Homosexuality

[Polycarp1]

I am wondering why we're even concerned about those laws. If anybody gets beyond the first chapter of Romans (which half the homosexuality threads make it seem like they got bogged down there), we're free from the Law -- all the Law -- not in an antinomian sense, free to sin, but in the sense that we are free to love God and our fellow man in the manner which He commands, as taught by Christ.

One element of that love is to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Another is to judge only in such manner as we ourselves would wish to be judged. Yet a third is to treat others as though they were Christ. There are, of course, Scriptural cites from the Gospels for Jesus Christ having commanded every single one of those points.

Having gotten that far, I have a truly shocking proposition: it is unBiblical to judge our fellow men by "Biblical standards," i.e., by applying that part of the Law that we believe still valid to their lives to judge them against it.

 

[intricatic]

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.

And I'm telling you that there are not only legitimate reasons for it, but the chapter itself was crafted specifically to read the way it does for reasons that aren't always obvious. People simply read it and don't bother to try to figure out the point behind the specific prohibitions. And no, I'm not going to write another lengthy exegesis on it because it seems to be completely useless.

Like I said, research historic Judaism, the culture of ancient Israel, etc... and it starts to make sense.

Read it and leave it at that and it gets really perplexing and offensive.

Everyone has that choice, and there really aren't any excuses for not researching it in our ridiculous information age. I have to conclude that many people just like to be offended.

 

[davedjy]

And I'm telling you that there are not only legitimate reasons for it, but the chapter itself was crafted specifically to read the way it does for reasons that aren't always obvious. People simply read it and don't bother to try to figure out the point behind the specific prohibitions. And no, I'm not going to write another lengthy exegesis on it because it seems to be completely useless.

Like I said, research historic Judaism, the culture of ancient Israel, etc... and it starts to make sense.

Read it and leave it at that and it gets really perplexing and offensive.

Everyone has that choice, and there really aren't any excuses for not researching it in our ridiculous information age. I have to conclude that many people just like to be offended.

Here's another interpretation:

National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA) interpretation: The NGPA has analyzed the verse in great detail to produce a word-for-word translation of the original Hebrew. 4 In English, with minimal punctuation added, they rendered it as: "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination. That is, "rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply restricts where it may occur." This may seem a strange prohibition to us today, but was quite consistent with other laws in Leviticus which involve improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. e.g. ancient Hebrews were not allowed to mix two crops in the same field, or make cloth out of two different raw materials, or plow a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together. A woman's bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement.

Author Jacob Milgrom suggests that the two passages do not prohibit homosexual behavior generally, but only:
for ancient Israelites, or to inhabitants of Israel, and
who are engaging in anal intercourse, and
who are men, not lesbians, and
(perhaps) who are of the same kinship connections that would prohibit heterosexual relations. 5
Arthur Waskow, a writer and rabbi, points out that: "The whole structure of sexuality in Torah assumes a dominant, male and a subordinate woman." 6 In a male homosexual act of anal intercourse, one partner may be viewed as taking a passive role - that normally played by a woman. Thus anal intercourse between two gay men would be as improper in Biblical times as a workplace situation in which a woman supervised a man. Also, because woman were considered to play such an inferior role in society, sex between two lesbians are not condemned in the Old Testament. All women were of low status and thus neither would be seen as adopting a dominant or a subservient role during sexual encounters
Waskow cites two alternative meanings to the passage:

"Do not lie with a man as if it were the same thing as lying with a woman." That is, when two gay males have a sexual encounter, they should continuously be aware that it is different from a male-female coupling. It might be interpreted to mean: "Set up a parallel set of institutions for dealing with this kind of sexual relationship, different from those that apply to sexual relationships between a man and a woman."
"Do not sleep with a man as it were with a woman" That is, if two males engage in a sexual act, neither should pretend that the passive partner is like a woman. They should be fully aware of their sexual orientation and maleness. i.e. they should come out of the "closet" and recognize their gayness. 6

 

[davedjy]

Btw, those interpretations make more sense.

Where is the verse that says the opposite:

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

Now I'm getting somewhere. LOL

 

[intricatic]

Here's another interpretation:

National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA) interpretation: The NGPA has analyzed the verse in great detail to produce a word-for-word translation of the original Hebrew. 4 In English, with minimal punctuation added, they rendered it as: "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination. That is, "rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply restricts where it may occur." This may seem a strange prohibition to us today, but was quite consistent with other laws in Leviticus which involve improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. e.g. ancient Hebrews were not allowed to mix two crops in the same field, or make cloth out of two different raw materials, or plow a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together. A woman's bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement.

