A systematic look at the Bible and homosexuality

[fragmentsofdreams]

Today at 12:59 PM Apollo Belvedre said this in Post #18



I don't see how Leviticus 18:22/20:13 could be interpreted idiomatically.  Both are candid and concise.  

So is Lev 18:21, unless you realize that they are not refering to seeds of grain. That is the thing with idioms. They can have a clear meaning which is different from the intended meaning. Another example, French soldiers would say they were making a phone call to Hitler when they were going to the bathroom.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Today at 04:57 PM Apollo Belvedre said this in Post #20



That's not the point I was trying to make.  You stated, "a homosexual does not necessarily need to have ever had homosexual sex."  I only meant to clarify that it wouldn't necessarily matter, their behavior would still be considered homosexual.  As Christians the Bible gives us two options, we may either fall in love and marry a person of the opposite sex (Gen 2:24), or remain single and celibate (Cor 7:8).  

There are many celibate homosexuals. However, they remain homosexual.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

CopticOrthodox -

I laid out the plan for this discussion in the original post and would appreciate it if you abided by them. We are looking at one issue at a time. If you want to quote passages relevant to the current issue, that is fine, but four post sermons are far broader than the intended scope of the discussion.

 

[Apollo Belvedre]

Today at 05:16 PM fragmentsofdreams said this in Post #21



So is Lev 18:21, unless you realize that they are not refering to seeds of grain. That is the thing with idioms. They can have a clear meaning which is different from the intended meaning. Another example, French soldiers would say they were making a phone call to Hitler when they were going to the bathroom.

I understand what you're saying, but I still don't believe that Leviticus 18:22/20:13 could be misinterpreted idiomatically.  It seems to be pretty obvious what's being said.     

There are many celibate homosexuals. However, they remain homosexual.

True, and that is the only way I believe someone claiming to be homosexual could have a faithful relationship with God.  

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Today at 05:28 PM Apollo Belvedre said this in Post #24



I understand what you're saying, but I still don't believe that Leviticus 18:22/20:13 could be misinterpreted idiomatically.  It seems to be pretty obvious what's being said.     

It does appear to be obvious, but there are some indications that it might mean something else. For the sake of argument, will you concede that it is possible that the verses may be an idiom if the burden of proof is on my shoulders. If your position turns out to be correct, you can say, "it was possible that it was an idiom, but further investigation eliminated this possibility.

True, and that is the only way I believe someone claiming to be homosexual could have a faithful relationship with God.  

I just wanted to make sure that you understood what I mean when refering to homosexuals. Too often the debate goes in circles due to dueling definitions.

 

[Apollo Belvedre]

Today at 05:40 PM fragmentsofdreams said this in Post #25



It does appear to be obvious, but there are some indications that it might mean something else. For the sake of argument, will you concede that it is possible that the verses may be an idiom if the burden of proof is on my shoulders. If your position turns out to be correct, you can say, "it was possible that it was an idiom, but further investigation eliminated this possibility.

I'll entertain the notion, if credible evidence is given. 

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Here is what I posted earlier. It provides the first hint that this might be an idiom. I will post a look at Deuteronomy and Leviticus later tonight.

11th March 2003 at 09:55 PM fragmentsofdreams said this in Post #2

Since Lev 18:22 and 20:13 are worded practically identically, we should probably take them together.

Lev. 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (KJV)

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

Interestingly, these are the only two times that zakar (H2145) is translated as mankind. It also is translated as male (67), man (7), child (4), and him (1). Meanwhile, 'iysh (H376) is always translated to indicate an adult. Source

What significance should we draw from the author's use of two different terms?

 

[leecappella]

Fragments of Dreams:

Interesting that you asked that question. I think there is some importance to the definiton of the two hebrew terms "man" (#376) and "mankind" (#2145) in Leviticus 20:13.

