A slightly different angle....

[razzelflabben]

razzelflabben: thank you for your words and cautions. I agree, it can be tempting at times to feel like the whole world is united against you. I know that's not true, thanks for the reminder.

One thing I would like to point out: a lot of the time, Paul seems to think any sexual desire is wrong. He would have loved it if everyone were asexual. But he concedes that some people need a partner, and should therefore seek a monogamous relationship.

(Not talking directly to razzelflabben here: ) How double-valued is it, then, to say that it's okay for heterosexuals to have a partner to sate their desires, and not homosexuals?

I resent it when people say things like "it's okay to be homosexual as long as you never enter into a relationship". Just as not all heterosexuals are called to either singleness or marriage, not all homosexuals are called to singleness and it is cruel to try and impose that on people.

Well, that isn't necessarily what I was trying to say, and I am not sure I want to get into this discussion at the moment, however, I will say this. Paul's notion that you refer to is that no one should marry. Now we know that isn't going to happen and Paul knew it too. But from the standpoint of someone who never wanted to marry and ended up married with 5 kids, I think that I do understand Paul's point. You see, I never wanted to get married because it would compromise my "desires" to do anything God asked. In fact, this issue just recently came up in our family. When you are single, there is less pressure as it were to follow wherever God leads or to do whatever he calls you to do. when a spouse and/or children come into the picture, your tendancy is for thier good first and god second. Paul's vision was always God first. So the bottom line is that Paul's understanding was that singleness is a blessing which allows you to live a life fully, committed, uncompromised for God not self or others.

Apply this understanding to homosexuality. It indeed homosexual sex is a sin, then you are blessed to have the freedom to follow and obey God without the confines of a partner or spouse. In other words singleness is a blessing from God.

Just a little different perspective from someone who has felt guilty about where following God has led her family. And how that guilty feeling would not exist in singleness.

 

[CGL]

There are different ways to interpret the passage in Leviticus that you quote.

No there's not, haha.

Plus, few Christians accept the statement, also in Leviticus, that men who lie with another man deserve to be put to death.

Well those "Christians" don't understand the difference between civil laws, ceremonial laws and ethical laws in the Torah.

There is much in Leviticus, and in the Old Testament generally, that most Christians today either reject or ignore.

Because of ignorance and self-centeredness, yes.

You have your perspective on homosexuality and God's law, and that's certainly up to you to choose your perspective.

Nope, I just read it.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination is pretty straight forward to me.

Others have a different perspective.

And they are wrong.

I as a gay person have no worries about my own salvation.

Well, I hope you're right.

I don't agree with you about God's law.

You mean you don't agree with G-d, about G-d's Law.

The Bible says nothing at all about same-sex marriage. It is entirely silent. Those who argue that God condemns same-sex marriage read that into the silence of the Bible.

You know why? Because in about 1405 A.D. he made it clear that homosexuality is an abomination.

Jesus also said nothing about either same-sex marriage or same-sex intimacy.

... You know why? Because in about 1405 A.D. he made it clear that homosexuality is an abomination.

I am not "lying" to myself.

Now you're lying to me!

I just see things differently from you.

You see "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." As pro-gay?

Also, the passages about men lying with men do not apply personally to me, as I am a woman.

I hope that was a joke...

 

[OllieFranz]

Sin = transgression of G-d's Law.

Leviticus 18




Because the Bible says that if you remain in sin you're not saved.



Doesn't change G-d's Law.




Leviticus 18:22

(KJV)
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

(NJKV)
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."

(NLV)
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."

(NIV)
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable"

(NASB)
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

(HNV)
"You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestible"

But, if you want to keep on lying to yourself, you're free to do so.

Leviticus 18:22 condemns of one male partner in one act. (It is possible, but by no means certain, that the condemnation was limited even further, only condemning the act under specific circumstances.) It does not condemn the second male partner. It does not condemn anything two women may choose to do. It does not condemn any other act, even those related -- though it does not preclude other verses from condemning any of these things. But while other verses condemn incest of varying degrees, bestiality, and other forms of sexual immorality, there are no verses that extend the condemnation of two men or two women beyond the very limited . Leviticus 20:13 commands a remedy for the purification of the community which includes the death of the "innocent" partner, but even so, it still does not condemn him.
[bible]Deuteronomy 4:1-2[/bible]

For personal purity, there is no reason why someone cannot choose to go beyond the requirements of the law, but to claim that others must conform to your stricter rules is to ignore the command of G-d.

 

[Ohioprof]

No there's not, haha.


Well those "Christians" don't understand the difference between civil laws, ceremonial laws and ethical laws in the Torah.


Because of ignorance and self-centeredness, yes.


Nope, I just read it.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination is pretty straight forward to me.


And they are wrong.


