Homosexuality

[intricatic]

Apologies...

Proper, working Link. (<-----Click)

(I hope )

 

[davedjy]

It actually is incredibly clear cut. It's only rendered ambiguous by lumping the idea of idolatry into what we consider 'ritual purity' codes, which is dishonest at best.

Look. (Click me ) ----

Explore.

Get back to me when you're done.

Abomination has MULTIPLE meanings, dude.

Let us break down that word for you:

Tow'ebah:

1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)


It doesn't just have to do with idolatry, and in this passage it has NOTHING to do w/it. If it does, it makes the pagan worship argument stand out.

 

[intricatic]

Haha... my favorite use of "toevah." in the OT.

25 Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron, and said, &#8220;Go, sacrifice to your God in the land.&#8221;
26 And Moses said, &#8220;It is not right to do so, for we would be sacrificing the abomination of the Egyptians to the LORD our God. If we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, then will they not stone us? 27 We will go three days&#8217; journey into the wilderness and sacrifice to the LORD our God as He will command us.&#8221;

Explanation;

33 So it shall be, when Pharaoh calls you and says, &#8216;What is your occupation?&#8217; 34 that you shall say, &#8216;Your servants&#8217; occupation has been with livestock from our youth even till now, both we and also our fathers,&#8217; that you may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians.&#8221;
(Genesis 46)

Note, this doesn't mean they were sacrificing shepherds.

 

[intricatic]

Abomination has MULTIPLE meanings, dude.

Let us break down that word for you:

Tow'ebah:

1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)


It doesn't just have to do with idolatry, and in this passage it has NOTHING to do w/it. If it does, it makes the pagan worship argument stand out.

Did you even read this post? I did an exhaustive search through the entire OT and isolated most instances of this word, examined them in context, and then posted the verses that were most clear and relevant. In the link I provided, I even pointed back to one of the three different dictionaries I used to research that word (The one I chose was used a search function to list each instance of the word in the OT). Please don't think I'm being hard-headed here, I know what the word means.

 

[davedjy]

Did you even read this post? I did an exhaustive search through the entire OT and isolated most instances of this word, examined them in context, and then posted the verses that were most clear and relevant. In the link I provided, I even pointed back to one of the three different dictionaries I used to research that word (The one I chose was used a search function to list each instance of the word in the OT). Please don't think I'm being hard-headed here, I know what the word means.

It falls flat on it's head, because the best of Scholars who have done the research agree that it falls under the purity code in Leviticus.

 

[angelmom01]

Yeah...that's for another topic. But using that logic, that still imples that if God created us that way and wants us to stop...we should?

Perhaps so, but is it that easy? Do any of us just STOP sinning?

The only reason that WE can overcome is because CHRIST OVERCAME. It takes HIM IN US to do the overcoming. Doesn't it? And even when we feel like we do have HIS SPIRIT in us, do we "cease" from sin and never sin? Why not? If he "wants" us to and we "can"?

Could it be that we are going to be held accountable for how we treat others who we see "sinnng" when we ourselves are not free from sin?

We are perfect IN LOVE (everything else is "in part"). We are forgiven AS WE FORGIVE. We are to JUDGE NOT lest we BE JUDGED.

No one is free from sin.

1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.


There is also the matter of:

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,


But in light of the fact that I see the marriage relationship (man and woman being joined together in marriage as ONE FLESH) as a "type" of CHRIST AND THE CHURCH and other sexual sins (fornication/adultery etc) having more of a SPIRITUAL (rather then NATURAL) application to Christ and the church, I don't KNOW how it is to be applied physically (if at all)?

But I am willing to accept that it IS sin, but (if it is) not willing to accept that it is any different from any other sin that God hates.

Ever lie? Ever gossip? Ever been guilty of a proud look or of running to mischief or of sowing discord (etc)?

Even Paul suffered with sin:

Rom 7:14-24 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I DO I allow not: for what I WOULD, that do I not; but what I HATE, that do I. 16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good THAT I WOULD I do not: but THE EVIL which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God after THE INWARD MAN: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

We do not simply "choose" or "not choose" to sin. If ONLY it WERE that easy.

Only ONE can deliver us from this body OF DEATH!! Do you know anyone who is fully free from sin?


angelmom

 

[davedjy]

An argument against this interpretation is that it would not blend well with the next verse. Leviticus 18:23 discusses a man or a woman engaging in bestiality. The traditional translations would make a smoother text. However, in defense of the NGPA translation, there is already a break in topic between verses 21 and 22. So a second break between 22 and 23 is not unreasonable.


Same chapter: Leviticus 18:19--

19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.