Lev. 20:13: "If a man (#376) also lie with mankind (#2145), as he lieth with with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (KJV)

Interesting that you asked that question. I think there is some importance to the definiton of the two hebrew terms. Each word has the meaning of a 'male'. However, each word has a root word that is different. The root word for #376 (man) is #582 which means mortal, mortal man, mankind (humankind) either singly or collectively and is not gender specific. The root for #2145 is #2142 which means to remember, to recall, to call to mind, to be remembered. This is where context plays an important role in bible study. Why the above text does not read "If a man (#376) also lie with a man (#376),...." is beyond me. But, there must be some reason why it does not in the king james. In light of the context of Leviticus, I would think that #2145 is referring to not just any general male (#376). Whomever is being referenced with #2145, he is someone who is worth #376's time to deem worthy of remembering, mentioning, recalling, etc. and therefore worth #376's intent to lie with. Since the term "abominations" is contexually defined as those things associated with idolatry and/or the idol itself, I would think that the #2145 reference is the male temple prostitute who is employed at the temple of the false deity who is a devotee to licentious prostitution. If not the devotte, then the idol itself. In a sense, to lie with the prostitute is equal to lying with the idol, only via the prostitute. God is worth of rememberance and recalling. To an idol worshipper, their god is worthy of rememberance and recalling. Since the term relates to males, maybe the implication of the text is in reference to Molech or the male temple devotees who serviced male worshippers. What do you think?

Leecappella

 

[Apollo Belvedre]

31st March 2003 at 06:23 PM fragmentsofdreams said this in Post #27

What significance should we draw from the author's use of two different terms?

Are you implying that Leviticus 18:22/20:13 are in actuality condemning pedophilia? 

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

The major points of the Law are repeated in both Leviticus and Deuteronomy. This gives us an opportunity to look at another version for clarification.

Looking for a passage that repeats the Leviticus prohibition in Dueteronomy, we find none. However, we do find an interesting passage refering to cult prostitutes:

"None of the daughters of Israel shall be a temple prostitute; none of the sons of Israel shall be a temple prostitute. You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a male prostitute into the house of the Lord your God, for both of these are abhorrent [Hebrew toevah] to the Lord your God." -- Deuteronomy 23:17-18 (NRSV)

Note that cult prostitutes are called toevah, the same word used in Leviticus. Also note that (ignoring the passages we are discussing) there are no passages in Leviticus mentioning this practice.

Now, you might ask whether cult prostitution was a big problem. Male cult prostitutes also appear in 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, and 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7; and Job 36:14. Male cult prostitution was a recurring problem among the Hebrews.

Finally, 1 Kings 14:23-24 parallels Leviticus:

For they [Judah] also built for themselves high places, and pillars, and Asherim on every high hill and under every green tree; and there were also MALE CULT PROSTITUTES in the land. They did according to all the TO'EVAH OF THE NATIONS WHICH THE LORD DROVE OUT BEFORE THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL.

Once again, we see male cult prostitution being refered to as toevah. Also, driving out the practices of the nations before Isreal is the same things Leviticus 20:22-23 says.

Why should we believe that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 are idioms refering to male cult prostitution? Because the times the Bible explicitly talks about male cult prostitutes, it uses similar language.

Reference

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

1st April 2003 at 09:10 AM Apollo Belvedre said this in Post #29



Are you implying that Leviticus 18:22/20:13 are in actuality condemning pedophilia? 

There were some pagan cults who used boys (sometimes castrated) dressed up as women as cult prostitutes. However, it could as be referring to both child and adult cult prostitutes. Both readings fit the text.

 

[leecappella]

Fragments of Dreams:

I totally agree with you in your last post.

 

[ice age coming]

I believe the dichotomy of the Torah is based on the sacrificial requirements for a breech. For example, certain laws require ceremonial sacrifice while others could only be dealt with on the Day of Atonement. And so a dichotomy arises between the rituals of the Torah and the ethics of the Torah. That is the bases for dividing the laws into ceremonial, moral, etc.

The problem is that the English language masks this. For example, in the Lev. passages cited here, the word for abominable/detestable is Tow`ebah. In the most general form, the word describes the actions of the pegan nations (De 13:14, 18:9) and so whatever meaning is has with regards to homosexuality should be a reaction to pegan culture. When the word is first used in Genesis, it is also used to contrast how one culture viewed the rituals of another--in this case how the Hebrew rituals would look in the Egyptians' eyes. As pointed out before, there are records of homosexual prostitution in Peganism and given the use of the word Tow`ebah to discribe this behavior, its completely compatable with the evidence already shown between "man" and "mankind" which indicates that male prostitution is being condemed.

