What is marriage, and why does it preclude homosexuality? (Moved from C,P&E to DOH)

[Jerrell]

-deleted-

 

[AetheriusLamia]

of course, actually it's probably on your book shelf already.

Leviticus and the bible in general

Your post here angered me, because it is such a foolish thing to say.

If you've been paying attention to my posts or this thread in general, you'd realize that reading the Bible exclusively leads to the conclusion that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable to God -- or, as Anglian has said, you can argue Scripture back and forth until you're blue in the face, because it's not conclusive.

It is also very narrow-minded to assume that the Bible explains itself: It often does not, and in such cases understanding of specific passages can only be had in cultural, historical (and archeological) context.

So in short, you missed the point of my question entirely, and have made me think you've not listened to (or read) any of what I've written, nor have you been paying any attention at all to this thread in general.

 

[Anglian]

Dear AtheriusLamia,

How are you feeling about how this is developing? Do you think any fresh points are being made? Your last post suggests an understandable level of frustration with the reiteration of some claims about sola scriptura.

We know what those who disapprove of it say the Bible says about homosexuality, and we know the counter arguments. What still seems relevant to those of us in such Churches is that the Apostolic Churches see active homosexual behaviour as sinful. With that we are stuck - but it doesn't preclude discussion.

In peace,

Anglian

 

[mattlock73]

If you've been paying attention to my posts or this thread in general, you'd realize that reading the Bible exclusively leads to the conclusion that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable to God --

I have read your posts, yet I fail to come to the same conclusion you do.

It is also very narrow-minded to assume that the Bible explains itself: It often does not, and in such cases understanding of specific passages can only be had in cultural, historical (and archeological) context.

Scripture does interpret scripture. It can be helpful to examine the scriptures along with historical and cultural documents, but there is an important distinction. The former is the inspired word of God, the latter is not and largely based on conjecture and opinion of those doing the writing and even more so on those doing the reading.

 

[OllieFranz]

I have read your posts, yet I fail to come to the same conclusion you do.



Scripture does interpret scripture. It can be helpful to examine the scriptures along with historical and cultural documents, but there is an important distinction. The former is the inspired word of God, the latter is not and largely based on conjecture and opinion of those doing the writing and even more so on those doing the reading.
(emphasis mine)

That it is also true that your opinions and conjectures color your understanding of what you read even when what you are reading is the Bible is the largest part of OhioProf's oft-repeated point. And a point that almost all of us have made at one time or another. And one which several posters on the other side deny who claim that it is not their interpretation, but "God's words."

 

[mattlock73]

That it is also true that your opinions and conjectures color your understanding of what you read even when what you are reading is the Bible is the largest part of OhioProf's oft-repeated point. And a point that almost all of us have made at one time or another. And one which several posters on the other side deny who claim that it is not their interpretation, but "God's words."

Agreed, which is why scripture must interpret scripture. It is one of the most critical aspects of reading scripture. Let's say I read one part of scripture and come away with one interpretation. Then I read another part and come away with a completely different interpretation, it has to be me that's wrong. I have let either my own emotions or personal bias creep into my interpretation. Scripture does not contradict, but complements other scripture, so I need to go back and examine scripture as a whole to see what it really says about the subject.

In this case, although I am sympathetic to the position that the pro-homosexuality posters have put themselves in, scripture (IMHO of course) does not in any way, shape or form condone homosexual behavior and/or marriage, but instead says just the opposite.

 

[OllieFranz]

Agreed, which is why scripture must interpret scripture. It is one of the most critical aspects of reading scripture. Let's say I read one part of scripture and come away with one interpretation. Then I read another part and come away with a completely different interpretation, it has to be me that's wrong. I have let either my own emotions or personal bias creep into my interpretation. Scripture does not contradict, but complements other scripture, so I need to go back and examine scripture as a whole to see what it really says about the subject.

In this case, although I am sympathetic to the position that the pro-homosexuality posters have put themselves in, scripture (IMHO of course) does not in any way, shape or form condone homosexual behavior and/or marriage, but instead says just the opposite.

No.

Leviticus bans a certain action, by one of the participants, for the sake of clearly differentiating Jews from heir neighbors. It is possible to argue that this ban was even more restrictive, restricted to rape or to pagan religious practices, but even if they were not so restricted, these are separateness bans that were not meant to apply to Gentile Christians, as explained in Acts 10-11, Acts 15, Romans, Galatians, and touched on in 1 Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11 do seem to refer back to the Levitical ban, but both passages are general listings of many sins against the Law of Moses. And both are making the point that the christian has been redeemed out of sin.