Well, I hope you're right.


You mean you don't agree with G-d, about G-d's Law.


You know why? Because in about 1405 A.D. he made it clear that homosexuality is an abomination.


... You know why? Because in about 1405 A.D. he made it clear that homosexuality is an abomination.


Now you're lying to me!


You see "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." As pro-gay?


I hope that was a joke...

I am a woman. Why would that be a joke?

My argument to you is that all reading is interpretation. People understand differently the meaning of a text, because people interpret the text differently. And not all Christians interpret this passage in Leviticus as you do.

How did God, in your view, make it clear in 1405 that "homosexuality is an abomination?"

 

[CGL]

Leviticus 18:22 condemns of one male partner in one act. (It is possible, but by no means certain, that the condemnation was limited even further, only condemning the act under specific circumstances.) It does not condemn the second male partner. It does not condemn anything two women may choose to do.

Ugh, this should be interesting.

It does not condemn any other act, even those related -- though it does not preclude other verses from condemning any of these things. But while other verses condemn incest of varying degrees, bestiality, and other forms of sexual immorality, there are no verses that extend the condemnation of two men or two women beyond the very limited .

... That's your defense before G-d on the last day?

Leviticus 20:13 commands a remedy for the purification of the community which includes the death of the "innocent" partner, but even so, it still does not condemn him.

I hopes it's the drugs talking. I mean, I'm not trying to be rude, but come on. You would be laughed out of a court room.

[bible]Deuteronomy 4:1-2[/bible]

For personal purity, there is no reason why someone cannot choose to go beyond the requirements of the law, but to claim that others must conform to your stricter rules is to ignore the command of G-d.

Where does it say that?

 

[CGL]

I am a woman. Why would that be a joke?

Yikes.

My argument to you is that all reading is interpretation. People understand differently the meaning of a text, because people interpret the text differently.

Leviticus 18:22

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Romans 1:26-27

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."

1 Corinthians 6:9

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites."

Is there another way to interpet these verses?

And not all Christians interpret this passage in Leviticus as you do.

Not all professing Christians are saved.

How did God, in your view, make it clear in 1405 that "homosexuality is an abomination?"

Leviticus 18:1-5

"Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘I am the LORD your God. 3 According to the doings of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, you shall not do; and according to the doings of the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you, you shall not do; nor shall you walk in their ordinances. 4 You shall observe My judgments and keep My ordinances, to walk in them: I am the LORD your God. 5 You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the LORD."

Then... Wait for it...

Leviticus 18:22

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."

 

[Lord_Barthok_Soc]

 

[Gwenyfur]

A reminder for those struggling with the rules:
​

This forum is for discussion and debate about homosexuality from a Christian perspective. This may include, but is not limited to, such issues as

• what Christians teach about homosexuality in a Christian life,
• what the Scriptures teach about homosexual behavior,
• what impact, if any, such teachings should have on government and education.

Post in this forum may not be directed at other posters or at groups of people. You may not make it personal, for instance, by slinging around accusations and calling each other names. Before you make a post, think about whether you would say it to the person if they were standing in front of you.
If a member self-identifies as Christian, you are to respect that. You may debate their beliefs, but you may not tell them they are not Christian.
Loaded words like "hater," "bigot," "pervert," "homo," etc. are strictly forbidden
Enforcement of the rules will be much stricter. Moderator staff will issue warnings, forum-specific bans (FSBs), and infractions as necessary to encourage civil discussion.

Are we crystal yet?

 

[Ohioprof]

Yikes.


Leviticus 18:22

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Romans 1:26-27

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."

1 Corinthians 6:9

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites."

Is there another way to interpet these verses?


Not all professing Christians are saved.


Leviticus 18:1-5

"Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘I am the LORD your God. 3 According to the doings of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, you shall not do; and according to the doings of the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you, you shall not do; nor shall you walk in their ordinances. 4 You shall observe My judgments and keep My ordinances, to walk in them: I am the LORD your God. 5 You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the LORD."

Then... Wait for it...

Leviticus 18:22

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."

I think all are saved, as I am a Universalist. And there are different ways to interpret the verses you cite, as others have demonstrated in this thread and in other threads. The word "homosexuals" is an inaccurate translation, as the word did not exist when the various books of the Bible were written.

To suggest that only people who interpret the Bible as you do are saved is, I think, inaccurate.

I am still puzzled by your responses to my comment that I am a woman. That is a simple fact. I am a woman and a mother, and Bible verses about a man lying with another man are not about me, as I am not a man. Also, what do you say about the call for men who lie with another man to be put to death? Most Christians simply overlook this. Some say that the punishments in Leviticus have been superceded by the New Testament, but not the denunciation of same-sex sex. They pick and choose what they want to believe from the Old Testament, based, apparently, on what seems convenient to them, or what conforms to their pre-existing beliefs.