Furthermore, Tow`ebah has references to both ritual and ethical breechs of the Torah. So there are occasions of "abominations" that we, as Christians, would not consider to be unethical. The most notable is that of diet. Eating of lamb, deer, pork, lobster, etc is considered a Tow`ebah (Deu 14:3).

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Welcome to CF, ice age coming.

Also, welcome, leecappella. I just noticed that you are also new.

 

[Outspoken]

"The most notable is that of diet. Eating of lamb, deer, pork, lobster, etc is considered a Tow`ebah (Deu 14:3)."

exactly and those are delt with in romans as being okay, but homosexuality is also dealt with saying it is still sin.

 

[OldBadfish]

11th March 2003 at 07:53 PM fragmentsofdreams said this in Post #1

Badfish and I wanted to walk through Scripture and take a systematic look at what it says about homosexuality. While intended to be a discussion between the two of us, this thread is in an open forum, and you are free to have your say. We only ask that you discuss the topic at hand rather than stating conclusions about the issue as a whole. KJV and NASB are prefered as well as Strong's dictionaries when looking at translation issues.

We have already concluded that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed "because of their idol worship, fornication, and general blasphemies against God; the destruction wasn't for one particular reason." Currently, we are discussing Lev. 18:22 and 20:13. After finishing with these verses, we will move on to 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:9, followed by Rom 1. After this, we will consider passages that are more indirectly related to homosexuality. Please don't move on to later passages before the discussion of the earlier ones is complete.

Gosh it would have helped if I was here, sorry fod, looks like I missed out.

I know you gave me the link like weeks ago, but I spaced it.

Looks like I have some good reading to do here.

 

[leecappella]

Outspoken:

If you read Romans one carefully and slowly and define the necessary greek terms, you may find that all Paul is doing is referencing the idolatrous pagan worship practices as mentioned by FragamentsofDreams in his previous posts. Paul, in Romans, goes from speaking of those who believe in God and the faith that justifies and he turns the issue to those who believe NOT in God, that is the idolaters. All of his talk of idols, images of man and beast and the uncleanness of the men and women is simply references to those practices talked about in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, though not explained in detail in those verses. Paul was familiar with things that went on in his day and time. People worshipped idols and, as a result of rejecting God and doing so, these people lost all sense of right and wrong and imagined all kinds of ways to worship empty idols: sleeping with animals, sleeping with the same sex (regardless if they were heterosexual or not), etc. If indeed doing such things had something to do with gaining blessings, so they thought, via sex with whomever or whatever, married or not married, etc., then it would seem of no concern to the worshipper or temple prostitute (harlot/sodomite) the concerns of anyone but self. To do these things in order to have their prayers answered by their god, I would think made these people selfish with the wrong 'love thy neighbor' attitude. Romans one is not dealing with relationships in the context of comitted, loving ones. The context is quite the opposite. Do you know any homosexuals who go to church, acknowledge God and seek Him in their lives and love their neighbors as themselves? I do. Romans one contradicts the lives of such persons IF it means what most may think it means. In context, context, context......it does not mean that!

In God the Creator,
leecappella

 

[Outspoken]

"you may find that all Paul is doing is referencing the idolatrous pagan worship practices as mentioned by FragamentsofDreams in his previous posts."

Thanks for your advice but I did that awhile ago. If you read the greek you see that Paul is saying that because they refused to obey God he gave them over to their evil desires such as homosexuality, greed, murder, malace, etc. They are all sin and equally wrong in God's eyes. Yes, romans is dealing with ANY homosexual relationship. What you are atempting to do is add in words and thoughts that are not there nor indicated by the context. If paul didn't mean commited homosexual relationships he would have said that specifically. One thing about Paul is in his writings he is quite clear what he is saying and is throgh with a point when he makes it. He would not over look that detail. If you study his letters you would see that in his writting style. In context this passage means exactly what is says, homosexuality is sinful and akin to all types of evil in God's eyes.

 

[PastorFreud]

Respectfully, if the plan is this thread is to take one passage at a time, we seem to be jumping ahead. When we do get to Romans 1, I would like to see your Greek scholarship Outspoken. So far, it doesn't even add up to what respected anti-homosexual scholars have said. But it would be best to get this passage settled before moving on.

The Romans connection was regarding the diet items. Can you continue to post on that?

 

[Outspoken]

"Can you continue to post on that?"

on why dietery restrictions are "lifted"?