Homosexuality

[Peripatetic]

the continual use of the word 'sin' really irks me because while it applies to each and everyone of us it's only ever used by the self-righteous to degrade others.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's only used in self-righteous ways, but that is often the case unfortunately.

I am sometimes tempted to think along these lines (about any group of sinners - not homosexuals specifically):

"Yes, I'm a sinner, but those people are much worse than me because they are living in sin and I am not. I sin occasionally, but they are minor and not ongoing. God has quickened my mind, and I no longer want what is sinful. Although I needed the blood of Christ to pay the price for the sins of my "old life", I am now in harmony with God. Those people are not."


But having that attitude is just as sinful as anything else. It shows pride, self-sufficiency, and self-righteousness. I am more afraid of the effects of those sins in my life than I am of just about anything else. C.S. Lewis wrote that pride is the "great sin" and "the complete anti-God state of mind." He goes on to say that sexual sin (and some others) "are mere fleabites in comparison." Now Lewis is not scripture, so we have to take it with a grain of salt, but I think he is on to something.

So here is what I'll say instead of the above quote:

"Yes, I'm a sinner, and all Christians share in my struggle in our fallen world. I thank God every day that His mercy prevents me from getting what I did (and still do) deserve: hell. I thank God every day that His grace makes salvation available to me, though I don't deserve it. I am not more righteous than my brother because none of us are righteous on our own. God has helped me to get rid of some of my worldly ways, and the sanctification process of the Holy Spirit is helping me to become more in harmony with God. But I still have a LONG way to go. I still have areas of sin that I will struggle with for the rest of my life. I'd like to think that I'm interpreting the Bible properly, but my wisdom is not complete. There are probably times in my life when I justify acts that are sinful, and others when I call something a sin when it is not. No matter how I look at myslef, I am flawed and broken on my own. But because of God's grace, I am one of His children and I can never thank Him enough for that."

 

[Jase]

KCKID, that's a frightening image of Christianity you're showing us.

KC is only showing us the exact image of Christianity presented on this forum.

 

[Jase]

Jase,

I am laughing. Your worldview is outside reality and anti-Christian.

My worldview is simply anti-fundamentalist Christian.

As most pro-gay posters have insisted Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, you have now suggested He created LGBT, none of you seem to be arguing about the contradiction.

I never said Jesus said anything about LGBTs. I merely said God created them, as sexual orientation is an inborn trait, and God created all humans, and knew them in the womb.

As Jesus affirmed God created male and female for the reason that a man shall be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh, (Genesis 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5) and the only other purpose is celibate (Matt 19, 1 Cor 7) Jesus certainly didnt created LGBT children and two people of the same sex, Gays and lesbians, cant!

I don't know why you guys keep using this as an argument against gays. This is not an exclusive verse. If i recall correctly in context, Jesus is using this as an example of divorce, not as a condition by which all humans must abide by. If 95% of the population is heterosexual, of course he's going to focus on a man and woman marrying - that's his primary target audience. Still doesn't automatically mean he has no consideration for gays just because he doesn't devote passages to the issue.

 

[Jase]

We are not focused on diminishing other human beings, we are focused on showing them the truth. If we were to let others live in the pit of lies they had built themselves, we'd be no better than whom we were before we became Christians. It'd be as if we didn't become Christians at all.

I apologise if you believe we're attacking you and those who believe the same, but the Bible does not teach that homosexuality is right. Man and woman being together as one has been part of the intended order of creation since...well, creation.

Znex, you are still very young. Don't you think it's possible you have quite a bit of learning to do, before you assume everything you were taught is "gospel" (no pun intended)?

 

[Jase]

Someone else on the forum - can't recall who - brought up the fact that in ALL of the texts prior to and following the 'man lying' text reference is made to 'sexual relations'. This is consistent ...check it out. And yet, when we come to Leviticus 18:22 'sexual relations' is significantly absent from the text. Why do you think this is, Phinehas? Could it be that this text is, indeed, referring NOT to 'sexual relations' but to rape? Why is 'sexual relations' missing from that one verse if it's supposed to mean the same as all of the other 'sexual relations' texts?

Please explain.

This is a point I've tried to emphasize here, but conservatives don't seem to care. There are multiple words in Hebrew used to described sexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 alone, the "lie" referring to a man, is a different word than the "lie" referring to a woman. Obviously there is a difference in meaning or they would be the same word. The first "lie" is Shakab. A word used 52 times in the Bible to refer to sexual relations, and in I believe every case, refers to some form of lack of consent.