Romans 1:26-27 is making a point about Passion, by quoting an example of Passion gone amok from a famous piece of Greek literature. The original work takes great pains to emphasize that the thing that went against nature was the akrateian hêdonês, "out-of-control pleasure-seeking (hedonism)" or unbridled Passion all through the rest of the passage. Paul was not about to quote a whole two chapters to make the same point, but he did re-phrase the passage slightly, to allow him to insert five key words: the five components of unbridled Passion.

The Romans 1 passage does lend itself to an anti-gay reading if you are unfamliar with the Greek work from which Paul drew his example, but that is why, as you say, we must compare scripture with scripture.

As a whole, Romans 1:18-32 is a set-up for chapters 2 and 3. Paul describes the wickedest people immaginable, and then tells his readers, "and you are no better than they are." The sins must be vividly described and must be considered especially heinous to give the proper initial effect, but once the Christian reads as far as Romans 2:1-3, the specifics do not matter. We are all guilty. As James wrote: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all." (James 2:10)

The specifics may not matter later, but the sins must be real sins. So: Is woman with woman and man with man the sin? If it is, then why was all the emphasis placed on unbridled Passion?

Nowhere else in scripture is "woman with woman" condemned. The phrases "according to nature" and "against nature" do not appear anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures; when they appear elsewhere in the Greek scriptures the merely mean "as expected" or "against all expectations." It is only here that the phrases take on their original philosophic meaning of "ethically correct" and "that which ought not be done."

On the other hand, lust, Passion, and sexual immorality defined -- usually, in many of those same passages -- as adultery, fornication, and prostitution are condemned in many passages, not just here.

These five passages (Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9-10, 1 Tim 1:8-11, and Romans 1:26-27) are the only teaching passages that touch specifically on same-sex relations. There are few historical passages that include actions between men that are seen as sexual in nature. The most famous such historic passage is Genesis 19. But in this passage, as in the less well known ones, the action would be evil even if the victims were the opposite sex and, indeed, even if there were no sexual overtones at all.

So, by comparing scripture with scripture you can't help but see that the Bible is gay-neutral. It bans evil homosexual acts the same way it bans their heterosexual counterparts. The Mosaic Law ritually banned one act under certain circumstances, but Acts 10-11 and 15 apply to Christians. Otherwise it is silent on the subject of same-sex relations*, though it does have praise for certain same-sex relationships*.

*In this last sentence, I used the term "relations" to indicate sexual acts, and "relationship" to encompass all kinds of connections (all levels of freindship) between people with no assumptions made about any relations they may be having or avoiding.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Nowhere else in scripture is "woman with woman" condemned. The phrases "according to nature" and "against nature" do not appear anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures; when they appear elsewhere in the Greek scriptures the merely mean "as expected" or "against all expectations." It is only here that the phrases take on their original philosophic meaning of "ethically correct" and "that which ought not be done."

On the other hand, lust, Passion, and sexual immorality defined -- usually, in many of those same passages -- as adultery, fornication, and prostitution are condemned in many passages, not just here.

These five passages (Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9-10, 1 Tim 1:8-11, and Romans 1:26-27) are the only teaching passages that touch specifically on same-sex relations. There are few historical passages that include actions between men that are seen as sexual in nature. The most famous such historic passage is Genesis 19. But in this passage, as in the less well known ones, the action would be evil even if the victims were the opposite sex and, indeed, even if there were no sexual overtones at all.

So, by comparing scripture with scripture you can't help but see that the Bible is gay-neutral. It bans evil homosexual acts the same way it bans their heterosexual counterparts. The Mosaic Law ritually banned one act under certain circumstances, but Acts 10-11 and 15 apply to Christians. Otherwise it is silent on the subject of same-sex relations*, though it does have praise for certain same-sex relationships*.

The bible condemns homosexual acts - just because the perspective is written to the male (who in the culture had headship over the family and was responsible for teaching the truth) it doesnt mean its ok-

The bible tells a man not to covet his neighbors wife - it doesnt also say for a woman not to covet her neighbors husband so does that mean its ok for a woman to lust after another womans husband? NO - tense of the writing doesnt mean its ok the other way because they didnt feel the need to also specifiy it the other way.

One doesnt need to list each way something is to get the clear intent. This is just yet another "clever
" argument to allow for sin. Because with this argument i guess us woman can sin all we want right? I mean we arent named in many things - but you know somehow i am pretty certain that it means us too.