Verse connects the dots:

29For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Perhaps so, but is it that easy? Do any of us just STOP sinning?

The only reason that WE can overcome is because CHRIST OVERCAME. It takes HIM IN US to do the overcoming. Doesn't it? And even when we feel like we do have HIS SPIRIT in us, do we "cease" from sin and never sin? Why not? If he "wants" us to and we "can"?

Could it be that we are going to be held accountable for how we treat others who we see "sinnng" when we ourselves are not free from sin?

We are perfect IN LOVE (everything else is "in part"). We are forgiven AS WE FORGIVE. We are to JUDGE NOT lest we BE JUDGED.

No one is free from sin.

1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.


There is also the matter of:

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,


But in light of the fact that I see the marriage relationship (man and woman being joined together in marriage as ONE FLESH) as a "type" of CHRIST AND THE CHURCH and other sexual sins (fornication/adultery etc) having more of a SPIRITUAL (rather then NATURAL) application to Christ and the church, I don't KNOW how it is to be applied physically (if at all)?

But I am willing to accept that it IS sin, but (if it is) not willing to accept that it is any different from any other sin that God hates.

Ever lie? Ever gossip? Ever been guilty of a proud look or of running to mischief or of sowing discord (etc)?

Even Paul suffered with sin:

Rom 7:14-24 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I DO I allow not: for what I WOULD, that do I not; but what I HATE, that do I. 16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good THAT I WOULD I do not: but THE EVIL which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God after THE INWARD MAN: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

We do not simply "choose" or "not choose" to sin. If ONLY it WERE that easy.

Only ONE can deliver us from this body OF DEATH!! Do you know anyone who is fully free from sin?


angelmom

Ok...so we should stop sinning. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[angelmom01]

Ok...so we should stop sinning. Thanks for the reminder.

Where did I ever say that we shouldn't?

 

[davedjy]

To Nadine, you wanted to know why incest would be viewed differently, and that it isn't "pick and choose"?

it's because of how the chapter is worded:

4Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.

5Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.

6None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.

The verses in this chapter that say "I am the Lord" are direct commands from the Lord, as a moral violation. The rest of the verses that don't say "I am the Lord about incest are an expansion of those terms 'don't defile yourself w/your mother, aunt, etc.", just specifically clears it out. The menstrual cycle one doesn't have that same command, so that shows what it means there. Best**lity is said be "confusion" which the word is a direct moral violation.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Where did I ever say that we shouldn't?

I never said you did? What you talking about?

 

[intricatic]

An argument against this interpretation is that it would not blend well with the next verse. Leviticus 18:23 discusses a man or a woman engaging in bestiality. The traditional translations would make a smoother text. However, in defense of the NGPA translation, there is already a break in topic between verses 21 and 22. So a second break between 22 and 23 is not unreasonable.


Same chapter: Leviticus 18:19--

19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.


Verse connects the dots:

29For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

What are you getting at here? I don't see any reason the two (three?) verses would be rendered inconsistent.

 

[intricatic]

It falls flat on it's head, because the best of Scholars who have done the research agree that it falls under the purity code in Leviticus.

Which scholars said that? I'd like to investigate their reasoning because something is really, really out of line with that perspective. Ritual purity has only circumstantial implications with idolatry, and sexual ethics. Sexual ethics are a hugely theological concept that can't be rendered in interpretation to only be a matter of ritual purity, and the word "toevah" very rarely, overall, appears in reference to anything even remotely resembling ritual purity because it always deals with something of a much wider implication than just ritual purity. The connotation of the word itself would render such an interpretation absolutely bizarre, considering it means that God absolutely hates and despises the subject it's attached to. As I said, the huge majority of the contextual use of this word testifies to this incredibly clearly.

Unless you, personally, have any insight into this matter, please don't tell me a bunch of scholars said such and such because those scholars are not here at the moment to discuss it with us. I'm talking with you and you're talking with me. I almost never put much stock into what current biblical scholarship says because a huge majority of it seems to absolutely miss the point of even the smallest things. It's mind-numbing and agitating.

 

[davedjy]

Which scholars said that? I'd like to investigate their reasoning because something is really, really out of line with that perspective. Ritual purity has only circumstantial implications with idolatry, and sexual ethics. Sexual ethics are a hugely theological concept that can't be rendered in interpretation to only be a matter of ritual purity, and the word "toevah" very rarely, overall, appears in reference to anything even remotely resembling ritual purity because it always deals with something of a much wider implication than just ritual purity. The connotation of the word itself would render such an interpretation absolutely bizarre, considering it means that God absolutely hates and despises the subject it's attached to. As I said, the huge majority of the contextual use of this word testifies to this incredibly clearly.

