A systematic look at the Bible and homosexuality

[PastorFreud]

You are making a distinction between dietary laws and other laws. Can you help us understand which laws are which? There are also laws regarding menstration, the clothing you may wear, etc. How do we know which of these laws are for today and which have been lifted? From Acts, I recognize that calls all animals clean, thus showing Peter that he has "against nature", according to Paul, opened the kingdom to Gentiles. But I never see the clothing laws and the others being lifted. If you could clarify what Levitical restrictions are forever and which are not, that would be helpful.

 

[leecappella]

4th April 2003 at 06:51 AM Outspoken said this in Post #38
"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."

My Response: Actually, I have read the greek. I'm not sure what your hebrew/greek sources say, but mine revealed to me the following. This is the sin of those in Romans one:

1-Refused to acknowledge God

2-Refused to glorify God

3-Were not thankful towards God

4-Exchanged God for false gods (idols)

5-Were not accepting of God and His love

6-Did not like to be God conscious

Because of these things, it would seem that, according to you, God caused these people to do what they were doing. On the contrary, these people had made up in their minds that they were going to be this way towards God the Creator. Having already established this mindset, these people conjured up imaginations as to what God was really like. Denying the true God, they created images or idols to benefit them. That God 'gave them up' is not implying that He was the cause of their doings because they refused Him. 'Gave them up' is a phrase that means God yielded to them to do what their hearts had already decided to do after and during God's attempts to reconcile them to Him. The scriptures are clear on all of the pagan idol worship that went on and Paul was privy to it. If you have a friend who was doing something harmful to themselves and you tried to help them out and they seemed to ignore you, you would 'give them up' at some point. That is, you would yield to them and allow them to do what they willed and suffer the consequences later. God loved them, but since He gave us free will, He is not going to force Himself on them or us. Love is not love when it is forced and those in romans one clearly had no intentions of developing a personal relationship with God.

"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."

My Response: On the contrary, if Paul had meant commited homosexual relationships, he would have said so specifically in context as well. There is nothing in the text that 100% implies commited relationships. In fact, the opposite seems true. There is no way Paul talked about homosexuals along with those who worshipped idols and be talking about two seperate groups of people. If he did, that would make homosexual who worship Christ and confess Christ a contradiction to Paul's theory. Paul was reminiscing in his mind of all he knew about pagan worship practices, which involved same sex practices, and he very well may have thought that anyone who engaged in such acts were idol worshippers, thus the association of the two in his letter. He obviously was not describing love in this letter. I'm sure you wouldn't describe your commited, loving relationship, if applicable, with the words used in Romans one: lustful and unclean. No mention of love is in the text. After all, God is love and if you are of a people who deny God, then you deny love. Therefore, love is of no concern in the text. Paul speaks of those who have denied God and then he thereafter speaks of uncleaness of the bodies and then it's references to idols again. One has something to do with the other and pagan god/goddess sources seem to confirm Paul's mental flashback of such practices. The biblical references to temple prostitutes (harlots -female;sodomite -male) is scripture interpreting scripture. Look into biblical god/goddesses and see what went on in honor of idols. Ashtoreth, Molech, etc. It's there! The only thing I can say is that Paul had no clue that someone who loved God would be naturally instinctive towards the same sex. We know today because we are more advanced in information, unlike Paul's day and time. He likely thought of same sex practices one minute and immediately thought of idolatrous practices the next, associating the two.

"One thing about Paul is in his writings he is quite clear what he is saying and is thorough with a point when he makes it. He would not over look that detail."

My Response: Paul is but a man, like you and me. Surely today we know more about science, humanity, dna, genetics, etc. than he did back then. Men sleep with their wifes when the menstrual cycle is in affect, etc. Paul likely thought all humans were heterosexual and any homosexual activity was a sign of an idolator since those who worshipped idols engaged in same sex acts (not love) for worship/gain purposes. It should also be noted that idol worshippers who conquered their enemies 'sodomized' them after battle to show their domination and to show that their god was greater than the enemy's god or God. It is funny how some chrisitians take what Paul says as equal to what God thinks. Women would have to be silent in church and ask questions only of their husbands at home if that were the case! That is, if one does not consider the context Pauls says, "does not nature itself teach you that it is a shame for a man to have long hair" (paraphrase). What is that? Is it against nature or what? What does 'nature' mean there? I believe I know, but I'm asking you

"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."