 

[OllieFranz]

The bible condemns homosexual acts - just because the perspective is written to the male (who in the culture had headship over the family and was responsible for teaching the truth) it doesnt mean its ok-

The bible tells a man not to covet his neighbors wife - it doesnt also say for a woman not to covet her neighbors husband so does that mean its ok for a woman to lust after another womans husband? NO - tense of the writing doesnt mean its ok the other way because they didnt feel the need to also specifiy it the other way.

One doesnt need to list each way something is to get the clear intent. This is just yet another "clever
" argument to allow for sin. Because with this argument i guess us woman can sin all we want right? I mean we arent named in many things - but you know somehow i am pretty certain that it means us too.

But we are told not to read into the Bible what is not there. (Deut 4:2, Deut 12:32, Rev 22:18).

If the Bible condemned homosexuality, then yes nitpicking the prescence or abscence of a particular example would be "straining at gnats and swallowing a camel."

However, the Bible condemns one particular act for one particular reason in Leviticus 18: 22 and Leviticus 20:13. There is no reason to "add" to that command a general ban on male/male homosexuality much less a parallel ban on female homosexuality. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11 may include a reference back to the Levitical ban, but are certainly not teaching an expansion of it. So the other teaching verses do not condemn homosexuality in general at all.

That leaves Romans 1:26-27 out on its own, and as I said, it was a well known example of succumbing to inordinate lust [from a society (the Greco-Roman pagans) where some forms of same-sex relations were accepted, and most others ridiculed rather than condemned outright]. In addition, Paul made a point of emphasizing that he was quoting it because of the lust. To insist that the primary wrong was the same-sex relations is to ignore exactly what Paul was pointing to.

 

[Angel4Truth]

So i can lust after my neighbors husband since the bible says that to a man instead of a woman? The verse in leviticus doesnt add for a man not to lie with another man in a temple or as a prostitute - you are adding that while saying dont add.


Its not ok - the law was given for the knowledge of sin - 2 people lying together sexually man or woman of the same sex is listed as a sin and one will heed it or not.

 

[OllieFranz]

Because with this argument i guess us woman can sin all we want right? I mean we arent named in many things - but you know somehow i am pretty certain that it means us too.

I know you meant to be facetious with this statement. But it is true that women were not held to many of the purity/separateness laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. And they were held to a higher standard on others. Leviticus 18:22 is one of the ones they were not held to.

And of course, no Gentile, even Christian Gentiles are held to the purity/separateness laws*. Christians, in particular, were exempted in Acts 10-11, acts 15, Romans and Galatians.

[sarcasm](*Except for Lev 18:22, Lev 19:28, Lev 20:13, Lev 23:3ff, and Deut 22:5)[\sarcasm]

 

[Angel4Truth]

Are you seriously missing my point? A number of laws and commandments are written to the male perspective only by tense of writing - using the poor argument you are putting up - would mean i could commit a number of sins because the laws doesnt specify it to the female gender in its prose.

Its a poor argument. The law is for the KNOWLEDGE of sin. It doesnt have to have a man cannot lust after his neighbors and a woman cannot lust after her neighbors husband for one to understand it means people in general just because of the tense of the writing.

 

[OllieFranz]

So i can lust after my neighbors husband since the bible says that to a man instead of a woman? The verse in leviticus doesnt add for a man not to lie with another man in a temple or as a prostitute - you are adding that while saying dont add.

No, I said that an argument can be made for that interpretation (based on Leviticus 20:2-5) I did not say that I agree with that argument. What I did say was that even if it is not restricted to temple worship, since it is a separaeness/purity law, non-Jewish Christians are exempt, both because they are Gentiles, and because they were specifically exempted.

Its not ok - the law was given for the knowledge of sin - 2 people lying together sexually man or woman of the same sex is listed as a sin and one will heed it or not.

Where, other than in the five passages discussed, which do not teach that, do you find this doctrine?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Romans 3:19. Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Leviticus 20:. 10. `The man who commits adultery with another man's wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.
11. `The man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
12. `If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. They have committed perversion. Their blood shall be upon them.
13. `If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Context is everything - its telling everything about a how a man lying with someone sexually is a sin so no the verse is about not about prostitution and there are other verses that mention prostitution so there is no reason to believe thats what this one is about when seen in context especially.

Adultery is also written there - can i now commit adultery because its written toward the male? No- its prose only

 

[OllieFranz]

Are you seriously missing my point? A number of laws and commandments are written to the male perspective only by tense of writing - using the poor argument you are putting up - would mean i could commit a number of sins because the laws doesnt specify it to the female gender in its prose.