Unless you, personally, have any insight into this matter, please don't tell me a bunch of scholars said such and such because those scholars are not here at the moment to discuss it with us. I'm talking with you and you're talking with me. I almost never put much stock into what current biblical scholarship says because a huge majority of it seems to absolutely miss the point of even the smallest things. It's mind-numbing and agitating.

Because the same chapter it talks about having sex w/a woman within 7 days of her menstrual cycle (another sexual sin). "Abomination" was not referred to as a sexual, moral violation in that verse. The other verses say "I am the lord your God" at the end that follow (incest) and the others just expand on that. Having sexual relations w/beast uses the word "confusion" which means unnatural, and refers to a moral violation.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 read: &#8220;You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.&#8221; and &#8220;If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.&#8221; Taken out of historic context, these verses seem to clearly condemn sexual relationships between two people of the same sex, or at least male homosexuality. However, very few scriptural experts will contend that these passages apply to modern day homosexual relationships. American Baptist religious professor Tony Campolo, puts it this way, &#8220;You have to understand that passages from Leviticus are not a good case for condemning homosexuality. The Old Testament is not a good case because the Old Testament is divided into two kinds of law: moral law and what we call purity codes. Purity codes are what we call kosher laws. And if you read the Old Testament you will find there&#8217;s a whole host of kosher laws, of what you can eat, what you can&#8217;t eat, what kind of clothes you can wear. All of these are spelled out. There is no question that when Christ came and when Peter preached, that purity codes were put aside. We no longer live kosher lives like our orthodox Jewish friends do. And those who are scholars, even the most conservative of scholars, will argue that the statements in Leviticus that have to do with homosexuality fall into the purity code category. As a matter of fact it comes right after the passage that says that to touch the skin of a dead pig is an abomination, which puts the whole Super Bowl into moral question.&#8221;

http://www.shepherdinitiative.org/memWrite2.php

 

[angelmom01]

I never said you did? What you talking about?

It wasn't an accusation; I'm just saying that I never said that we shouldn't stop sinning (to your comment to me indicating that we should).

YES, we should stop sinning. That doesn't always mean we can, however. Even when we think we have "chosen" to. I bet Peter never thought he would deny Christ even once, much less three times.

angelmom

 

[intricatic]

Because the same chapter it talks about having sex w/a woman within 7 days of her menstrual cycle (another sexual sin). "Abomination" was not referred to as a sexual, moral violation in that verse. The other verses say "I am the lord your God" at the end that follow (incest) and the others just expand on that. Having sexual relations w/beast uses the word "confusion" which means unnatural, and refers to a moral violation.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 read: &#8220;You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.&#8221; and &#8220;If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.&#8221; Taken out of historic context, these verses seem to clearly condemn sexual relationships between two people of the same sex, or at least male homosexuality. However, very few scriptural experts will contend that these passages apply to modern day homosexual relationships. American Baptist religious professor Tony Campolo, puts it this way, &#8220;You have to understand that passages from Leviticus are not a good case for condemning homosexuality. The Old Testament is not a good case because the Old Testament is divided into two kinds of law: moral law and what we call purity codes. Purity codes are what we call kosher laws. And if you read the Old Testament you will find there&#8217;s a whole host of kosher laws, of what you can eat, what you can&#8217;t eat, what kind of clothes you can wear. All of these are spelled out. There is no question that when Christ came and when Peter preached, that purity codes were put aside. We no longer live kosher lives like our orthodox Jewish friends do. And those who are scholars, even the most conservative of scholars, will argue that the statements in Leviticus that have to do with homosexuality fall into the purity code category. As a matter of fact it comes right after the passage that says that to touch the skin of a dead pig is an abomination, which puts the whole Super Bowl into moral question.&#8221;

http://www.shepherdinitiative.org/memWrite2.php

Only verse in the entire chapter that even remotely deals with purity as it's sole factor, and people think the entire chapter deals with purity. This is what I mean. Modern scholarship is a joke.

Do you know what menstrual blood means to systematic theology? The guy quoted has a point in that there are, at the most microscopic level, only two types of laws in the OT, but even that misses the point. The ritual purity laws existed for a reason that was fulfilled in Christ. First of all, you need a good idea of what ritual purity is. Here's a crash course; washing your hands before you eat. Why do you do it? Out of reverence? Out of pure habit? Whichever it is, Israel was told to keep ritually pure because it pointed forward to Christ while also pointing towards the fact that there was an ever-pressing need in each person's daily life for salvation from their own sin.