For example:

Gen 19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

Lots daughters slept with their father while he was drunk. A clear lack of consent here.

If we want to take the Hebrew for Lev 18:22 completely word for word - it would more accurately say: Thou shall not force himself upon mankind in the bed of womankind.

Clearly, a contextual and culture faux pas is being described here - not an all out condemnation on same-sex relationships.

 

[Avniel]

Gay people cannot, but when they are converted (reborn of Spirit and become followers of Christ) and therefore no longer gay, their souls can be. Jesus isn't a solvent to be added to anything and just blended in. Jesus is pure and like the rock that will crush enemies and break your worldly bonds forever to be his alone. Jesus doesn't mix with the world. He asks you to come out from it and to deny yourself. Take the full dose of Jesus to overcome this world and to be saved. Just obey him and follow him. Try reading the New Testament over and over to find and ask God for his will. Don't try blending the Gospel & Christ with your favorite ice cream. He is a door of salvation and hope and light, quite different than the fake lights of this world. We will die, but who will live, certainly not those who deny Jesus? Salvation is a very personal thing between you and the Holy Spirit to reach God through his son. Go to Jesus' words and his closest disciples and listen, learn, ask and pray. Seek the Father's will through Jesus. Have a great day.

Exactly you cnt serve 2 masters. Gays are not christians but once they accept Jesus and repent their sin they are no longer homosexual.

 

[Jase]

Gay people cannot, but when they are converted (reborn of Spirit and become followers of Christ) and therefore no longer gay, their souls can be.

This is such a silly argument. You don't change your sexual orientation just because you believe in Jesus. You didn't stop becoming heterosexual, when you became Christian. Biology doesn't change just because your belief system does. You can't cure "gayness". It will in 99.9% of cases, never change at any point in someone's life.

Jesus isn't a solvent to be added to anything and just blended in. Jesus is pure and like the rock that will crush enemies and break your worldly bonds forever to be his alone. Jesus doesn't mix with the world. He asks you to come out from it and to deny yourself. Take the full dose of Jesus to overcome this world and to be saved. Just obey him and follow him. Try reading the New Testament over and over to find and ask God for his will. Don't try blending the Gospel & Christ with your favorite ice cream. He is a door of salvation and hope and light, quite different than the fake lights of this world. We will die, but who will live, certainly not those who deny Jesus? Salvation is a very personal thing between you and the Holy Spirit to reach God through his son. Go to Jesus' words and his closest disciples and listen, learn, ask and pray. Seek the Father's will through Jesus. Have a great day.

Many of us have brought this issue to God for 10-20 years or more, and his answer never changes. Neither is orientation changed, or does God condemn based on it.

 

[Jase]

So ... we are not to rape men as we rape women? In my opinion, this does not make much sense: "Thou shall not rape a man as you rape a woman; it is an abomination".

Well, technically it says in the beds of a woman. But, it does make sense. You fail to realize that the ancient world was a patriarchial society. Women were property to be used, however men wanted to use them. It was a crime for men to reduce other men to the status of women by raping them, because men held a high position in society.

 

[Jase]

Exactly you cnt serve 2 masters. Gays are not christians but once they accept Jesus and repent their sin they are no longer homosexual.

So when you became Christian you stopped being attracted to members of the opposite sex? Baloney. Orientation doesn't change just, because beliefs do. A homosexual person who becomes Christian will always be homosexual, barring an extremely rare miracle.

 

[addo]

Well, technically it says in the beds of a woman. But, it does make sense. You fail to realize that the ancient world was a patriarchial society. Women were property to be used, however men wanted to use them. It was a crime for men to reduce other men to the status of women by raping them, because men held a high position in society.

Perhaps, but you say that to 'lie down' means to rape in that place. We women allowed by God to be raped?

 

[addo]

This is a point I've tried to emphasize here, but conservatives don't seem to care. There are multiple words in Hebrew used to described sexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 alone, the "lie" referring to a man, is a different word than the "lie" referring to a woman. Obviously there is a difference in meaning or they would be the same word. The first "lie" is Shakab. A word used 52 times in the Bible to refer to sexual relations, and in I believe every case, refers to some form of lack of consent.

For example:

Gen 19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

Lots daughters slept with their father while he was drunk. A clear lack of consent here.

No. "To lie with" simply means to have sex. Sex with consent or without it.