Author Jacob Milgrom suggests that the two passages do not prohibit homosexual behavior generally, but only:
for ancient Israelites, or to inhabitants of Israel, and
who are engaging in anal intercourse, and
who are men, not lesbians, and
(perhaps) who are of the same kinship connections that would prohibit heterosexual relations. 5
Arthur Waskow, a writer and rabbi, points out that: "The whole structure of sexuality in Torah assumes a dominant, male and a subordinate woman." 6 In a male homosexual act of anal intercourse, one partner may be viewed as taking a passive role - that normally played by a woman. Thus anal intercourse between two gay men would be as improper in Biblical times as a workplace situation in which a woman supervised a man. Also, because woman were considered to play such an inferior role in society, sex between two lesbians are not condemned in the Old Testament. All women were of low status and thus neither would be seen as adopting a dominant or a subservient role during sexual encounters
Waskow cites two alternative meanings to the passage:

"Do not lie with a man as if it were the same thing as lying with a woman." That is, when two gay males have a sexual encounter, they should continuously be aware that it is different from a male-female coupling. It might be interpreted to mean: "Set up a parallel set of institutions for dealing with this kind of sexual relationship, different from those that apply to sexual relationships between a man and a woman."
"Do not sleep with a man as it were with a woman" That is, if two males engage in a sexual act, neither should pretend that the passive partner is like a woman. They should be fully aware of their sexual orientation and maleness. i.e. they should come out of the "closet" and recognize their gayness. 6

....and the entire interpretation seems so detached from the historical roots of the passage it's attempting to interpret that I need not even comment on it at this point. A good portion of my previous posts will do to counter it.

 

[intricatic]

Btw, those interpretations make more sense.

Where is the verse that says the opposite:

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

Now I'm getting somewhere. LOL

Wasn't an issue in the culture at the time. Theological implications would have been redundant and pointless, as well.

 

[davedjy]

....and the entire interpretation seems so detached from the historical roots of the passage it's attempting to exegete that I need not even comment on it at this point. A good portion of my previous posts will do to counter it.

Your passage does not dive into anything but the idolatry aspects. What makes your interpretations more qualified, really I want to know.

Why does the passage not say woman should not sleep w/woman, such as: "thou shall not lie with womankind as with mankind, it is abomination".

Again, if it was talking in the context of which YOU speak, it would condemn ALL homosexual acts, including those w/lesbians. You fail!

 

[davedjy]

Wasn't an issue in the culture at the time. Theological implications would have been redundant and pointless, as well.

No they wouldn't, look how it says incest is not allowed, then it goes into FULL detail. REDUNDANT.

'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.

Now wouldn't that be enough? but no, it goes into detail:

7 " 'Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

8 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.

9 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

10 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.

11 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

12 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.

13 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.

14 " 'Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

15 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.

16 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.

17 " 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

 

[StTherese]

No, you said "love is a choice", as though we have some sort of control over who we fall in love with.

No. I did not say we can control who we "fall in love" with, but that real love is a choice. This feeling of being in love is not love. This is something we really have very little control over. This thing you call being in love is no more than a sexual attraction. Sexual attraction is not love.

I'm homosexual. I'm telkling you that, as fare as I know, I am ONLY capable of falling in love with women. Now, I want you to try to understand where am coming from.

I sort of understand where you are coming from in that I know what it is like to be in love with someone that if I ever followed through with my feelings would be a grevious sin (adultery). It is not a homosexual attraction, but I don't see where it is that much of a difference, in that either way it would be sinful. I felt that I had no control over my feelings and for some reason, I was in love with this person. I had to deny my feelings and desires and despite my attraction, do the will of God!

So, the nearest way I can think to show you exactly what I mean, is to ask you if you can go and choose to romanticly love a woman.

Can you?

No. I do not think that I could ever romantically love a woman.

But, the love that we are called to is beyond romantic love. Romantic love is a sexual attraction. It is in our "hearts" in which the worst of sins are brought about. You could say that at times, we are our worst enemy. Our fleshly desires are many many times not in line with the will of God. We must mortify our flesh so the Spirit of God can dwell within. This life is a battle...we are at war. We are battling not only the powers of evil, but the sinfulness of our own flesh! It is a battle that is worth fighting, for success is the reward of eternal life!