Menstrual blood was considered ritually unclean for the same reason a dead body was. It (because of how Hebrew culture viewed reproduction) was seen as the loss of a potential life. This also points back to Genesis 3 because of the pronouncement of the curses against Adam and Eve. The 'customary impurity' referred to was 7 days. This pointed back to the cycle of creation - 7 days, as childbirth also followed suite. (Leviticus 12, and Leviticus 15) (You can verify this by doing a cursory study of historic Judaism as it relates to these topics)

Homosexuality, idolatry (see vs. 21), etc... point to the first three chapters in Genesis, as well, but in a far more binding and "toevah" sense. I've been over that about twenty times already on this thread and I'm tired of reiterating the same points over and over again.

Nearly universally in this chapter, something can be traced backwards and forwards in antitype or type. Do you think that single verse is enough to disqualify this chapter as anything other than ritual purity? I see absolutely no logical reason to think so.

 

[davedjy]

Only verse in the entire chapter that even remotely deals with purity as it's sole factor, and people think the entire chapter deals with purity. This is what I mean. Modern scholarship is a joke.

Do you know what menstrual blood means to systematic theology? The guy quoted has a point in that there are, at the most microscopic level, only two types of laws in the OT, but even that misses the point. The ritual purity laws existed for a reason that was fulfilled in Christ. First of all, you need a good idea of what ritual purity is. Here's a crash course; washing your hands before you eat. Why do you do it? Out of reverence? Out of pure habit? Whichever it is, Israel was told to keep ritually pure because it pointed forward to Christ while also pointing towards the fact that there was an ever-pressing need in each person's daily life for salvation from their own sin.

Menstrual blood was considered ritually unclean for the same reason a dead body was. It (because of how Hebrew culture viewed reproduction) was seen as the loss of a potential life. This also points back to Genesis 3 because of the pronouncement of the curses against Adam and Eve. The 'customary impurity' referred to was 7 days. This pointed back to the cycle of creation - 7 days, as childbirth also followed suite. (Leviticus 12, I forget where to find the reference for simple menstruation, but it's mentioned in 12 as well) (You can verify this by doing a cursory study of historic Judaism as it relates to these topics)

Homosexuality, idolatry (see vs. 21), etc... point to the first three chapters in Genesis, as well, but in a far more binding and "toevah" sense. I've been over that about twenty times already on this thread and I'm tired of reiterating the same points over and over again.

Nearly universally in this chapter, something can be traced backwards and forwards in antitype or type. Do you think that single verse is enough to disqualify this chapter as anything other than ritual purity? I see absolutely no logical reason to think so.

He didn't use that verse as his proof point, I threw that in there, because the whole chapter deals with sexual impurity, and he was talking about chapter 19.

'Keep my decrees.
" 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
" 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

Look at this verse and see the obvious problem:

20 " 'If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment."

Oh ok, so it's OK to sleep w/the slave girl, if he isn't her own.

Conservative Christians are pure PICK and CHOOSE.
I can easily argue that it's OK to sleep w/the girl if that girl doesn't belong to anyone. How ridiculous.

But homosexuality is wrong. Hmm, how hypocritical.

 

[StTherese]

Are you saying that Adam didn't have "an inclination TO SIN" BEFORE he sinned? That cause him TO sin?

No, he didn't. Man was created sinless but with free will. Could we truly love God if we were forced to?

Man was created "in the flesh", subject TO the flesh and the lusts of the flesh. But maybe that's for another topic, but since you brought it up in relation to man's "fall" and "original sn" and tied that to one's "choosing" homosexuality, I thought it was relevant to address.

If Adam was CAPABLE of sin, then he was CREATED THAT WAY (BY GOD).

angelmom

Being created with free will is not the same as being created sinful. God is not the author of sin!

 

[intricatic]

He didn't use that verse as his proof point, I threw that in there, because the whole chapter deals with sexual impurity, and he was talking about chapter 19.

'Keep my decrees.
" 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
" 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

Look at this verse and see the obvious problem:

20 " 'If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment."

Oh ok, so it's OK to sleep w/the slave girl, if he isn't her own.

Conservative Christians are pure PICK and CHOOSE.
I can easily argue that it's OK to sleep w/the girl if that girl doesn't belong to anyone. How ridiculous.

But homosexuality is wrong. Hmm, how hypocritical.

What does this have to do with the topic we're discussing? I can trace those laws all over the place too, but it seems like a kind of pointless exercise. Do you want to understand why these laws are given, or just be offended by them?

 

[davedjy]

What does this have to do with the topic we're discussing? I can trace those laws all over the place too, but it seems like a kind of pointless exercise. Do you want to understand why these laws are given, or just be offended by them?

It has everything to do with it. Do you even get what I am saying? in the same chapter it calls all those other things abominations.