especially Roman emperors. They would also have been aware of tensions in the early Church regarding Gentiles and observance of the Jewish laws, as noted in Acts 15 and Paul's letter to the Galatians. Jewish laws in Leviticus mentioned male same-sex acts in the context of idolatry.

The homosexual practices cited in Romans 1:24-27 were believed to result from idolatry and are associated with some very serious offenses as noted in Romans 1. Taken in this larger context, it should be obvious that such acts are significantly different from loving, responsible lesbian and gay relationships seen today.

What is "Natural"?
Significant to Paul's discussion is the fact that these "unclean" Gentiles exchanged that which was "natural" for them, physin, in the Greek text, for something "unnatural," para physin. In Romans 11:24, God acts in an "unnatural" way, para physin, to accept the Gentiles. "Unnatural" in these passages does not refer to violation of so-called laws of nature, but rather implies action contradicting one's own nature. In view of this, we should observe that it is "unnatural," para physin, for a person today with a lesbian or gay sexual orientation to attempt living a heterosexual lifestyle.

Reference to Lesbianism?

Romans 1:26 is the only statement in the Bible with a possible reference to lesbian behavior, although the specific intent of this verse is unclear. Some authors have seen in this passage a reference to women adopting a dominant role in heterosexual relationships. Given the repressive cultural expectations placed on women in Paul's time, such a meaning may be possible.

The Other Verses...
I Corinthians 6:9
Any consideration of New Testament statements on same-sex acts must carefully view the social context of the Greco-Roman culture in which Paul ministered. Prostitution and pederasty (sexual relationships of adult men with boys) were the most commonly known male same-sex acts.

In I Corinthians 6:9, Paul condemns those who are "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind," as translated in the King James version. Unfortunately, some new translations are worse, rendering these words "homosexuals." Recent scholarship unmasks the homophobia behind such mistranslations.

The first word - malakos, in the Greek text-which has been translated "effeminate" or "soft," most likely refers to someone who lacks discipline or moral control. The word is used elsewhere in the New Testament but never with reference to sexuality.

The second word, Arsenokoitai, occurs once each in I Corinthians and I Timothy (1:10), but nowhere else in other literature of the period. It is derived from two Greek words, one meaning, "males" and the other "beds", a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Other Greek words were commonly used to describe homosexual behavior but do not appear here. The larger context of I Corinthians 6 shows Paul extremely concerned with prostitution, so it is very possible he was referring to male prostitutes. But many experts now attempting to translate these words have reached a simple conclusion: their precise meaning is uncertain.

Scripture Study Conclusion…No Law Against Love
The rarity with which Paul discusses any form of same-sex behavior and the ambiguity in references attributed to him make it extremely unsound to conclude any sure position in the New Testament on homosexuality, especially in the context of loving, responsible relationships. Since any arguments must be made from silence, it is much more reliable to turn to great principles of the Gospel taught by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Do not judge others, lest you be judged. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is love . . . against such there is no law.

One thing is abundantly clear, as Paul stated in Galatians 5:14:

"...the whole Law is fulfilled in one statement,
'You shall love your neighbor as yourself".

Insights from Other Bible Scholars

"The homosexuality the New Testament opposes is the pederasty of the Greco-Roman culture; the attitudes toward pederasty and, in part, the language used to oppose it are informed by the Jewish background."
Robin Scroggs, Professor of Biblical Theology,
Union Theological Seminary, New York City.

"One cannot be absolutely certain that the two key words in I Corinthians 6:9 are meant as references to male homosexual behavior."
Victor Paul Furnish, Professor of New Testament,
PerkinsSchoolof Theology, Dallas.

"The strongest New Testament argument against homosexual activity is intrinsically immoral has been derived traditionally from Romans 1:26, where this activity is indicated as para physin. The normal English translation for this has been 'against nature.' Two interpretations can be justified concerning what Paul meant by the phrase. It could refer to the individual pagan, who goes beyond his own sexual appetites in order to indulge in new sexual pleasure. The second possibility is that physis refers to the 'nature' of the chosen people who were forbidden by Levitical law to have homosexual relations."
John J. McNeill, Adjunct Professor of Psychology,
Union Theological Seminary, New York City.