 

[Archer93]

I recall, from other threads on this site (which I can't, alas, locate at the moment- any pointers, anyone?) that the term used in the original Hebrew of the 'man lying with man as with a woman' phrase relates more to the idea of rape. So that would basically render the phrase as- 'Don't force men the way you would women'.
Lovely.

(And what ARE the differences between the various Levitican laws? Why are some held to be civil, others ceremonial, others ethical? What in the text points to such distinctions? Why is a same sex relationship a sin but a prawn cocktail not?)

The verses from Romans are culturally specific and relate to Plato's writings, IIRC, and the word from Corinthinans is the subject of much debate and discussion- however it is apparent that it cannot mean the same as the modern term 'homosexual' as the very idea of 'homosexual'- namely, a person who only has same-sex sex, didn't exist then.

 

[Criada]

Back to the OP...

I am very glad that you have come to terms with your sexuality, and are growing in God, brother.
I am still completely confused as to what to think on this issue - having heard the arguments from so many sides.
I made the choice twenty years ago to ignore my sexuality, since all the Christians around me felt that it was 'wrong'., and that God would 'cure' me.
So - I am married, I can't regret it, as I have four wonderful children... but God has not 'cured' me... and I have struggled to come to terms with my choice over the years.
I *do* believe that marriage is sacred, and adultery is wrong, so any conclusion I come to now is strictly academic...
But your post does in some ways make me wish that I too had had your courage and conviction.
God bless you.

 

[CGL]

I think all are saved, as I am a Universalist.

Alright, I respect that.

And there are different ways to interpret the verses you cite, as others have demonstrated in this thread and in other threads.

I would love to see them.

The word "homosexuals" is an inaccurate translation, as the word did not exist when the various books of the Bible were written.

You know what has exisisted in the Torah for over 3,000 years?
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

To suggest that only people who interpret the Bible as you do are saved is, I think, inaccurate.

Because you're a universalist, and that's your point of you and it is fine. But, I'm sure you'd agree that truth, by definition, is exclusive.

I am still puzzled by your responses to my comment that I am a woman. That is a simple fact. I am a woman and a mother, and Bible verses about a man lying with another man are not about me, as I am not a man.

I, too, am puzzled. You think that the Bible has a problem with two men having sex but not two women?

Also, what do you say about the call for men who lie with another man to be put to death? Most Christians simply overlook this. Some say that the punishments in Leviticus have been superceded by the New Testament, but not the denunciation of same-sex sex. They pick and choose what they want to believe from the Old Testament, based, apparently, on what seems convenient to them, or what conforms to their pre-existing beliefs.

Well, I'm sure some Christians do pick and choose from the Torah *looks around*.
But, as I've stated before, there is a difference between ceremonial laws, civil laws and ethical laws.

 

[Archer93]

I, too, am puzzled. You think that the Bible has a problem with two men having sex but not two women?


Well, I'm sure some Christians do pick and choose from the Torah *looks around*.
But, as I've stated before, there is a difference between ceremonial laws, civil laws and ethical laws.

There doesn't seem to be anything in the Old Testament about two women having sex- and the verse in the New is, as has been discussed, debatable due to issues of translation and context.

What are the differences between ceremonial, civil and ethical laws, please? How can you tell one from the other?

 

[Lord_Barthok_Soc]

Back to the OP...

I am very glad that you have come to terms with your sexuality, and are growing in God, brother.
I am still completely confused as to what to think on this issue - having heard the arguments from so many sides.
I made the choice twenty years ago to ignore my sexuality, since all the Christians around me felt that it was 'wrong'., and that God would 'cure' me.
So - I am married, I can't regret it, as I have four wonderful children... but God has not 'cured' me... and I have struggled to come to terms with my choice over the years.
I *do* believe that marriage is sacred, and adultery is wrong, so any conclusion I come to now is strictly academic...
But your post does in some ways make me wish that I too had had your courage and conviction.
God bless you.

That brought tears to my eyes. I find your courage and conviction to God, your family and your choices more admirable than words could convey.

Yours is a position I can truly empathise with, and is a major part of why I feel lead to fight this cause. People should not be forced through peer pressure to conform and make their whole life a continual struggle, when it should not be. Not over something like this.

As to you other guys....I was tossing it over in my mind to add a huge rant on the "homosexuality verses" here. But that was not the intended purpose of this thread. I would like to see the issue of homosexuality addressed from a wider view of the bible. It's been established that people can't come to an agreement on Leviticus or Corinthians etc. So we need to look at other verses.

Perhaps I could suggest, as a start, verses like 1Corinthians10, or Matthew 19, Matthew 22, Mark 12...