My Response: These are characteristics of those who denied God and worshipped false gods. It does seem to suggest that those who partake in same sex acts are such who deny God, but I attend a church with a lot of homosexual persons who worship God, praise God, and in whom God's spirit is felt. Attend one such church and decide for yourself which is true: The assumption that a homosexual is such due to his/her denial of God or God is punishing them for their denial and the punishment is the state they are in OR that Paul, though a man of God, is limited in his humanity as we all are. Since you studied this already, you should know that "nature" and "natural" are terms used to describe that which is naturally instinctive, in the context. Either Paul thinks all humans are naturally instinctive towards opposite sex relationships or he is unaware that what is natural for one is not necessarily a shared instinct by others. This is one example of what we know today and what he may not have known then. Also, consider Paul's usage of 'nature' in other bible texts. He says God acted  contrary to nature when He grafted the Gentiles in with the Jews (Romans 11:24). Did God act in an immoral way if  'against nature' is a moral phrase?

In Christ,

leecappella

 

 

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

1st April 2003 at 09:26 AM fragmentsofdreams said this in Post #30

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:



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:


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

*bump*

Does anyone have a response to the parallels between the passages describing temple prositutes and Lev. 18:22 and 20:13?

 

[leecappella]

Fragments of Dreams:

Yes. I'm sure that I've mentioned them before. Briefly, Leviticus 18:22 in relation to 18:21 is, in my opinion, a reference to cult prostitutes. To lie with 'mankind' is a reference to a male cult prostitute and/or the idol itself or to lie with the idol via the male cult prostitute. This is what I believe.

Following Christ,
leecappella

 

[Kaine]

Hi fragmentsofdream,

I appreciate you starting this thread, I've been wanting to learn more about these passages, so this is good stuff...

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

You're welcome, Kaine. BTW, welcome to CF.

Leecappella-
I saw your posts. However, I am still waiting for those who don't see the connection to chime in. It would be premature to declare Leviticus settled and move on to 1 Cor 6:9 without at least getting some responses from those who had previously disagreed with me.

 

[Apollo Belvedre]

1st April 2003 at 09:26 AM fragmentsofdreams said this in Post #30

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:

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:

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

First let me apologize for not replying any sooner than now.  I've had a couple projects due and have had to devout all of my spare time to getting them done.  Thank you for your patience.

I've got to say you have a pretty intimidating argument and I admire your thoroughness of research, but there are a few fallacies on your behalf that must be addressed. 

First, the hebrew word for "temple prostitute" is not tow'ebah,its the word qadesh.  Tow'ebah is the hebrew word for "abomination."  It would make sense that if Leviticus 18:22/20:13 was in fact meant to prohibit male temple prostitution and not male homosexuality, then quadesh would be used in place of zakar.  Or if Leviticus 18:22/20:13 was meant to idiomatically condemn male temple prostitution as you claim, then the Hebrew word "keleb," meaning dog would be applied instead since Deuteronomy 23:18 KJV actually uses it as an idiom for a male prostitute.  Then Leviticus 18:22/20:13 would appear to be forbidding inappropriate behavior with animals and not male homosexuality, but unfortunately that isn't the case.  That along with the fact that the primary definition of zakar is to indicate the male of a species tells us that male sexual relations with other males is not condoned by God.  Leviticus 18:22 stresses the act of laying down with other males as being wrong, and is grouped along with other unlawful sexual acts.  Making it a sexually significant law, unlike Deuteronomy 23:17 which is grouped with miscellaneous laws of no particular importance.       

Also, you point out the use of "seed" as an idiom for children in Leviticus 18:21 to emphasize the possibility that Leviticus 18:22 might be meant idiomatically as well.  I don't know about you but I'm a layman in the area of Biblical translation, therefore I must rely upon the knowledge of scholars to discern whether any discrepancy may be found in Leviticus 18:22 concerning the use of the Hebrew word zakar.  And after referencing a few different translations I was unable to find one that differed from another.  Not even a footnote was used to indicate an indefinite use of the word.  These are the translations referenced, note that all have corrected the aparent idiom used in Leviticus 18:21, thus it would be logical that the following verse would be corrected for any idioms as well.