 

[intricatic]

Your passage does not dive into anything but the idolatry aspects. What makes your interpretations more qualified, really I want to know.

Why does the passage not say woman should not sleep w/woman, such as: "thou shall not lie with womankind as with mankind, it is abomination".

Again, if it was talking in the context of which YOU speak, it would condemn ALL homosexual acts, including those w/lesbians. You fail!

Yet again, perhaps you didn't read my posts. I went into the entire explanation of the text. The word refers to idolatry predominantly because homosexuality and idolatry are mutually linked back to Genesis 2. That is, each of them, consecutively, are linked to that chapter for the same reason.

Why does the passage not say woman should not sleep w/woman, such as: "thou shall not lie with womankind as with mankind, it is abomination".

Wasn't an issue in the culture at the time. Theological implications would have been redundant and pointless, as well.

 

[intricatic]

No they wouldn't, look how it says incest is not allowed, then it goes into FULL detail. REDUNDANT.

'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.

Now wouldn't that be enough? but no, it goes into detail:

7 " 'Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

8 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.

9 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

10 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.

11 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

12 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.

13 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.

14 " 'Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

15 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.

16 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.

17 " 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

Because. It. Was. Extremely. Problematic. In. The. Culture.

The redundancy is also used as a prophetic indicator of what Israel would soon be doing with her "brother and sister" nations. Although this one takes some thorough reading to figure out. If you want, I could take you through it, but it'll probably take a day or so to write that all up, and more than one post considering the length.

See Ezekiel.

 

[davedjy]

Yet again, perhaps you didn't read my posts. I went into the entire explanation of the text. The word refers to idolatry predominantly because homosexuality and idolatry are mutually linked back to Genesis 2. That is, each of them, consecutively, are linked to that chapter for the same reason.

There isn't any clobber passage in Genesis 2 that I am aware of.

 

[Nadiine]

Wasn't an issue in the culture at the time. Theological implications would have been redundant and pointless, as well.

Um, thanks for mentioning this - I keep saying this, that in their day, Homosexuality was a complete NON ISSUE.
It wasn't acceptable or common in their culture.
I'm amazed it's even mentioned in the bible as many times as [I believe] it is.
(we see that by the utter lack of any gay biblical leaders or promotion or supportive verses in the Bible. They're non existant) - which SHOULD speak volumes to us as to the truth about this issue.

It's about equivalent to us having to preach against incest. It's a non issue becuz it's not common, popular or accepted by probly 95% or more of American population. (altho sometimes I do wonder if it isn't practiced alot more than that) :o

 

[davedjy]

Because. It. Was. Extremely. Problematic. In. The. Culture.

The redundancy is also used as a prophetic indicator of what Israel would soon be doing with her "brother and sister" nations. Although this one takes some thorough reading to figure out. If you want, I could take you through it, but it'll probably take a day or so to write that all up, and more than one post considering the length.

See Ezekiel.

No, you are picking and choosing what is "Problematic or not", and what is redundant or needs to be specific enough. You want to relate it back to say "that was a problem in the culture of the time", yet when we talk about TODAY, things change. Slavery is wrong, sexual relations w/slaves is wrong, polygamy (condoned in earlier chapters), women as inferior beings, etc.

Is Leviticus written for Lesbians today? No, I think not, it doesn't even talk about lesbians. Everything has a specific example.

 

[davedjy]

Um, thanks for mentioning this - I keep saying this, that in their day, Homosexuality was a complete NON ISSUE.
It wasn't acceptable or common in their culture.
I'm amazed it's even mentioned in the bible as many times as [I believe] it is.
(we see that by the utter lack of any gay biblical leaders or promotion or supportive verses in the Bible. They're non existant) - which SHOULD speak volumes to us as to the truth about this issue.

It's about equivalent to us having to preach against incest. It's a non issue becuz it's not common, popular or accepted by probly 95% or more of American population. (altho sometimes I do wonder if it isn't practiced alot more than that) :o

If it was a complete NON issue, why would they bring it up, and why do you bring up Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis? LOL

Again, it's "picking and choosing" what is acceptable and what isn't. "oh that was a culture reference and the other one wasn't".
It's so contradictory, it's not even funny.

 

[intricatic]

There isn't any clobber passage in Genesis 2 that I am aware of.

See, that's the thing about antitype. It's really hard for people in the West to figure out. Heck, it took a while for it to click into place for me.

It's actually spanned over the first three chapters, but the most pertinent portion is right towards the end of Chapter 2;

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.” 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
(Genesis 2)

From Genesis one, we see the same pattern repeated (in what should be fairly obvious manner);

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
(Genesis 1)

And thus was born the antitype. God creates man in His image. God creates woman from man. Both deal with images and creation.

God's manifest design for man and woman is clearly spelled out there, and this reverberates through the rest of the Bible.

God's manifest design for His own position in relation to man is clearly spelled out here, as well, and this reverberates throughout the rest of the Bible.

The two things are fundamentally linked, and yet consecutively ordered.

Thus you have the mutual and yet consecutive link to Genesis 2.

I have to wonder if postmodern theologians have any conception of how mangled they make these things with ridiculous translations, interpretations and horribly insensitive excision of details.

 

[davedjy]

See, that's the thing about antitype. It's really hard for people in the West to figure out. Heck, it took a while for it to click into place for me.

It's actually spanned over the first three chapters, but the most pertinent portion is right towards the end of Chapter 2;
From Genesis one, we see the same pattern repeated (in what should be fairly obvious manner);

And thus was born the antitype. God creates man in His image. God creates woman from man. Both deal with images and creation.

God's manifest design for man and woman is clearly spelled out there, and this reverberates through the rest of the Bible.

God's manifest design for His own position in relation to man is clearly spelled out here, as well, and this reverberates throughout the rest of the Bible.

The two things are fundamentally linked, and yet consecutively ordered.

Thus you have the mutual and yet consecutive link to Genesis 2.

I don't argue original intent by what God "originally planned". It is clear that our bodies are designed for the opposite sex, but that doesn't change sin defects (not just sin temptation).

As I always say, does God WILL for anyone to be born w/both sex organs, or born w/one eye, born w/handicaps, mental retardation, blindness, deafness, etc.? What about hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.? all as a result of defect coming from the sin in the Garden of Eden.

 

[intricatic]

Again, it's "picking and choosing" what is acceptable and what isn't. "oh that was a culture reference and the other one wasn't".
It's so contradictory, it's not even funny.

This is what always gets me. God is the Divine and Heavenly Father of Christ Jesus, who gave Israel these commandments through Moses. People still look at them as if they were simple legal constructs Moses simply made up on a whim, that have nothing at all to teach us in our society. The dichotomy is baffling to me.

 

[intricatic]

I don't argue original intent by what God "originally planned". It is clear that our bodies are designed for the opposite sex, but that doesn't change sin defects (not just sin temptation).

As I always say, does God WILL for anyone to be born w/both sex organs, or born w/one eye, born w/handicaps, mental retardation, blindness, deafness, etc.? What about hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.? all as a result of defect coming from the sin in the Garden of Eden.

In some cases, He may. In most, I'd think that would be completely out of character with God. But physical deformity and the like all serve a purpose in the end. We can't always know what that purpose is while we're confronted with it, though.

I could tell you stories about how people come together after hurricanes down here to help one another rebuild, but I think most people can understand that point without much emphasis.

11 But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”
(Matthew 19)

 

[davedjy]

This is what always gets me. God is the Divine and Heavenly Father of Christ Jesus, who gave Israel these commandments through Moses. People still look at them as if they were simple legal constructs Moses simply made up on a whim, that have nothing at all to teach us in our society. The dichotomy is baffling to me.

The thing that baffles me is to say that there is a cure for homosexuals. One person argued "man just wants what is contrary to what God intended". Well, if that were true, ALL would be homosexual and lesbians. It is a MINORITY of the population. The only so-called "cure" is reparative therapy, which causes more harm than good. It is the only thing available, and as I have said a million times, it is condemned by every credible mental health foundation. If something falls under a purity code, we can ignore it, and the only reason they fail to see that fall under the purity code is Romans 1 (clearly pagan worship), and the biased translation in 1 Corinthians (unknown definition for "arsenkoitas", translated out to mean masturbation by early church fathers and now homosexual).


You have not proved how homosexuality=idolatry in the least way in and of itself.