There are other passages in which consent is found using the same word:

"And she said unto her, Is it a small matter that thou hast taken my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son's mandrakes also? And Rachel said, Therefore he shall lie with thee to night for thy son's mandrakes." (Genesis 30:15 KJV) -I seriously doubt they were speaking about raping Jacob

"And it came to pass after these things, that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me."
(Genesis 39:7 KJV) -she was looking for Joseph's consent to fornicate with him
​

But there are also passages were it is without consent:

"That she called unto the men of her house, and spake unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud voice:" (Genesis 39:14 KJV)
​

This suggests it is without consent, and also the passage with Lot's daughters.

But there are also passages where to lie just doesn't meant to have sex:

"Thy sons have fainted, they lie at the head of all the streets, as a wild bull in a net: they are full of the fury of the LORD, the rebuke of thy God." (Isaiah 51:20 KJV)

"When thou liest down, thou shalt not be afraid: yea, thou shalt lie down, and thy sleep shall be sweet." (Proverbs 3:24 KJV)

"The rich man shall lie down, but he shall not be gathered: he openeth his eyes, and he is not." (Job 27:19 KJV)

etc. (there are more)
​

In the above the verb "to lie" is שׁכב (H7901 | shâkab) in both the places were it means sex with or without consent and where it doesn't even mean sex.

This is Strong's definition:

H7901
שׁכב
shâkab
shaw-kab'
A primitive root; to lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease or any other purpose): - X at all, cast down, ([over-]) lay (self) (down), (make to) lie (down, down to sleep, still, with), lodge, ravish, take rest, sleep, stay.
​

This verb simply means this: to lie (down). But it can also mean other things depending on the context in which it is used. It can also mean to have sex (Genesis 30:15), or to die (Job 21:26), or to rest or sleep (Proverbs 3:24) or just simply to stay or lie down.

Now, you suggested that in Leviticus 18 it means forced sex. You have no proof. It just simply means to have sex: with consent or without. So this is what I suggest: that passage commands that all homosexual sex is forbidden: whether forced or with consent.
_______________

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)
​

I have a question: is the above rape or not? If it is, then why are both executed? Wouldn't it be just only for the rapist to be executed? It says that both of them committed an abomination. How can it be if one did it without his consent (since it was rape)? Or is it that it is talking about two people of the same sex having consented sex with each other? That way, they are both guilty, and they both committed an abomination. But if it were rape, why blame the victim of anything? It was not his will. It's like with rape with the women: you don't blame the victim like the rapist, for she is a victim, and it happened without her consent. Even though what the rapist did is sin, it is not sin what the victim did .... actually, she didn't do anything, for she was the victim. But yet above, it is written that both did an abomination, and I believe this to be possible only if it were not forced sex, but with consent of the two or more parties.

 

[Jase]

Perhaps, but you say that to 'lie down' means to rape in that place. We women allowed by God to be raped?

Perhaps you haven't read much of the OT, but women face much harsher realities than that. In fact, if you were a virgin and got raped, you would be sentenced to death.

 

[onemorequestion]

Perhaps you haven't read much of the OT, but women face much harsher realities than that. In fact, if you were a virgin and got raped, you would be sentenced to death.

And yet, that still in no way sanctions gay marriage in the Christian Church.

 

[Jase]

No. "To lie with" simply means to have sex. Sex with consent or without it.

No it doesn't. Did you not read where I said in Hebrew, there are multiple words that when translated into English, mean the same thing, but have different meanings in Hebrew? This is why you cannot take an English translation at face value.

There are other passages in which consent is found using the same word:

"And she said unto her, Is it a small matter that thou hast taken my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son's mandrakes also? And Rachel said, Therefore he shall lie with thee to night for thy son's mandrakes." (Genesis 30:15 KJV) -I seriously doubt they were speaking about raping Jacob

"And it came to pass after these things, that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me."
(Genesis 39:7 KJV) -she was looking for Joseph's consent to fornicate with him
​

I hardly consider the first verse to be a noble example of sexual relations. Rachel told Leah to sleep with her husband, and Leah told Jacob he must sleep with her. Did he have any choice in the matter, considering God apparently approved of such twisted relationships? Who can say?

As for the second verse, I didn't say that word only exists for one meaning. Shakab means several things. I said in the usual context of direct sexual relations, it refers to some type of forced or deceitful actions.

Now, you suggested that in Leviticus 18 it means forced sex. You have no proof. It just simply means to have sex: with consent or without. So this is what I suggest: that passage commands that all homosexual sex is forbidden: whether forced or with consent.