I would kindly request you take your (occasionally petty) arguments elsewhere, or look at all the other threads out there that you are re-enacting. If you continue, I shall be PMing a mod to ask that this thread gets closed.

 

[Ohioprof]

Alright, I respect that.


I would love to see them.


You know what has exisisted in the Torah for over 3,000 years?
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."


Because you're a universalist, and that's your point of you and it is fine. But, I'm sure you'd agree that truth, by definition, is exclusive.


I, too, am puzzled. You think that the Bible has a problem with two men having sex but not two women?


Well, I'm sure some Christians do pick and choose from the Torah *looks around*.
But, as I've stated before, there is a difference between ceremonial laws, civil laws and ethical laws.

If the Bible says a man and another man, then to claim that this also applies to women is a stretch of interpretation. If you "just read it," as you said earlier that you do, then you can't go leaping to the conclusion that a man lying with a man means a woman too. That's a giant interpretive leap.

 

[Lord_Barthok_Soc]

If the Bible says a man and another man, then to claim that this also applies to women is a stretch of interpretation. If you "just read it," as you said earlier that you do, then you can't go leaping to the conclusion that a man lying with a man means a woman too. That's a giant interpretive leap.

And please don't discuss it here. This very discussion has ruined other threads; it would be nice to see this thread not go off topic.

I deliberately didn't mention these verses and arguments in my OP, other than to acknowledge their existence and the fact that, based on simple observation, people are not going to be able to argue these ones out. They are too surrounded in vagueness and mistranslation. Move on already. Please.

 

[Ohioprof]

And please don't discuss it here. This very discussion has ruined other threads; it would be nice to see this thread not go off topic.

I deliberately didn't mention these verses and arguments in my OP, other than to acknowledge their existence and the fact that, based on simple observation, people are not going to be able to argue these ones out. They are too surrounded in vagueness and mistranslation. Move on already. Please.

I'm happy not to discuss any Bible verses, to be honest. But I think that when people repeatedly cite these so-called "clobber passages," then we need to answer them.

How would you prefer that we address people when they quote these Bible verses to us yet again?

 

[razzelflabben]

I think that both sides are really missing the point of the OP. Correct me if I am wrong. The OP point seems to me to be a discussion of how judgmental and unloving people are to people they don't agree with or are in their eyes different.

I said this once in a thread where homosexuality was being discussed and was attacked because of it, however, I think it bares repeating. However, before I say it let me quote this verse as reference.
Acts 2:45-47 (King James Version)

King James Version (KJV) Public Domain



45And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
46And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
47Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.



Point one, if the HS is interpreting the word, there is only one interpretation. Therefore, it is possible to know what the word says, but in order to do so, we need to seek God, not our own ideas. where that leads, is left to be seen, so please don't twist what I am saying to mean that I am suggesting I am right and everyone else is wrong. In order to know who is right and who is wrong, we all first must be willing to bend rather than make assumptions.



The second point is this, my husband grew up in Nigeria, we also have a friend from there who is currently living in the states. We asked him once what the church does with men who have multiple wives, when the church teaching is one wife. His answer was actually pretty simple. when a man comes to Christ, we let God convict them. Usually, the wives will start to see the change and offer to leave, thus the man is not compromised, other times situations will occur in which the man chooses for different reasons, like who will be cared for. Point is this, the church tries way tooo hard to do the job of Christ by judging others and demanding they change. Instead, we need to 1. seek God with all our hearts, mind and exceeding and 2. allow God to do His job so that we can effectively do the job He asks of us. This includes but is not limited to letting God convict who He will and change who He will and all we need concern ourselves with is Loving with a pure, undefiled, unconditional Love.




And, as I understand it, that is what the OPer desires from the church, a church that acts like the church.

 

[CGL]

If the Bible says a man and another man, then to claim that this also applies to women is a stretch of interpretation. If you "just read it," as you said earlier that you do, then you can't go leaping to the conclusion that a man lying with a man means a woman too. That's a giant interpretive leap.

Well, it's your eternity.

 

[Lord_Barthok_Soc]

I think that both sides are really missing the point of the OP. Correct me if I am wrong. The OP point seems to me to be a discussion of how judgmental and unloving people are to people they don't agree with or are in their eyes different......
.....And, as I understand it, that is what the OPer desires from the church, a church that acts like the church.

Yes and no. That is most definitely a large part of it.

I was also hoping for some people on both sides of the argument to consider homosexuality from a different angle. To realise that they aren't going to get anywhere by quoting the same three bible verses at each other until the end of time. So they need to look at something else and maybe, just maybe, manage to come to a conclusion through that.

It is as much an experiment as anything; to see if people are able to think outside the box for once. To be open-minded and consider more than a tunnel-vision view of things. To look at the impact their opinions are having on people, and realise that these things are more than just words or philosophies.