The New American Standard Bible - Leviticus 18:21-22  'You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profance the name of your god; I am the LORD.  You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

The New King James Version - Leviticus 18:21-22  And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profance the name of your God: I am the Lord.  You shall not lie with a male as with a woman.  It is an abomination.

The New Living Translation - Leviticus 18:21-22  "Do not give any of your children as a sacrifice to Molech, for you must not profance the name of your God.  I am the Lord.  "Do not practice homosexuatlity; it is a detestable sin.

The New Revised Standard Version - Leviticus 18:21-22  You shall not give any of your offspring to sacrifice them to Molech, and so profance the name of your God: I am the Lord.  You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

The Good News Translation - Leviticus 18:21-22  Do not hand over any of your children to be used in the worship of the god Molech, because that would bring disgrace on the name of God, the Lord.  No man is to have sexual relation with another man; God hates that.

The Message - Leviticus 18:21-22  "Don't give any of your children to be burned in sacrifice to the god Molech - an act of sheer blashphemy of your God.  I am God.  "Don't have sex with a man as one does with a woman.  That is abhorrent.

 

[Outspoken]

"From Acts, I recognize that calls all animals clean"

Like prego, read romans, its in there.

 

[Apollo Belvedre]

fragmentsofdreams and leecappella,

How do you personally feel about homosexuality and the Bible?  Do you honestly believe that homosexuality is not prohibited in the Bible, or are you just skeptical because of the things that you've both brought up?

 

[leecappella]

Apollo Belvedre:

Pesonally, I believe that certain same sex acts are prohibited in scripture. It is the context of those specific texts that is important to me when I am reading/studying the bible. Today's issue is two same sex persons living together as a couple in a committed, loving relationship. The bible does not deal with that specific issue in its texts. Not that I have seen! I do not believe that the issue for those in bible days was this same issue. It was another issue as it related to same sex acts in the contexts that they were known in that day and time. If two same sex persons wanted to live a life together in God's presence and righteousness, the bible does not point that out. It would be one thing if it did point such people out and then condemn it, but it does not. The closest thing to that is the story of David and Jonathan. Their relationship may or may not have been a homosexual one, but the scripture does honor it for what it was.

From Genesis 19 to Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans chapter one, and 1Corinthians 6:9, the texts deal with issues that are exempt of love and deal mainly in relation to how one is treating his neighbor, if one is loving the Lord God or replacing God with a false god or idol, and the activities of those who worship idols when their hearts no longer seek the one true God. These all relate to the one law we are under: Christ's Law of Love: Love the Lord God with all of thine heart, soul, and mind, and love thy neighbor as thyself. We are no longer under the Mosaic law. Jesus would have followed through on the law after finding the woman caught in adultery. Jesus Himself was cursed by the law being hung on tree! Galatians chapter 5 seeming makes it clear to me that we are not under Mosaic law. Who is greater, Moses or Christ? 1John 3:22, 23 tells us what law we are under, Christ's.

Leviticus as it relates to this issue is of no concern to me. I try not to build a theology around a verse or two, but take the whole bible message as a whole while attending to its parts. For me, the gosepl or good news is the over all message of the bible, not a theology built around a few verses. If I believe that God looks at the heart and that is what matters to Him as opposed to the externals of a person, then when the bible informs us that it is a shame for a man to have long hair and that women should wear a hat in church or have short hair, for whatever reason, I am forced to choose between Paul and Christ. If someone opposes interracial relationships based on the bible, God who looks at the heart seemingly does not matter to that person on that issue. Culture, society, history, and context have to be taken into consideration when studying the bible. I think a good number of people do not consider these. It takes too much time to do so. Most may listen to their pastor, preacher, etc. and take their words for it because of the title they hold. To me, that's sad to the extent that someone hangs on each and every word their pastor, preacher, etc. without question or any thought that they could be wrong. 


In Christ,
leecappella

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Today at 08:06 PM Apollo Belvedre said this in Post #47



First let me apologize for not replying any sooner than now.  I've had a couple projects due and have had to devout all of my spare time to getting them done.  Thank you for your patience.

