Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's actually a hybrid term from both Greek (Homos) and Latin (sexus).
Hey, you said homos and sexus weren't used in the Bible!LOL!!!!!! That wasn't talking about that.
Was that a Babble Boy "made you look" link?
. The phrase the lyings of a woman is the opposite of the lying of a male, which in the Old Testament (eg Book of Numbers 31:1718, 35, and Judges 21:1112) means male vaginal penetration. The opposite of this is female vaginal receptivity the meaning of the lyings of a woman. The male equivalent of vaginal receptivity is anal receptivity. Therefore v.22 prohibits a male from having anal sex (lying) with another male.How are you going to explain how the scholars agree that Leviticus is referring to a purity code violation and not a moral one? If God set His Standard in the earth that this was wrong, it would've always been a moral violation.
Traditionally, 18:22 has been read as a clear condemnation of male homosexual acts. The debate has then been over the hermeneutical question of whether and how, this text applies to the modern Christian or Jewish situation (see The Bible and homosexuality for that debate).
However, there are also debates as to the meaning of the verse itself:
Many authors (including Greenberg 1988:191, Wenham 1979:259, Kahn 1984:49) state that v.22 condemns homosexuality or homosexual relations without explaining what these words mean.
Alternatively, some authors state that v.22 condemns only males penetrating males (anal intercourse). These authors include Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 54a and b; Josephus, Against Apion 2.199; and Philo, Abraham 135. Some modern authors stating this view include Alter 2004:623, 632; Boyarin 1995:339, 343; Brooten 1996:61; Cohen 1990:6; Daube 1986:447; Milgrom 2000:1568; Olyan 1994:185; Thurston 1990:16; and Walsh 2001:208.
The papers by Olyan and Walsh show how they conclude that v.22 refers only to men penetrating men. In brief, the verse only prohibits a male having sex (lying) with another male when the sex is the lyings of a woman (mikəḇē ʼiā
On the other hand, some authors state that v.22 condemns all sex acts between males. These authors include Gagnon 2001:143; and Wold 1998:95.
Some note that v.22 uses the Hebrew phrase, לֹא תִשְׁכַּב "lō ṯikaḇ", which could be referring to any form of laying down to rest. In the surrounding sexual-condemnation passages v.20 and v.23, the phrase לֹא־תִתֵּן שְׁכָבְתְּךָ "lō-ṯittēn əḵoḇtəḵā" is used, which is quite specifically about sex. Some argue that the lack of parallelism between these statements is an indicator that passage v.22 is deliberately phrased to not talk explicitly about sex.
Others note v.22 concerns מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה "mikəḇē ʼiā", literally "the bed(chambers) of (a) woman." They argue that, while this can be an indirect reference to sexuality, it is never used as directly as the English translation seems to indicate. They note that מִשְׁכַּב "mikaḇ" can only used euphemistically to refer to sex, e.g. Numbers 31:18, lit. "women who have known man in the bed of man." They deny that this is a euphemistic use. Also, תִּשְׁכַּב "tikaḇ" could refer to any form of rest (Gen 19:4, 28:11-13, 47:30, Exd 22:27, Lev 14:47, 26:6, Num 23:24, et al).
Conservative theologians have responded that there are many instances of תִּשְׁכַּב "tikaḇ" referring explicitly to sex (Gen 19:34, 26:10, 30:15-16, 34:2, 35:22, 39:7, Exd 22:16, 22:19, et al). Moreover, they argue, the entire context of Leviticus 18 seems to deal with sexual things, and that this rendition of "lie with" is likewise sexual [2]. See, for example, Wold 1998:107.
Liberal theologians have responded to this by noting that v.21 immediately precedes v.22, but is not sexual, hence the context is broken in at least one, and possibly two, passages, before getting reasserted by the parallelism of v.20 and v.23. (But note that Cohen (1990:13) states that seed (zera) in v.21 means sperm, not offspring or children, and offering sperm to Molech is a sexual act).
Some also dispute the type of condemnation present in v.22. The verse identifies that the form of condemnation is תֹּועֵבָה "tōʻēḇā". The earlier crimes referenced in Leviticus 18 (the nakedness crimes), are specifically identified as זִמָּה zimmā. תֹּועֵבָה "Tōʻēḇā" is a word strictly concerning the sin of idolatry (Gen 43:32, 46:34, Exd 8:26, Deut 7:25, 13:12-14, et al). זִמָּה Zimmā seems a more appropriate word to talk about sexual crimes (Lev 18:17, 19:29, 20:14, Judges 20:5-6, Jer 13:27, Eze 16:26-27, et al).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviticus_18
AnswerHow are you going to explain how the scholars agree that Leviticus is referring to a purity code violation and not a moral one? If God set His Standard in the earth that this was wrong, it would've always been a moral violation.
More questions unsolved...
I don't care if all sources agree or not, that doesn't change how God sees it, that's all I care about. I am 100% in my reasoning now, as before I was like 90%, but God has revealed Himself and I know He doesn't have a problem.
Does your experience invalidate the experience of many other people to the contrary?
They are straight people, they have no reason to question their doctrine, it is "unnatural" to them *coughs -- talks fast * despite God making 450 other creations that do these things...
I mean also the homosexuals who live celibate lives because of the same conviction. God made animals to follow animal instinct, which is a primitive urge that doesn't involve logical process. We don't base our lives on that kind of primitive urge.
Only because it seems to me most people who are going through that (homosexuality) tend to react rather poorly to the idea that their sexuality may be changed.
I'm not really trying to win or lose at anything here, though, I know most people don't take it seriously when they hear someone talking about something on a message board. I'm used to that, and I'm used to being taken too seriously, which is a really weird dichotomy. 
Oh, so I should have to stay celibate while you can go get married and have a family and be fulfilled? that is what God would want me to do, abstain? NOT!