And I agreed that when a general principle is laid out and one or two minor examples are not explicitly included they cannot be presumed to have been exempted.

But when only one specific act is mentioned, it cannot be generalized without a good reason. And since Leviticus does not condemn all male/male sexuality, and women are exempted from many Levitical commands, we cannot claim that a blanket ban for men, that does not exist, needs to be expanded to cover women as well.

Its a poor argument. The law is for the KNOWLEDGE of sin. It doesnt have to have a man cannot lust after his neighbors and a woman cannot lust after her neighbors husband for one to understand it means people in general just because of the tense of the writing.

Exactly. Adultery is forbidden, and if some of the passages that forbid it only only speak to men's adultery, there are others that speak to all adultery. That is not the case here, however. There are no general teachings against homosexuality.

There are only the two identical Levitical bans on one act. There are two passing references to a sin which is probably violating that Levitical ban, and there is Romans 1:26-27, which Paul went out of his way to tell us is about unbridled Passion (promiscuty and sexual addiction).

 

[Angel4Truth]

um did you see the verse i posted about adultery in the same passage - its only written to the man - can i commit adultery now? NO - you are ignoring that its the prose - it means BOTH

 

[OllieFranz]

Romans 3:19. Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Leviticus 20:. 10. `The man who commits adultery with another man's wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.
11. `The man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
12. `If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. They have committed perversion. Their blood shall be upon them.
13. `If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Context is everything - its telling everything about a how a man lying with someone sexually is a sin so no the verse is about not about prostitution and there are other verses that mention prostitution so there is no reason to believe thats what this one is about when seen in context especially.

You continue to attribute to me a position that I am not championing. I do not claim that Leviticus 18:22 is about temple prostitution or any other other religious rite. I noted that those who do have some backing for that claim. Personally, I don't think it is strong enough, but it does not matter. Because either way, it is no longer required, just as the dietary laws are no longer required.

Adultery is also written there - can i now commit adultery because its written toward the male? No- its prose only

See my last post.

Exactly. Adultery is forbidden, and if some of the passages that forbid it only only speak to men's adultery, there are others that speak to all adultery. That is not the case here, however. There are no general teachings against homosexuality.

 

[OllieFranz]

um did you see the verse i posted about adultery in the same passage - its only written to the man - can i commit adultery now? NO - you are ignoring that its the prose - it means BOTH

Yes, and I addressed it:

Exactly. Adultery is forbidden, and if some of the passages that forbid it only only speak to men's adultery, there are others that speak to all adultery. That is not the case here, however. There are no general teachings against homosexuality.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Sexual immorality is forbidden in the NT whereas dietary laws were removed there. So yes homosexual acts are still forbidden because they are sexual acts. Sexual sins carried death as a punishment also - dietary sins did not. Apples and oranges and the word used as abomination where homosexual acts are concerned is not the same word as that used as translated abomination where shrimp is concerned - people like to ignore that also.

One means disgusting and detestable and the other pollution as in poisonous.

 

[OllieFranz]

Sexual immorality is forbidden in the NT whereas dietary laws were removed there. So yes homosexual acts are still forbidden because they are sexual acts.

One act was labelled toevah, ritually forbidden. "Homosexuality" was never forbidden. There is nothing in either the Old Testament or the New Testament to indicate that any form of same-sex physical intimacy is, of itself, sexual immorality. Adultery, fornication, etc are sexual immorality, and are such whether the relations are opposite-sex or same-sex, but that is a separate issue.

Sexual sins carried death as a punishment also - dietary sins did not.

Purity/separateness laws were not restricted to dietary laws. Nor is a punishment of death an indicator of whether or not a ban is carried over past the exemption in Acts, Romans and Galatians.

Apples and oranges and the word used as abomination where homosexual acts are concerned is not the same word as that used as translated abomination where shrimp is concerned - people like to ignore that also.

True, toevah, the word used in Lev 18:22 and 20:13, is not used about unclean animals in Leviticus 11, but it is in Deuteronomy 14:3. Leviticus 11 calls the eating of forbidden animals sheqets, but Dueteronomy 14:3 calls the eating of them toevah. Besides, I have not relied on the English word "abomination," or on the dietary laws for my argument.

One means disgusting and detestable and the other pollution as in poisonous.

But since my argument is not based on the distinction, between toevah and sheqets, it is not relevant.

I do sometimes make an argument based on the distinction between toevah and zimmah, "wicked," which is the word used to denote sexual immorality, but as I have not made that argument on this thread it is also irrelevant for the moment.