I know how it is to be busy. I'm just happy that you are willing to come back to answer the difficult questions. Most don't want to go deeper than quoting the verses in question.

I've got to say you have a pretty intimidating argument and I admire your thoroughness of research, but there are a few fallacies on your behalf that must be addressed. 

First, the hebrew word for "temple prostitute" is not tow'ebah.  It is the word qadesh.  Tow'ebah is the hebrew word for "abomination."  It would make sense that if Leviticus 18:22/20:13 was in fact meant to prohibit male temple prostitution and not male homosexuality, then quadesh would be used in place of zakar.  Or if Leviticus 18:22/20:13 was meant to idiomatically condemn male temple prostitution as you claim, then the Hebrew word "keleb" for dog would be used instead since it actually is used as an idiom for a male prostitute in Deuteronomy 23:18 KJV.  Then Leviticus 18:22/20:13 would appear to be forbidding inappropriate behavior with animals and not male homosexuality, but unfortunately that isn't the case.  That along with the fact that the primary definition of zakar is to indicate the male of a species tells us that male sexual relations with other males is not condoned by God.  Leviticus 18:22 stresses the ACT of laying down with other males as being wrong, and is grouped along with other unlawful sexual acts.  Making it a sexually significant law, unlike Deuteronomy 23:17 which is grouped with miscellaneous laws of no particular importance.       

I am aware that toe'vah means abomination. My point was that passages refering to male cult prostitutes use the same word for abomination. It was a minor point to show parallels.

I will need some time to do additional research into the grouping of the laws.

Also, you point out the use of "seed" as an idiom for children in Leviticus 18:21 to emphasize the possibility that Leviticus 18:22 might be meant idiomatically as well.  I don't know about you but I'm a layman in the area of Biblical translation, therefore I must rely upon the knowledge of scholars to discern whether any discrepancy may be found in Leviticus 18:22 concerning the use of the Hebrew word zakar.  And after referencing a few different translations I was unable to find one that differed from another.  Not even a footnote was used to indicate an indefinite use of the word.  These are the translations referenced, note that all have corrected the aparent idiom used in Leviticus 18:21, thus it would be logical that the following verse would be corrected for any idioms as well.

The New American Standard Bible - Leviticus 18:21-22  'You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profance the name of your god; I am the LORD.  You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

The New King James Version - Leviticus 18:21-22  And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profance the name of your God: I am the Lord.  You shall not lie with a male as with a woman.  It is an abomination.

The New Living Translation - Leviticus 18:21-22  "Do not give any of your children as a sacrifice to Molech, for you must not profance the name of your God.  I am the Lord.  "Do not practice homosexuatlity; it is a detestable sin.

The New Revised Standard Version - Leviticus 18:21-22  You shall not give any of your offspring to sacrifice them to Molech, and so profance the name of your God: I am the Lord.  You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

The Good News Translation - Leviticus 18:21-22  Do not hand over any of your children to be used in the worship of the god Molech, because that would bring disgrace on the name of God, the Lord.  No man is to have sexual relation with another man; God hates that.

The Message - Leviticus 18:21-22  "Don't give any of your children to be burned in sacrifice to the god Molech - an act of sheer blashphemy of your God.  I am God.  "Don't have sex with a man as one does with a woman.  That is abhorrent.

        

It does not follow from translator's understanding of one idiom that all other idioms would be understood. I'm going to look up how the Sepuagint translates 18:21.

 

[leecappella]

Here is a link for those who seek a brief explanation of the homosexual issue as it relates to the christian.

http://gaychristianonline.org/christian.html

In Christ,
leecappella

 

[Outspoken]

I find that cite quite wrong and to be quite honost, it accepts something that is sin as being okay, what's next? murder or rape, or even sloth?

 

[PastorFreud]

Yesterday at 10:46 PM Outspoken said this in Post #53

I find that cite quite wrong and to be quite honost, it accepts something that is sin as being okay, what's next? murder or rape, or even sloth?

Murder and rape do damage to other people.

Sloth is defined as spending too much time on Christian Forums when you could be doing something more productive.