"A close reading of Paul's discussion of homosexual acts in Romans 1 does not support the common modern interpretation of the passage. Paul did not deny the existence of a distinction between clean and unclean and even assumed that Jewish Christians would continue to observe the purity code. He refrained. However, from identifying physical impurity with sin or demanding that Gentiles adhere to that code."
William Countryman, Professor of New Testament,
ChurchDivinitySchoolof Pacific, Berkeley.

"The Hebrew word 'toevah,' here translated 'abomination,' does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft (discussed elsewhere in Leviticus), but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters."
John Boswell, Professor of History,
YaleUniversity, New Haven.



Helpful Reading:

The following books are highly recommended for those wishing to carefully study issues of homosexuality as related to the Christian Church:

Boswell, John. Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality: gay people in Western Europefrom the beginning of the Christian era to the fourteenth century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.

Countryman, Louis William. Gifted by Otherness: Gay and Lesbian Christians in the Church. Morehouse Publishing, 2001.

Furnish, Victor Paul (1979). The Moral Teaching of Paul. Nashville: Abingdon Press

Goss, Robert E and Mona West, ed Take Back the Word. Pilgrim Press, 2000

Hanks, Tom. God So Loved the Third World. Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2001.

Helminiak, Daniel A. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. San Francisco: Alamo Square Press, 2000.

Heyward, Carter. Touching Our Strength: The Erotic As Power and the Love of God. Harpercollins 1989.

Horner, Tom (197 cool . Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

McNeill, John J. (198 cool . The Church and the Homosexual. Boston: Beacon Press. Orig. pub. 1976

Scroggs, Robin (1983). The New Testament and Homosexuality. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.



Where are your sources, other than opinion?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:48 am


Nebulance
And so long as we're allowing copy-paste, here's a well-put piece of commentary I found while researching this passage. It sums up some of the arguments I've been making:

Leviticus 18 Commentary

It is an abomination: This command is commonly objected to on the grounds that one was born - or created - with homosexual desires. “I was born this way; God made me a homosexual. It is my nature to be homosexual; it would be against my nature to be heterosexual.”

i. The problem is that the Bible says we are all sinners by nature; not a single person is born without an attraction to sin in some way or another. We should not say that God made the homosexual; we could say that Adam did, when he passed on the effects of his rebellion to the entire human race.

ii. Our inborn attraction to sin justifies nothing. The one who practices homosexuality can no more justify himself by saying “I was born this way” than can the person who hates homosexuals justify their ungodly hatred by saying “I was born this way.”

iii. Many justify homosexual practice on the basis of love. They might say, “How can it be wrong to love someone of my own sex? How can love be wrong?” Yet if someone loves their children, it does not justify sexual conduct with them. The issue isn’t love; the issue is of sexual conduct. Of course, the Bible in no way condemns love between people of the same sex, but it does say that sexual conduct between those people is sin.



This is all opinion, this has nothing to do with historical context or translation...

In Medias Res IV


Nebulance

Tipsy Reveler

PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:51 am


Ok, that's way too much copy-pasta that does not respond specifically to the points I made.
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:52 am


In Medias Res IV
Nebulance
And so long as we're allowing copy-paste, here's a well-put piece of commentary I found while researching this passage. It sums up some of the arguments I've been making:

Leviticus 18 Commentary

It is an abomination: This command is commonly objected to on the grounds that one was born - or created - with homosexual desires. “I was born this way; God made me a homosexual. It is my nature to be homosexual; it would be against my nature to be heterosexual.”

i. The problem is that the Bible says we are all sinners by nature; not a single person is born without an attraction to sin in some way or another. We should not say that God made the homosexual; we could say that Adam did, when he passed on the effects of his rebellion to the entire human race.

ii. Our inborn attraction to sin justifies nothing. The one who practices homosexuality can no more justify himself by saying “I was born this way” than can the person who hates homosexuals justify their ungodly hatred by saying “I was born this way.”

iii. Many justify homosexual practice on the basis of love. They might say, “How can it be wrong to love someone of my own sex? How can love be wrong?” Yet if someone loves their children, it does not justify sexual conduct with them. The issue isn’t love; the issue is of sexual conduct. Of course, the Bible in no way condemns love between people of the same sex, but it does say that sexual conduct between those people is sin.



This is all opinion, this has nothing to do with historical context or translation...