Sorry, doesn't work. Look at the context of the passage. Why does it add "in the bed of a woman", if it was an outright condemnation on homosexuality? Why not just say "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, it is abomination"?

The fact that in the Hebrew, it describes a specific location and instance, indicates it's referring to a cultural aspect. That to put a man in the position of a woman, i.e. in her bed, is the abomination. Not the fact that it's two men sleeping together.

In my opinion, Lev 18:22 is stating that it is improper for a man - who was the head of society, to force another man into the position of a subservient woman, because it is demeaning in those days for a man to play the non-dominant role. This makes sense given patriarchal societies.
_______________

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)
​

I have a question: is the above rape or not? If it is, then why are both executed? Wouldn't it be just only for the rapist to be executed?
It says that both of them committed an abomination. How can it be if one did it without his consent (since it was rape)? Or is it that it is talking about two people of the same sex having consented sex with each other? That way, they are both guilty, and they both committed an abomination. But if it were rape, why blame the victim of anything? It was not his will. It's like with rape with the women: you don't blame the victim like the rapist, for she is a victim, and it happened without her consent. Even though what the rapist did is sin, it is not sin what the victim did .... actually, she didn't do anything, for she was the victim. But yet above, it is written that both did an abomination, and I believe this to be possible only if it were not forced sex, but with consent of the two or more parties.

Since when is the Old Testament just by our standards? Children were executed for back talking to their parents back then. They didn't care who the guilty and innocent parties were. Only that both were engaged in the act, regardless if one person was forced.

Welcome to Biblical morality. This is why so many people find the Bible, especially the OT, repugnant. It is not a moral code by which anyone should follow.

 

[Jase]

And yet, that still in know way sanctions gay marriage in the Christian Church.

Way to throw out completely random statements.

I don't care if your church bans gay marriage, nor do most gays. The issue is that you are trying to force your church's views onto a secular society. I'm under no obligation to follow your rules, and I don't care what your church thinks. But when you try to apply religious policy to secular law, that's when the issue comes about. We do not live in a theocracy.

 

[onemorequestion]

Way to throw out completely random statements.

It is a great answer to your attempts at two wrongs making a right. I'm surpised you still keeping coming back for more sound defeats. But it's typical.

I don't care if your church bans gay marriage, nor do most gays. The issue is that you are trying to force your church's views onto a secular society.

Try turing that around and you can see the truth of reality there.

I'm under no obligation to follow your rules, and I don't care what your church thinks.

"The Church" of our Lord and Savior Yeshua? yeshua detailed that marriage was a man and a woman. He also told "us" noit to be concerned with the world and its ways. We are no longer them.

But when you try to apply religious policy to secular law, that's when the issue comes about. We do not live in a theocracy.

You and I do. "They" do not. Why are you yoking yourself to unbelievers? It certainly appears that you are bringing The Way into disrepute among the pagans, since they see complete support from your well, support.

Why do you care what pagans do? Jesus thought it was not a good thing to act like them.

 

[Avniel]

So when you became Christian you stopped being attracted to members of the opposite sex? Baloney. Orientation doesn't change just, because beliefs do. A homosexual person who becomes Christian will always be homosexual, barring an extremely rare miracle.

Did I stop smoking weed(even though I know several people from my island Jamaica that believe weed is in the bible), did I stop staring at women's butts, did I stop fornicating, I stopped getting drunk and I have stopped fighting. Does that mean there havent been several times that I have been tempted to punch someone in there face........No, I would be a liar if I said I wasn't tempted..........Is that thought a sin, yes it is........Do I pray ask to be forgiven in Jesus name.....Yes I do.

It's not baloney "faith out works is dead," are you saying Jesus doesn't have the power to do so? I think that if you have the "the faith of a mustard seed you can move mountains

 

[Jase]

It is a great answer to your attempts at two wrongs making a right. I'm surpised you still keeping coming back for more sound defeats. But it's typical.

Sorry, I see no defeat.

"The Church" of our Lord and Savior Yeshua? yeshua detailed that marriage was a man and a woman. He also told "us" noit to be concerned with the world and its ways. We are no longer them.

No, Jesus listed one example of marriage - the most common, in a discussion on divorce. He made no exclusionary remarks.

You and I do. "They" do not.

I don't know where you live, but I live in the United States, which is most thankfully not a theocracy. You apparently don't know what that means.

Why are you yoking yourself to unbelievers?

Because most unbelievers I have met, are more Christian-like than most Christians. I don't want any involvement with fundamentalist Christianity, anymore than I would want to be involved with extremist Islam.

It certainly appears that you are bringing The Way into disrepute among the pagans, since they see complete support from your well, support.

Why do you care what pagans do? Jesus thought it was not a good thing to act like them.

Perhaps you're confusing me, with the religion of Christianity that was created based on pagan principles.

 

[OllieFranz]

There are other passages in which consent is found using the same word:

"And she said unto her, Is it a small matter that thou hast taken my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son's mandrakes also? And Rachel said, Therefore he shall lie with thee to night for thy son's mandrakes." (Genesis 30:15 KJV) -I seriously doubt they were speaking about raping Jacob

"And it came to pass after these things, that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me."
(Genesis 39:7 KJV) -she was looking for Joseph's consent to fornicate with him​

​

In the first case, they are making plans without asking (or caring about) Jacob's consent. At the time they make the deal isn't even aware of the bargain. And chances are they pulled it off with the same trick Laban had them pull on Jacob's wedding day -- Leah went into the darkened bedchamber pretending to be Rachel.

In the second case, Joseph is a slave. She is not asking, him into her bed, she is ordering him into the bed -- in fact, she has physically grabbed him and is dragging him there. And he emphatically does not consent. And don't forget, the story is told from Joseph's point of view, so he would use the word to emphasize that he did not consent.

I have a question: is the above rape or not? If it is, then why are both executed? Wouldn't it be just only for the rapist to be executed? It says that both of them committed an abomination. How can it be if one did it without his consent (since it was rape)? Or is it that it is talking about two people of the same sex having consented sex with each other? That way, they are both guilty, and they both committed an abomination. But if it were rape, why blame the victim of anything? It was not his will. It's like with rape with the women: you don't blame the victim like the rapist, for she is a victim, and it happened without her consent. Even though what the rapist did is sin, it is not sin what the victim did .... actually, she didn't do anything, for she was the victim. But yet above, it is written that both did an abomination, and I believe this to be possible only if it were not forced sex, but with consent of the two or more parties.

Most cultures that forbid or ridicule "homosexual acts" focus on the man who willingly "bottoms." He is acting as less than a man. The man who "tops" is just doing what a man does.

But that is not the position Leviticus takes. It forbids using another man as one would use a woman. The ancient rabbis, straight men all, did not comment on the use of shakav in the first part of the verse compared to mishkav in the second part, because the could not conceive of an Israelite man willingly "bottoming." (The pagan acolytes who plied their trade for their foreign gods did it because the gods demanded it, not because the wanted to.) So when they referred to the verse, or to the sin in general, they called it "man-lying," using the more general mishkav instead of shakav, since they felt no need to dwell upon the non-consent aspect.

Still, they were bothered that the victim was condemned to death along with the perpetrator. In Mishna VI of the Tractate Sanhedrin in the Babylonian Talmud, we have preserved some of their discussions on the issue. Most of them came to the conclusion that although there is a divine command only against "topping," there is also a pro-forma prohibition against participating -- facilitating the the "top's" sin, as it were. Pro-forma because it was, in the case of most bottoms not consented to.

So why was the victim stoned along with the rapist? The rabbis had already agreed that an animal that was involved in an act of bestiality had to be destroyed because alive it would be a constant reminder of the crime, and thus a source of shame to the perpetrator's family and his village. Some rabbis said that the victim of "man-lying" must die for the same reason. (This reason left an "out" in the case of men raped by foreigners: since it was not an Israelite who committed the atrocity, there was no moral shame on Israel. David used this out in the case of his ambassadors to Hanun, the Ammonite king. [1 Chronicles 19]) But while justifiable in the case of a beast, killing a man in order to hide one's shame just does not seem reasonable, so many rabbis tried to come up with other justifications, but ultimately they could come to no conclusions.

 

[Jase]

Did I stop smoking weed(even though I know several people from my island Jamaica that believe weed is in the bible), did I stop staring at women's butts, did I stop fornicating, I stopped getting drunk and I have stopped fighting. Does that mean there havent been several times that I have been tempted to punch someone in there face........No, I would be a liar if I said I wasn't tempted..........Is that thought a sin, yes it is........Do I pray ask to be forgiven in Jesus name.....Yes I do.

None of this has anything to do with the fact, that your sexual orientation did not change by becoming Christian.

It's not baloney "faith out works is dead," are you saying Jesus doesn't have the power to do so? I think that if you have the "the faith of a mustard seed you can move mountains

I'm sure God could change someone if he wanted to. But there is absolutely no evidence in existence indicating that he ever has or would ever choose to.