 

[leecappella]

Outspoken/Pastor Freud:

I just got online to see what's new and I saw Outspoken's response to the link. My immediate reaction was what Pastor Freud replied with. His response mirrors Christ's law of love: loving thy neighbor as thyself and loving the Lord God with all thine heart, soul, and mind. All instances of same sex acts in scripture deal with issues in which those engaged in such acts are conducting themselves in opposition to treating their neighbor as themselves (rape, idolatrous rituals for self gain, etc.) and in opposition to loving the Lord God (worshipping other gods or idols in God's place).

In God the Creator,
leecappella

 

[leecappella]

To all who believe that we are still under the Mosaic laws found in the old testament. I mean all of them, not some of this and some of that, take a look at this list. Leviticus is what is referenced by those who oppose same sex relationships. Context, I say! It cannot be stressed enough:

You May Be Going to Hell if You.....


Eat fruit from a tree less than five years old (Lev. 19:23).


Cross-breed your livestock (Lev. 19:19).


Grow two different plants in your garden (Lev. 19:19).


Wear clothes made from a polyester-blend fabric (Lev. 19:19).


Read your horoscope (Lev. 19:26).


Consult a psychic (Lev. 19:31).


Cut your hair (Lev. 19:27).


Trim your beard (Lev. 19:27).


Have a tattoo (Lev. 19:28).


Plant your crops for more than seven years without allowing a “rest” or “jubilee” period (Lev. 25:4 and Ex. 23:10-13).


Bear a grudge (Lev. 19:17).


Collect interest on a loan (Ex. 22:24).


Insult a leader (Ex. 22:27).


Mistreat a foreigner or resident alien (Ex. 22:21, 23:9).


Spread false rumours (Ex. 23:1).


Drive a Mercury or a Saturn; know anyone named Diana, Athena, or Thor; took your children to see Hercules; eat or talk about Mars bars; or anything else involving the name of another deity (Ex. 23:13 — "Do not pronounce the name of another deity. You must not let it be heard through your mouth.")

leecappella

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Yesterday at 01:15 AM Apollo Belvedre said this in Post #49

fragmentsofdreams and leecappella,

How do you personally feel about homosexuality and the Bible?  Do you honestly believe that homosexuality is not prohibited in the Bible, or are you just skeptical because of the things that you've both brought up?

I believe that the Bible is largely silent on the issue, that the passages most often cited are refering to other things, and that there are a few oblique passages that give insight into the issue.

I became interested in this issue because the statements of those who oppose homosexuality are often very disjointed from reality and inconsistent with their other beliefs and actions. I discovered that passages are either quoted horribly out of context (Gen 19) or tied to religious activities.

 

[Apollo Belvedre]

Today at 01:36 AM PastorFreud said this in Post #54



Murder and rape do damage to other people. 

I hope you're not implying that to damage oneself is perfectly alright.

"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.  All these evil things come from within, and defile the man."  Mark 7:21-23

Five things are listed in these verses that if perpetrated would damage other people.  Six are listed that would merely damage oneself, yet they are still considered as evil. 

   

 

[leecappella]

Apollo Belvedre:

Do you think that these things are equal to the love two people share, whether homosexual or heterosexual? Is love itself equal to these. Are these actions of love? Would you have an issue with two people of the same sex sharing a committed sexual relationship of monogamy for life if God Himself said it was just fine?

In love,
leecappella

 

[Apollo Belvedre]

Today at 02:59 PM leecappella said this in Post #59

Apollo Belvedre:

Do you think that these things are equal to the love two people share, whether homosexual or heterosexual? Is love itself equal to these. Are these actions of love? Would you have an issue with two people of the same sex sharing a committed sexual relationship of monogamy for life if God Himself said it was just fine?

In love,
leecappella

You misunderstood.  I was merely reproving PastorFreud's condenscending response to Outspoken.  Other than that I attempted to make no correlation between anything. 

Its interesting though what you appear to be saying.  Your description of "a committed sexual relationship of monogamy for life" sounds a lot like marriage.  Which is the only relationship that is meant to be sexual correct?  And what's the Bible's position on marriage? 

"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."  Genesis 2:24

Now before you start protesting that we're no longer under Mosaic law, this is not a command.  It's a description of the intended nature of matrimony.