Didn't say it did; I just put it out as a nice summary of parts of the way I feel, and not just about Leviticus, but about homosexuality and the Bible in general.

Nebulance

Tipsy Reveler


In Medias Res IV

PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:01 am


Nebulance
In Medias Res IV
Nebulance
And so long as we're allowing copy-paste, here's a well-put piece of commentary I found while researching this passage. It sums up some of the arguments I've been making:

Leviticus 18 Commentary

It is an abomination: This command is commonly objected to on the grounds that one was born - or created - with homosexual desires. “I was born this way; God made me a homosexual. It is my nature to be homosexual; it would be against my nature to be heterosexual.”

i. The problem is that the Bible says we are all sinners by nature; not a single person is born without an attraction to sin in some way or another. We should not say that God made the homosexual; we could say that Adam did, when he passed on the effects of his rebellion to the entire human race.

ii. Our inborn attraction to sin justifies nothing. The one who practices homosexuality can no more justify himself by saying “I was born this way” than can the person who hates homosexuals justify their ungodly hatred by saying “I was born this way.”

iii. Many justify homosexual practice on the basis of love. They might say, “How can it be wrong to love someone of my own sex? How can love be wrong?” Yet if someone loves their children, it does not justify sexual conduct with them. The issue isn’t love; the issue is of sexual conduct. Of course, the Bible in no way condemns love between people of the same sex, but it does say that sexual conduct between those people is sin.



This is all opinion, this has nothing to do with historical context or translation...


Didn't say it did; I just put it out as a nice summary of parts of the way I feel, and not just about Leviticus, but about homosexuality and the Bible in general.


You have to prove that homosexuality is a sin first.
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:10 am


In Medias Res IV
Nebulance
In Medias Res IV
Nebulance
And so long as we're allowing copy-paste, here's a well-put piece of commentary I found while researching this passage. It sums up some of the arguments I've been making:

Leviticus 18 Commentary

It is an abomination: This command is commonly objected to on the grounds that one was born - or created - with homosexual desires. “I was born this way; God made me a homosexual. It is my nature to be homosexual; it would be against my nature to be heterosexual.”

i. The problem is that the Bible says we are all sinners by nature; not a single person is born without an attraction to sin in some way or another. We should not say that God made the homosexual; we could say that Adam did, when he passed on the effects of his rebellion to the entire human race.

ii. Our inborn attraction to sin justifies nothing. The one who practices homosexuality can no more justify himself by saying “I was born this way” than can the person who hates homosexuals justify their ungodly hatred by saying “I was born this way.”

iii. Many justify homosexual practice on the basis of love. They might say, “How can it be wrong to love someone of my own sex? How can love be wrong?” Yet if someone loves their children, it does not justify sexual conduct with them. The issue isn’t love; the issue is of sexual conduct. Of course, the Bible in no way condemns love between people of the same sex, but it does say that sexual conduct between those people is sin.



This is all opinion, this has nothing to do with historical context or translation...


Didn't say it did; I just put it out as a nice summary of parts of the way I feel, and not just about Leviticus, but about homosexuality and the Bible in general.


You have to prove that homosexuality is a sin first.


This isn't part of my proof. It is simply a response to common objections that are made to my position which is based on Romans 1. It isn't part of my argument about Leviticus, so you can disregard it.

Again, I'm not going to take the time to critique every lengthy commentary you can find on the internet that supports your views. Already did that once. You should directly respond to points I made in my last post on the subject (I even ceded some ground to you, so stop and savour your victory wink ). I'll repost what I said:

Quote:
Context: the vast majority of this chapter is actually dealing with forms of sexual immorality, not temple rituals-- incest of various types, adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality. Verse 21 (child sacrifice by fire to Molech) is the only verse which explicitly refers to a temple ritual. And yet, would you argue that child sacrifice is okay, so long as it isn't done in a temple ritual?

And yes, it doesn't mention lesbians. I'll admit I have nothing for you there in Leviticus; I'd have to fall back to the more difficult argument of 'God created them man and woman, husband and wife.'

Nebulance

Tipsy Reveler


The Rotten Banana v2

PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:50 am


leviticus 20:13-20:13

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. "

Romans 1:26-27

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature."


"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet."

All I have for right now.
Reply
Religious Debate

Goto Page: [] [<<] [<] 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 45 46 47 48 [>] [>>] [»|]
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum